 |
Artistic depiction of the Dynamic Learning Program.
(Illustration by Kenneth Garcia) |
"Life
belongs to the living, and he who lives must be prepared for changes.” -
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
It is yet another brave new school year for
Araullians – yet another year to face the challenges of academic life; another
year to hone our talents and skills; another year to prove ourselves anew. Some
of us will be stepping into new responsibilities; others will be facing new
challenges. But now, there is at least one change we must all share – the
launch of the Dynamic Learning Program (DLP).
The Dynamic Learning Program is a new
approach to education that is student-centered; meaning, the emphasis is given
on the ability of the student to learn. It is the University’s countermeasure
to the conventional approach to education – one that is
teacher/instructor-oriented.
And yet, despite its well-meaning goals and
aspirations, DLP is receiving flak from all sides: Some students think that the
DLP is a way for the University to cut costs or that they are de[rived of the
service they deserve, the professors (lead facilitators) are stressed by trying
to fit the discussion of one topic into the twenty-minute timeframe they are
given, and some of the assistant facilitators complain that DLP takes so much
of their time, or that some of the lead facilitators are abusive of their
student assistants.
These complaints are indeed alarming at first,
but when one takes a closer look, it is the common flaws that come to light
when implementing a new policy or program, especially one on such a large
scale.
But before we doubt this new program’s
efficacy, we must first look deeper: the DLP is a program that looks into the
individual learning capacity of the students (a good example is the reading
laboratory employed for the English program on reading). It encourages students
to rely on themselves, and not on the spoon-fed ideas of their teachers. Truly,
it creates a dynamic atmosphere within the classroom. Moreover, the value of
perseverance, responsibility, and hard work instilled in the mind of the
learners.
On the other hand, the speaking skills and
class participation (i.e. recitation) are not given priority in this approach.
If this need is not provided for, the students’ communicative competence can be
negatively affected. We must remember that students have different learning
preferences; therefore in order to cater the learners’ need, other learning
skills should also be considered.
DLP is initially conceived as an answer to
the shortage of teachers in the public school system. And while we want to hope
for the best for our fellow Araullians, the implementation of this program in a
private higher education institution remains doubtful. Dan Kevin Roque
