Open vs. Closed data>info>knowledge>wisdom
Much is made in #edtech over Inquiry-based Learning, discounting Closed System Individualism too often. As usual, there’s a balance/symmetry that should be as fully understood by the mediator, to their fullest capacity/range.
In basic Topology, Open Sets are mediated by Clopen Sets, with Closed Sets completing the differential set. At scale, educational systems have been guilty of leaning toward strict Open or Closed, and rightfully so. But now we’ve passed a point of departure where a full range of learning, at earlier developmental stages, is necessary in order to broaden the following adult stages/sets to handle equally increasing complexity.
Let me place further emphasis, at this point, on “scale” - since there is a broad range of students, around the globe. The sheer volume of differentiation that arises from persistent simplicity sets, vs. complexity sets in more developed countries, should be implied.
Now lets introduce Individual/Subjective vs. Group/Objective differential sets. As a teacher, ideally, an educational system has prior evaluation data for each student, so the teacher/mediator can plan individual and group pairings on an ideal 25 student set. If a student has more Closed, Individual learning tendencies, then mediating that student amongst a balanced/symmetrical set of 5, is the ideal peak-performance set. Curriculum should equally scale to the prior and projected evaluation sets, so consistency can have more efficient, post-graduation integrative-value at the next level. Likewise, #edtech software should be consistently integrating this process, otherwise systemic entropy eventually collapses the set, and the fallout can be immensely difficult to recover from.
So is the educational system you’re involved with implementing these basic techniques? If it’s too inconsistent, asynchronous, and asymmetrical, is there someone that can take the lead that you can work with to integrate this upward scaling?
