Is Your Great New Instructional Strategy Simply Exchanging One Group of Disengaged Learners for Another?

Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

2010-08-20_16-56-10_wmI’m really glad that some people are finally starting to realize the value that introverts bring to the table (The Power of Introverts: A Manifesto for Quiet Brilliance; The Benefits of Being an Introvert; ).

Yesterday’s post highlighted the current trend for teaching strategies that cater to extroverts, often to the detriment of introverts.

Many of those who advertise gamification as the latest panacea for ‘driving’ engagement from customers and employees alike seem to fail to realize (or simply don’t care) that many of the elements of gamification they are touting involve EXTRINSIC motivation. These kinds of strategies cater to extroverts and can actually drive introverts away.

I really wonder how often it happens that some new educational fad gets implemented without ever really considering the effect it will have. I really doubt that most of them are actually tested or researched before some TED talk or some Ed “guru” tells us that this is what we MUST do.

The education classes I took when I was doing my PhD were all heavily tipped towards collaboration and in-class group activities. There really was little recognition of any other valid way to learn (after all they were teaching us the “right way” weren’t they?), and very little accommodation for different styles.

It’s worth considering.

Which of the current “trends” in education cater to one type of person in favour of another?

Collaboration? Flipped Classrooms? Discussions? Badges?

What might the long-term effects be of that? In other words, what might the long term effects be of disengaging introverts while catering to extroverts? It’s one thing to employ a teaching strategy because it will teach them something, but it’s another entirely to do it because you think it’s “better” for them.

Be the first to like.


Leave a Reply