Industrialised education is quick and economical, but like fast food, it should be part of a balanced diet of blended learning.
In 1967 Otto Peters provided us with a comparative interpretation of industrial production and (distance) education. 
In relation to the industrialization of education he observed that traditional individual work changes to production based on the division of labour and the development of mass production and that craft processes become mechanized and automatised.
Consequently, the preparatory phase of production becomes prioritized; work processes become standardized, controlled and measured scientifically. The production process becomes objectified with each process progressively mechanized.
Obviously there are economic advantages to an industrialized approach to professional education and training. Producers and end-consumers are keen to reduce the costs of consumption. An industrialized process also holds out the promise of consistency of delivery of content, instruction, assessment and accreditation. “Quality” is measured empirically to the satisfaction of managers at each phase of production.
Peters observed that the industrialized approach requires the lecturer to standardize delivery of instruction so it is of “the necessary standard that is, at the same time, realistic for as many students as possible”.
This results in a loss of function for the lecturer, “the original role of the lecturer is reduced to that of a consultant whose involvement … manifests itself in periodically recurrent contributions”. Theoretically, according to Peters, if lecturers are occupied in this way, tutors and consultants are free to aid learners by providing motivation, individual support, structuring content for students, dealing with problems etc.
The above appears to assume that the instructional role is divided between lecturers, tutors and consultants. It is not so clear what is to happen when the lecturer is required to assume all roles.
Peters observe that where instruction is industrialized the personal interactions between lecturer and student are reduced to personal communications with the learner and programmed face-to-face learning events. These communications become the only opportunity for “subjectively determined variants” in the lecturer’s teaching methods.
It is interesting to contemplate the above in conjunction with Donald Schön’s theory of reflective practice and learning systems. [2, 3]
Schön proposed that “reflection-in-action” and “reflection-on-action” are important to understanding what professionals (including educators, trainers and lawyers) do. Reflection-in-action can be compared to “thinking on your feet”, whereas reflection-on-action may involve post-action review, journal writing, and/or a feedback session with a mentor or supervisor.
These reflective processes allow us to build up a repertoire of ideas, symbols, key expressions, concrete examples and actions that we can use to prepare for, respond to and reflect on novel or familiar situations.
That repertoire is important for the interactions between a graduate and a trainer, mentor or supervisor. It requires time to be allocated for the reflective processes and also time to allow for interactions between learner and teacher to express and test components of the repertoire.
For example, a student might submit a piece of written work such as an affidavit for an interlocutory application at court. The lecturer can provide written feedback marking up the document using track changes in the word processor to provide instruction and commentary. That is certainly a form of interaction.
But can the lecturer assume that the student will understand the feedback? And can the student assume she or he understands what the feedback is to mean?
It seems to me there needs to be a reflective exchange between the parties to build up the repertoire of shared understandings if the activity is to progress past a “tick a box”and to advance to a demonstrable knowledge of information and procedures.
Those interactions would necessarily be variable depending on each party’s needs, contexts and understandings.
I submit that components of the delivery of instruction can be “industrialized” to realise improved efficiencies for all. However that does not cover all that is necessary and desirable to achieve real learning and competency in professional skills and knowledge. To achieve that we need a well balanced diet of blended instructional design and learning experiences.
Subscribe to PleagleTrainer Blog by Email
1. Peters, O., Distance education and industrial production: a comparative interpretation in outine, in Distance Education: International Perspectives, D. Stewart, D. Keegan, and B. Holmberg, Editors. 1983, Croom Helm Routledge: London and New York. p. 95-113.
2. Schön, D.A., Educating the reflective practitioner. 1st pbk. print. ed. Jossey-Bass higher education series. 1990, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. xvii, 355 p .
3. Schön, D.A., Reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action. New ed. 1995, Aldershot, England: Arena. 374 p.