Critique is not always desirable. In some cases, it hurts or infuriates. But, as Dave Snowden notes in derrogation of the precious “to those consultants and facilitators who dislike dissent and seek the safety of bland conformity and consensus; I suggest your problem is that you don’t really understand your field, you can’t cope with examination of your knowledge and you are, to use a very 70s word inauthentic”. As a rule, I try to surface conflict and critique that relates to the education technology field and in particular, my own work. Critique and dissent, in spite of the sting, are great learning opportunities.
Dave Cormier and I have been running an open course on Future(s) of Education. I’d like to draw attention to two recent critiques of the course format and content:
Course does not deliver on promises: “Rather than experiencing a focused and rigorous process of learning a framework for trend analysis, the forums and blogs have been typical of the myriads of social networks already available to educators. There’s no end to conjecture. I was hoping to learn the rigorous steps required to analyze trends. It has seemed more of a free for all.”
Half empty? Half full? Half there?: “One thing in particular that I find hugely problematic about this course is the primitive nature of the environment in which we’re working. It’s as much a barrier to working together as it is facilitative. I am reminded of the comment about golf sometimes attributed to Winston Churchill: “Golf is a game whose aim is to hit a very small ball into an even smaller hole, with weapons singularly ill-designed for the purpose.”"