THE CHALLENGES OF LICENSING ON LEARNING

Some of the recent initiatives (interventions?) into the school education system has indeed raised the eyebrows of many senior educators. There is an emerging fear and concern whether the scope of learning is being throttled and what could be the impact of such licensing practices. It is important for all the stake (State?) holders that the emergence of knowledge society has ushered in serious competitive practices in learning leading to a global challenge in the design and practices of the delivery models in educational institutions. With the gateways of information wide open, there is a rapid flow of information that accrues into packages of knowledge and the consequent skills, both cognitive and otherwise; the space and time for such assimilation and acquisition of knowledge is no more restrained to any four walls or to a defined space. The increasing irrelevance of knowledge due to its short shelf-life, has redefined the learning curves across several domains of knowledge industry. Already, the education sector has not moved beyond 1.0 stage, while the industry is moving to its 4.0 generation. The increasing gap between the producers and users of knowledge and skills is indeed an emerging concern, with other international actors ahead of us, exploring their interests in the markets of slow-moving countries.

Keeping aside the market dynamics in knowledge industry, it is of greater importance to address the recent findings on learning practices as evidenced by the neuro-cognitive researches. Some of the findings do question our established theories and convictions of current pedagogical practices. Further to these findings, the understanding of neuroplasticity of the brain does support extensive and extended learning as a powerful tool for empowering the brain.

Some key points that the educational administrators and policy-makers need to be sensitive are: 

A. Learning is a non-linear process

Cognitive researches have proved beyond doubt that learning is essentially a non-linear process, though certain learning inputs do acquire some amount of linearity in a given context or a learning environment. The ability of the brain to synergize several of the inputs and to integrate many sensory inputs to learning structures and articulate newer meanings is indeed a boon to every learner. The learner needs to be given both opportunities as well as contexts in which such practices would lead to effective learning networks which would consolidate learning and offer a sense of achievement to the learner. Further such learning practices would infuse in the learner a sense of self-esteem, self-confidence and self-motivation triggering enterprise, creativity and innovation. Any attempt to restrict learning to a defined tool would restrict his world of exploration of knowledge. The seeker of knowledge would possibly be a ‘frog in the well’ with his learning universe unexplorable.

B. Learning should not be conditioned by any specific learning tool.

The objective of a runway in an airport is to enable the aircraft to take off. Learning tools do play a similar role facilitating the flight of knowledge to move beyond the imprints on the textual materials or their supporting digital tools, if any. Attempts to monitor learning through a singular learning input is likely to create a roadblock to the journey of knowledge. It has a devasting effect on the possible growth and development of the learning profile of the individual or a community. The capacity of synaesthesia of the brain does provide an opportunity to intelligently organize, create, innovate, design and communicate the knowledge soaked with the intuitive faculties of the individual. Learning tools, should therefore trigger for such experiences which help the learner to expand the universe of his learning experiences and to indulge deeply into the unfathomed oceans of knowledge. 

C. The changing designs of learning maps

Learning maps are essentially dynamic. The cognitive researches have proved beyond doubt that the learning networks are continuously changing and thus “one day’s learning map is not the same for the next day.” The researches of Kandel and his Nobel award winning concept that ‘when learning happens there is a rewiring of the network of the neurons in the brain.’ This indeed supports the idea of neuroplasticity and hence the capacity of the brain to learn continuously from ‘cradle to the grave.’

Learning environments, learning architectures and their scaffolding approaches practiced in educational institutions should be conducive to take advantage of these features of the brain. This indeed would call for adequate freedom to the schools as well as to the learners, which would mean the freedom to the pedagogues to deliver their content contextually using pedagogical intelligence.

“Licencing practices’ of the State and its agencies to intercept and control these practices would indeed throttle the process of learning, thus producing a generation of learners with dwarfed thinking styles and with low self-esteem hesitating to compete in the global arena.

D. Freedom to Learn

Freedom to learn is a basic human right. Language, medium, curricula, textbooks and other learning tools should be available to the learner to make his considered choice and grow with a sense of comfort and conviction. Restrictive practices demotivate the learner and his inherent urge to seek happiness through a choice of his own. Freedom to learn is indeed essential for the learner to maximize his learning quality and quantity. Both the individual and the community cannot afford to lose sight of these futuristic requirements.