There is no argument that technology has donewondrous things for us over the years. My carlasts longer, my food cooks quicker and I cancall anywhere in the world for pennies if notfor free.One argument that some will make is thattechnology (the web) has also made us smarterdue to our ability to find vast quantities ofinformation - far more than one could find in their local library or - horrors - confinedto one tome. And isn't more always better?
Another argument is that technology allows us to retrieve information at lighteningspeeds. Have a question or concern? Look it up. Think you might have malaria? Aquick web-search returns 10 very authoritative sources of information about thedisease.A third argument is that this vast "library" of information, available at ourfingertips, allows us to learn from entities we would never have heard of or hadaccess to in the past. How else would we have learned of the Handbook of MusicalDevelopment published by Oxford University Press?These are all very compelling - and true - arguments... to a degree.The "pro" pundits overlook the fact that having information and making meaning fromthat information are very different. There is also the risk of interpreting opinionas fact and limiting one's "research" to the first answer that is returned or theone that seems most popular (because everybody thinks this way).The Training Doctor is challenging organizations to get back to basics. Readingfor comprehension is a basic, yet seldom-used skill.Being able to read critically instead of skimming for factoids requires one to assessthe words that are used, the logic of the argument, or the validity of one opinionover another.The skills of logic, reasoning, extrapolation, and synthesis are critical to runningbusinesses, yet we rarely, if ever, teach or encourage people to learn these skillsthrough our L+D efforts. (If you have an example of a curriculum that DOES teachthese skills - please send it along!)After purposeful and thought-provoking reading assignments, we need to ask Socraticquestions (see article #1) such as, Do you agree with the validity of this argument/premise? Why or why not? How does this compare to this other author / theory? Howcan you incorporate this new information into your day-to-day responsibilities?What are the risks (or rewards) of ignoring this information? What economic,societal, or technological impacts could change this premise?The possibilities for stretching people's thinking abilities are endless. But don'tbe overwhelmed. Let's just start with this one: Assign purposeful reading assignmentsas part of your L+D curriculums and begin to require learners to truly think aboutwhat they are reading.
There is no argument that technology has donewondrous things for us over the years. My carlasts longer, my food cooks quicker and I cancall anywhere in the world for pennies if notfor free.One argument that some will make is thattechnology (the web) has also made us smarterdue to our ability to find vast quantities ofinformation - far more than one could find in their local library or - horrors - confinedto one tome. And isn't more always better?
Another argument is that technology allows us to retrieve information at lighteningspeeds. Have a question or concern? Look it up. Think you might have malaria? Aquick web-search returns 10 very authoritative sources of information about thedisease.A third argument is that this vast "library" of information, available at ourfingertips, allows us to learn from entities we would never have heard of or hadaccess to in the past. How else would we have learned of the Handbook of MusicalDevelopment published by Oxford University Press?These are all very compelling - and true - arguments... to a degree.The "pro" pundits overlook the fact that having information and making meaning fromthat information are very different. There is also the risk of interpreting opinionas fact and limiting one's "research" to the first answer that is returned or theone that seems most popular (because everybody thinks this way).The Training Doctor is challenging organizations to get back to basics. Readingfor comprehension is a basic, yet seldom-used skill.Being able to read critically instead of skimming for factoids requires one to assessthe words that are used, the logic of the argument, or the validity of one opinionover another.The skills of logic, reasoning, extrapolation, and synthesis are critical to runningbusinesses, yet we rarely, if ever, teach or encourage people to learn these skillsthrough our L+D efforts. (If you have an example of a curriculum that DOES teachthese skills - please send it along!)After purposeful and thought-provoking reading assignments, we need to ask Socraticquestions (see article #1) such as, Do you agree with the validity of this argument/premise? Why or why not? How does this compare to this other author / theory? Howcan you incorporate this new information into your day-to-day responsibilities?What are the risks (or rewards) of ignoring this information? What economic,societal, or technological impacts could change this premise?The possibilities for stretching people's thinking abilities are endless. But don'tbe overwhelmed. Let's just start with this one: Assign purposeful reading assignmentsas part of your L+D curriculums and begin to require learners to truly think aboutwhat they are reading.