Learning Contract

Learning Contract: A Reflection

Of all the elements of my teaching practicum, I feel most ambivalent about the value of the learning contract. To start, there are, in my mind, 2 clear advantages to using this tool. First, a learning contract signifies a commitment to reflective learning. Being ‘contracted’ to learn requires that one has the foresight to delineate a purpose for the scholarly activity to be undertaken. This is particularly important for busy health care professionals who need to ensure that academic activities are useful, efficient, and rationally connected to their career goals. For me, this included an understanding that I wanted to focus on the value of integrating basic science into clinical problem-solving (knowledge objective), specifically through case-based learning (Skills objective). By formulating a learning contract that included specific resources (e.g., primary literature by Nicki Woods in integration theory) as well as measurable evaluation criteria (i.e., teaching logs demonstrating integration techniques), I ensured that my teaching activities were goal-directed and accountable to my underlying philosophy. Formal feedback from my learners as well peers (via the AV recording component of the practicum) helped provide objective evidence that my skills- and knowledge-based objectives were being met.

A second, related, advantage of teaching contracts is that they narrow our focus, thereby increasing the odds of meeting our goals. If I had undertaken a teaching practicum with no specific goals or measurable criteria, it likely would have resulted in a haphazard learning experience with a myriad of encounters lacking a particular objective. I may have learned something here or there, but it’s unlikely I would have a greater story to tell at the end of my experience. By focusing on integration theory – and tailoring my objectives and outcome criteria accordingly, I was able to develop a more cohesive understanding about how I can use learned principles going forward, about what works and what doesn’t. For example, having interacted with multiple learners, I discovered that a long didactic diatribe about basic physiology followed by a clinical example seemed to work less effectively than integrating basic science at each step of the learning process (from diagnosis to presentation to treatment).

Despite these positive attributes, I do have some reservations about the format of our learning contracts. To some extent, the “tangible evidence” and “measurable criteria” columns seem semantically quite similar, and I’m not sure there is much value in trying to navigate this subtle and perhaps arbitrary distinction. More generally, I sometimes feel like the ‘academicization’ of learning can degenerate into a self-indulgent need to box experiences into pre-defined categories. This compulsion to give words to every experience often dilutes their resonance. This comment is not intended to undermine the value of thoughtful reflection or planning. Rather, if anything, I think it re-affirms my commitment to achieving the attitudinal objective written in my contract: “to recognize the importance of reflection and refinement to improving teaching.” Perhaps I can now present a fairer approximation of what a learning contract is and what it is not. For me, its utility resides in the capacity to provide an intellectual framework for what I do rather than as a means to validate ex-post facto a process that otherwise proceeds organically within the scholarly mind.