I find this discussion interesting. There are symptoms of errors in
communication woven, not on purpose, among much of it. It is difficult
for anyone that possesses the information (knowledge) of a subject matter
to convey a related concept or concrete example of a problem area without
using that "knowledge area's" language. None-the-less, here are my two
cents:
Regardless of the cultural, societal or language base of the communicator,
if the preferred manner of "conversational discourse" is technically
uncomfortable to the receiver then we have to ask the question: Do we
want the learner of the discipline learning that language? Or better yet,
are we saying that the only way to understand the principles and
characteristics of learning organizations is to learn the "techno-speak?"
Some (it could be argued that all five) of the thumbnail reasons for an
instructional period being so confusing fall into one area: instructional
design. I would venture to bet that this instructor and the instructor's
support group do not use instrctional design principles. Or it has been a
long time since the matterial, instructor and support group have evaluated
the material using these principles.
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com>
Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>