Books; People; Ideas : These are few of my favourite things. As I live between day-to-day compromises and change-the-world aspirations, this is the chronicle of my journey, full of moments of occasional despair and opportune discoveries, of connections and creations, and, most of all, my quest of knowledge as conversations.
Subscribe to this blog
Follow by Email
Learning from Experience and Experiential Learning
Experiential Learning is the old hot thing. Not only everyone likes the idea - that learning should happen from practical life - it has a great pedigree in education theory. The new formula of competency-based learning, that learning should focus on useful competencies required at work, takes this idea further, and tightly weave all learning around experience, making all else superfluous. However, while this has become the new orthodoxy, one limitation of this conception is how to fit this into a rapidly changing world. When everything changes, and today's competencies may not translate into any future advantage, one would wonder whether experiential learning is enough. Besides, one ought to ask how to approach learning when change happens in our life and work so rapidly.
The answer may lie in learning from experience. I use the term in the classical sense, as used by Dewey, and as opposed to the idea of experiential learning. Dewey himself contrasted his idea of 'experience' with the conventional use of the term later in his life, and pointed out five important differences. It is worth revisiting them in the context of our very real problem whether experience can be a guide to our future action when the realities are ever-changing.
First, Dewey used the term 'experience' as a way of being (living one's life) rather than as an event which produces knowledge, which is how we see experience. So, learning from experience, in this sense, includes looking, feeling, sensing, being - not only knowing! It does not also mean to have to choose experiences which teach something and rejecting others which don't, but rather engaging with the world with an open mind and a spirit of inquiry. The pragmatists' project, which Dewey was advancing, was not to submit to any grand theories (as fashionable then - Marxism etc - or as we do it now, seeing the world through our religious denominations) but to treat experience of life and being as the origin of all knowing. It is the spirit of inquiry and openness in Dewey's project that turns lived life as a source of learning, with emotions confronting experiences and turning them into memorable events and a source of reflection and reference at a future time. In that sense, a sense of engagement with one's world is absolutely essential in this project, rather than looking out first whether there is any learning in it.
Second, experience is conventionally understood as an inner mental process, subjective and private, whereas Dewey, and for that matter all pragmatists, wouldn't draw a distinction between the objective world and action and the subjective experience. When we treat experience as engagement, experience is a deeply a social process, indistinguishable from action and very much part of it. Experiencing is not just about reflection (and writing reflective pieces for academic credit) but participating and acting, because only by acting one could gain the 'experience', that of living and being.
Third, this follows from the two preceding ideas of experience as a way of being and as indistinguishable from action, that Dewey's conception of experience is not the something that happened in the past. Engagement and action rather than recollection is at the root of this scheme - as 'we live forward' - and experience is about being a sentient and sensitive being, fully engaged in social world and being committed to action and change.
Fourth, 'experience' in conventional sense is conceptualised as isolated and special events, whereas Dewey would see experience as connected and continuous, as a way of being should be. It is the continuous nature of experience - made possible by the subject, the person, as the central and engaged part of the experience - that allows one to 'be' rather than just to 'learn'.
Finally, experience in the conventional sense, an event outside our minds, is seen as beyond reasoning, whereas in Dewey's scheme, where experience is not outside one's being, no experience happens without reasoning and engagement. It is the forward-thinking all pervasive reasoning that turns life into a source of learning and knowledge, and human beings into engaged, sentient, alert beings.
This stands in contrast with the conventional uses of 'experiential learning' which projects experience as discreet, specially designated events, which must end with 'what did you learn' discussions. The implicit idea is that such past events, analysed with reasoning as existed in the past, can remain frozen in a person's mind, objectively and disconnected from all emotions and ways of being, as a source of reference for future situations. This, in many ways, imply a different sense of learning - 'a bucket to be filled' - rather than Dewey's project of making engaged individuals - 'a fire to be lit'. And, this difference perhaps become central as we approach, if the claims are to be believed, a discontinuous point in our history, an age of unprecedented globalisation and automation, when we enter a new age of the machines and have to rediscover our 'competencies to live' all over again.
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation."
The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which appeared …
Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper etal, 1991). Arunthanesetal (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something).
The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive season, is …
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago.
Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so.
Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself.
Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was, as I …
Since October, as I walked out of my job, I have been looking to fine-tune my ideas about Education-to-Employment transition.
The first step of this was to look at the experiences of last six years, which I spent developing, first, an online competency-based education programme and then on building employer-engaged online project-based education. These were all good ideas, and the reason that I am not doing these any more are partially operational: The first business was underfunded, and the second one was poorly conceived and implemented. But those are discussions for a different day. I am focusing currently on understanding the key conceptual elements - what works and what doesn't work - of a successful education-to-employment transition.
