Learning Laboratories: Bridging the Knowledge Gap

The fundamental problem that persists in the Philippine educational system is not rooted in the materials or courseware used for education but the relative immaturity of its students and lack of real-world experience among its faculty.

While it is unclear how the Philippines ended up adopting the current model, or what the objectives were for doing so, what is clear and evident is that it needs to change. But changing an entire educational system is much more easily said than done. This would mean having to undo five decades of tradition deeply rooted in current educators, and having to challenge mental models that have been built on the existing model. In order to catch up with the rest of the world, we need to employ a level of innovation that would allow both models to coexist.

Unlike other western or eastern counterparts, Filipino students fall behind by a minimum of two years in their educational program. While most children begin schooling as early as the age of three, they complete their education in a relatively young age than their foreign counterparts. It seems that this model was designed to allow for a younger workforce, to equip the same with tertiary degrees at a very young age to make them more competitive than their global contemporaries allowing them to contribute to rebuilding the national economy as quickly as possible. While this intent is novel, it is riddled with assumptions that have been since proven false and, is replete with more problems that ultimately diminishes the value of its original intent.

Over the past 2 decades, the Philippines has been on a march towards economic recovery. Both public and private entities have been aggressively promoting the Philippines as a prime destination for business investments. But those that have ended up with a huge problem with their resource pool. The problem is two-fold: Mass and Competency.

The issue of mass (population) is further aggravated by the problem of emigration which induces brain-drain. The problem of competency can be traced back to the educational program in general. It seems to be the classic problem of short-term goals conflicting with long term objectives. The short-term goals keep the country from achieving its long term objectives.

Due to the depressed economic condition that pervades every layer of society, a huge part of the country’s youth are forced to take on vocational type programs just so they could minimize their costs and land a job within a couple of years. Upon closer examination however, this model presents more problems than it solves. The vocational model contributes to a higher rate of unemployment in the long term simply because there are too many vocational graduates that are filling limited vocational, low-paying opportunities. With a huge supply of vocational workers and a limited number of opportunities, employers tend to depress wages which limits the purchasing power of workers, ultimately affecting the economy’s health as a whole.

Moreover, due to the lack of university graduates (as most have opted to take the vocation path), investors end up eliminating the country as a place to establish high paying opportunities. To make things worse, it increases the level of frustration of those who completed college compelling them to seek employment abroad. This is a vicious cycle that benefits only a few (unscrupulous entrepreneurs who put up all sorts of vocational schools to deepen their personal pockets).

If we try to implement changes at the policy and regulatory levels, bureaucracy becomes the problem. Due to the lack of a system of belief, regulators are often suspicious of the motives of their counterparts.

The fact remains: unless we arrest this problem, a bright economic future for the Philippines is only a false promise. So, what can we do?

To solve the problem, a logical, left-brained approach would be to take a reductionist approach and isolate a problem area that could yield long term benefits when solved. This area would be to first bridge the maturity gap in education.

My premise is simple: if we are able to solve the maturity gap we will be able to present an experience and more knowledgeable workforce to investors who intend to bring in opportunities that provide high-paying jobs.

The solution: Learning Laboratories.

To implement learning laboratories as part of the program of universities will bring in the following benefits:

First, it will address the issue of maturity by exposing students to a real-world environment without having to forego critical areas of study. We can’t immediately change the age of graduating students or change the length of educational programs. But what we can immediately change is the substance of the program allowing schools to produce higher quality graduates within the same amount of time.

Second, it will establish subject matter relevance on the part of the students. A majority of students find it difficult to understand how Algebra, Geometry, Physics, English, History, or Social Studies are important. By employing the Learning Laboratory model, students will immediately realize its importance and find it irresistible to know more about those subjects. The difference lies in the employed model. A strict lecture based learning environment, without immediate application does not help create relevance. Memorization is not crucial to intelligence, it is knowing where to find the information you need and how to apply the information in a constructive and progressive manner that is.

Third, it will create a professional environment that not only benefits the students but also the instructors and professors. Almost 98% of the existing faculty base have no real-world business experience in employing the subjects they teach. This is especially true of computer science instructors. A learning laboratory will compel faculty to become functional experts in their respective fields.

Fourth, it will stimulate the needed integration between industry and academe. Learning laboratories create a substantial foundation for research and development. The moment industry determines that the fields of research benefit their own interests, integration will follow. But until industry can be convinced that the faculty base of universities are experienced and respected in their fields of study, they will largely be ignored.

Finally, by the time a student graduates from university studies, he or she would have had 3 years of applied experience in their chosen field. Meaning, not only will they know their area of specialization, they would have also developed critical soft-skills, would have experience working in teams, understand the value of collaboration, understand stress management, and applied their knowledge to solve real-world business problems. It will also pave the groundwork for them to desire higher education built on knowledge and experience.

Learning laboratories will allow the old and the emerging to coexist in the short term. As progress is achieved, programs will be enhanced and upgraded. Such an upgrade or enhancement would only mean higher quality graduates. So in the long term, learning laboratories will benefit everyone for the long term.

It has the potential to solve funding issues that are commonly used as an excuse not to improve the quality of education. It will give students a strong reason to learn more, and colleges to invest in highly qualified professionals, for parents and guardians to invest in good and longer term education since the promise of opportunity in the future would really be a “true promise” and not a false one.

Until next time...