Will Richardson offers a recent post focused on personal development. The post begins with the modest proposal that one might acquire an MBA (unofficial) by reading appropriate material while simultaneously engaging in related conversations (online I assume). It was unclear who such conversations would connect you with. I assume it would not be Guy Kawasaki or George Leonard, the examples given of authors appropriate to the proposed MBA, and I assume it would not only involve other like minded seekers of knowledge or one would have the “blind leading the blind”. Perhaps this model assumes the participation of business professionals who would serve as mentors (funding source unknown) in what might optimistically be described as a learning community. It appears the community is also to provide the contacts needed in the eventual transition from “student” to employee.
I am all for continued personal professional development (hence the name of this blog) and assume that continued growth is one of those factors that brings enjoyment and success in nearly any profession. However, I am also a member of the education establishment; the folks responsible for the $100,000 bill the hypothetical student might build up in earning an MBA (not at my institution). I am still working for an institution because I share some of the assumptions on which institutions operate and possibly because I could not get enough gigs as a convention speaker or workshop leader to support myself. It is difficult to fashion a role as member of the establishment into an edgy or sexy image. However, rather than ignore “new proposals”, my training is to examine the logic and raise questions.
Here are some questions:
Do individuals have the motivation and understanding to explore a broad range of topics at an appropriate level of mastery? How many individuals have the appropriate vision and determination and who makes the decision regarding which are true believers and which are simply pretenders?
There is a large body of research (e.g., Lesgold; Mayer; Sweller; Chall) that indicates self-guided education is substandard. To be fair, some do offer counter positions (e.g., Downes). My analysis is that the data presently favor the position that self-guidance as a general approach is a bad idea. I think it is very possible self-guided learning is a great idea for some individuals and perhaps for some purposes, but I think we are presently unable to identify the factors that would guide the identification of who this subset of individuals would be and what the circumstances might be. Perhaps “hobby” learning is great for areas of personal interest and when no one actually must depend on our skills/products BEFORE making commitments to us.
How are comparative decisions regarding who knows and can do what made? I sometimes tell my students that they only pay part of my salary – the state pays the rest. In addition to assisting students acquire knowledge and skills, I must made comparative judgments regarding the mastery of the knowledge and skills of others. This process is intended to inform and guide my students, but also to offer information to employers, graduate programs, etc. If I only concentrated on the development of the students I work with, I would be ignoring this other responsibility.
Many of the issues that come to my mind in considering collaborative, self-directed education remind my of the “vocational school” complaints that often arise within higher education when institutions become too closely aligned with business/industry or when humanities programs feel they are being threatened. What would compel a student to learn a language, take biochemistry, calculus or philosophy, or take an art class if the imposed curriculum did not force future doctors, psychologists, or engineers into some of these options.
The “de-institutionalization” of education would leave many other gaps (service, research), but it is Saturday morning and I have real work to do so I will wait to see if this discussion advances before I take the time to continue.
Blogged with Flock