Indeed, the claim that we can make a student employable with a few months of training is apparently pretentious. The years of schooling, family background and the students' dispensation, and luck, plays a much bigger role than any traini…
In an earlier post, I pointed out that the application of 'platform thinking' in education misses the mark, as it fails to understand how value is created in education. Since this apparently contradicts my earlier enthusiasm for the university as a 'user network', this statement needs further explanation.
To start with, Clayton Christiansen's idea that the universities of the Twentieth Century needs to evolve from its current 'value chain' model - wherein its value lies in its processes - to a form of User Network, where its value emanates from its community, still resonates with me. The Value Chain model, with departments, examinations, textbooks and degrees, that we know the university for, is very much a late Nineteenth/ early Twentieth century formulation. And, indeed, one can claim that the universities were always communities, and its value came from being a member of that community rather than its end product - the degrees - for much of history. It …
Business Schools are a great success story in Higher Education. What may have started as a Correspondence training was transformed by the establishment of University department in Pennsylvania with Joseph Wharton's money, to train the captains of American industry, in 1881. A generation later, with the founding of Harvard Business School in 1908, the whole global phenomenon has got started, though it took until 1954 for Cambridge University to start Management studies (which became a separate business school in 1995, while Oxford started its Business School in 1996). By the turn of the millennium, Business has become the most popular undergraduate subject, and increasingly Engineers and other technically trained professionals were coming to Business Schools to get credentialed. By this time, Business Schools became the most successful sector in Higher Education, with unparallelled prestige, and had developed an entire ecosystem of ranking, funding and accreditation of their own. …
In an ironic twist, many large employers in India complain that the education Indian graduates receive are too narrow.
Surely, the same employers, riding high on growth of IT services, helped model a tertiary education system - second largest in the world in terms of student numbers - as one narrowly, vocationally, defined. The glamour of the IT services industry, with an urban cosmopolitan life and the chance of lottery-draw for offshore opportunities, completely transformed Indian middle class life over the last two decades: That the whole ecosystem of Middle Class education, from Senior School to Business School, aligned itself to these new opportunities, is no surprise at all.
But this expansion has now stalled, offshore is becoming off limits, and the industry is transforming rapidly. Rather than each corporation trying to develop their various enterprise-wide systems from scratch, and thereby, handing out huge multi-year development contracts to be executed by an army of low…
For those who want to change the world through Powerpoint, there are some fundamental beliefs about Education.
Like, education is about 'human capital', making the individuals receiving education economically productive.
And, that, education is important for national competitiveness, the better educated its people are, the more competitive a nation will be.
That education is really about skills - being able to do things - rather than learning: Knowledge can be acquired on-demand and at leisure.
That educators should build close connections with employers and look to align themselves with their future talent needs.
These are ideas everyone - at least everyone who count - agree on. And, such agreement means that all the attention, along with all the money, gets diverted to certain specific things. And, with money and attention, a certain kind of education - a specific idea of education - becomes pre-eminent. It crowds out other ideas, drives out all the alternatives.
Ten years ago, I wrote a post on this blog about Lord Macaulay, or, more specifically, about a statement which he allegedly had made about India. I meant to debunk one of those Internet memes that seek to revise the history with a specific agenda: Now we call these things 'fake news'. Sent to me by a well-meaning and unsuspecting friend, it was a crude hoax, giving itself away in modern language and openly conspiratorial motive, apparently at odds with Reform Era English Intellectual manners and ideas. It took me a few minutes on Google to figure out that the quote came not from Macaulay, but a Hinduvta journal published in the United States in the 70s, which invented the statement.
At that time, almost exactly 10 years ago, this blog was a hobby, my scrapbook of ideas, something I did with no other purpose than keeping the habit of writing. The post about Macaulay changed all that. Little did I suspect how popular and widespread the usage of that quote was, and how many peo…
I wrote about the origin story of the Indian Education system (See An 'Indian' Education) to argue that 'Indianness' of Education does not necessarily have to be regressive, ritualistic or religious. The current tendency of relegating any discussion about an Indian Education to obscurantism cedes the space to Hindu Fundamentalists, who are left free to promote their particular, limited and historically inaccurate ideas. However, a culturally congruent education is much needed at a time when Indian society is at a crossroad, the pains of globalisation is hurting and the crisis of identity is real and urgent.
This post is a rejoinder to the earlier one. Here, I intend to expand my argument that the Indian system of education did not break out from its earlier, imperial, mode. This is a familiar argument that the cultural nationalists make all the time, but, since I didn't think that British imperial education was necessarily English-only (rather, it promoted the mod…