Simplicity Syndrome

I was at a visioning meeting for a massive organisation yesterday. We were talking about where the organisation would be in the next five years and how it would get there. The feeling around the table was that the company should stick to doing only what is simple, on expansion; because complexity at scale is an invitation for chaos.

Here's the question I left with that day. Motivation is a complicated thing, love is, mistrust is, suspicion is...for a revolutionary idea to be scaled up, must it be simple?

Is it that transfer of learning is effective when the content is simple or is it when the content is relevant. However complex, if the subject is something one can relate to, isn't it what makes the difference between effective learning and fragmented or rote learning?

If the core of lasting and comprehensive learning is that the learner be moved by the content, then it follows, that the learner must allow the his/her Self to get involved with the content. That is the stuff that makes for effective process or pedagogy!

The engagement of the Self in the business of learning is unfortunately more often than not, not a priority. Even sadder is that this is mostly because the connection is not seen. Oh there is the regular fare about Value Education and Moral Education, but it translates into tokensim because of the disconnect between the learner, his or her Self, his/her reality and the content.

Clearly, there are tools for making this connect, which can be taught, explored, re-invented, devised, adapted; but first must be prioritised as part of the teaching-learning process in school at every level.