In the world of education and training, the dominant paradigm has a preference for interactive
methods build in. Participants in training are given the floor and are put
to work in small groups to share their insights and experiences. It is said that sharing ideas is an
improvement compared to the former ‘ex-cathedra’ style. The question is whether this method, which is clearly preferred by many, also leads to better learning. This can be doubted. A critical analysis makes clear how the human brain works, and forces
us to develop a more professional alternative.
First, a distinction must be made between adaptive
learning and focused constructive learning. Adaptive learning processes are based on
conclusions from experiences that help us survive, materially and socially. Constructive learning is focused on
acquiring insights and skills that help us achieve better results in the social
role we have taken on. The first plays very strongly in growing up, and may
later in life even become an obstacle to targeted learning. These two mechanisms correspond to the two
thinking systems that are extensively documented by Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman ("Thinking fast and slow") (1).
As the purpose of learning is to acquire more complex
skills, the restrictive effect of the’ reflex brain’ will become greater, and the need for the use of ‘pre-frontal’ thinking will become bigger. From simple learning to complex learning
we see the following categories: storing factual knowledge in memory, making
connections and thereby building knowledge, replacing old with new knowledge and
gaining insight, developing judgment by assessing the relevance of knowledge,
selecting knowledge in function of a goal, effectively translating the
appropriate knowledge into behavior. If the training in question is about the
leadership of an organization, then it is obviously about complex skills, and
the methodology must be very consistently focused on goal-oriented learning in
order to achieve the desired effect.
Targeted learning is only possible if there is a will
to learn (openness of mind combined with a clear focus). This desire is translated into a
thoughtful attempt to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills, taking into
account the circumstances, but also with the methodology that will be used. After attempts to learn have been made, a (self) evaluation
will be necessary to close the learning cycle. This results in new energy and also
insights that can help to adjust both the objective and the methodology.
It is clear that this individual process can be fueled
by the input of others. The greater the knowledge and understanding these
others have in line with the learning objectives, the greater their
contribution will be, of course subject to the use of an appropriate
methodology. This methodology certainly has something to do with
the way in which knowledge is made available, but certainly also with the
preconditions in the aforementioned learning process, especially with regard to
the attitude of the learner.
There seems to be a big risk if "participants in
the learning process" focus on each other as a group (sharing ideas), and
not on new knowledge offered. One not only gives room to the well-known
Abilene effect (alignment with the group thinking in order to gain acceptance),
but also limits the input to the available knowledge and insights of the ‘students’. Does it make sense to invite (and pay)
someone who has extra knowledge and insights? Or is that why trainers today very often do not need to have substantive expertise, and are expected mainly to accompany the group interaction. This skill can of course be supplemented
with so-called experiential learning; let people experience something through
exercises that, after a translation process, could be useful for their learning
goals. It remains a weak alternative to making knowledge available
in a structured and well-founded way,
knowledge that is
directly aimed at inspiring and challenging participants in their conscious learning process.
The learning experience will, however, besides
providing inspiring input, both beforehand and afterwards be supplemented with well-planned actions to make the
learning process productive (wanting, trying, evaluate; preferably in a
continuous way). The more complex the skills to be learned, the more
'trying' in practice will be needed to nourish the learning process.
A possible conclusion could be that learning processes
aimed at acquiring complex knowledge require a different methodology than helping
‘fellow sufferers’ interact to exchange
their existing knowledge. But a strict organization of the entire learning process
will be needed to provide the necessary evidence that can compete against the
preference of socializing. Socializing is useful for coordination (and this is
often necessary in organizations), but not for individual learning. Targeted learning is sabotaged by emotion,
because it "triggers" the reflex brain, and makes us look for social
support. When there is no challenge, there is no
learning. If the discomfort in the head reaches a certain maximum, focusing on goal-oriented learning
becomes more difficult. (2) Something to take into account, but not to
give in to.
Hugo Der Kinderen
February 2018
(a more extensive text on this issue, with literature
references, details on learning mechanisms depending on the kind op learning
objectives and links with how our brain works, is available on request)
(2)
Maybe
this is why the famous one-liner of Finley
Peter Dune is so applicable to all processes of supporting people: “Comfort the
disturbed (afflicted), and disturb (afflict) the comforted.”
(3) And further: “Typical for a bubble:
if everyone sits in it, everyone will deny that there is one.” (Rob Kitchin)
No comments:
Post a Comment