Why have you learned what you know?
Brain or mind? How is it that after campfire educational systems from the time of the first hominins to contemporary universities’ high-tech classrooms, that we still can’t decide on what system of learning works?
From November 2 through 4, 2018, professional educators met at 108 Boulevard Malesherbes in Paris under the auspices of de l’Universite Paris-Sorbonne to exchange information on just about everything educational. Two decades into the 21stcentury, and we’re still struggling with methodologies. Here’s some pessimism: All the ostensibly new stuff has been tried. Sometimes it worked; often it didn’t.
Think Plato had willing students with undivided attention? Think Alexander the Great paid attention to all of Aristotle’s lessons? More pessimism: We can study neurons in action, implant devices into brains, do statistical studies till cows do circus tricks, and we’ll still come up against barriers to learning emplaced by the mind. We can try any method we want from rote learning to the supposed scientific but somewhat free-wheeling Montessori methodology, only to find that learning still is a matter of relevance recognized by the mind.
And the individual mind makes its own parameters for relevance without much regard for anything other than personal logic. See meaning; learn. Find no meaning; disregard. Isn’t that your personal experience? Random interviews about history, science, and even current events conducted with students and the “man-on-the-street” reveal the failures, also.
That we probably run into the same problems in educating the next generation that the professors at the University of Bologna encountered with the world’s first “college” students centuries ago, is indicative of the failure of all educational systems to reach large numbers of people.
No doubt there will be yet another education conference in which the research elite will pull out their graphs and statistics and explain the efficacy of their “new” methodologies. But the ultimate reality is that unless any educator, from parent to professional, can convince a young mind that specific knowledge has relevance, little learning will occur. And I can apply the principle to myself: I have little to no interest in learning about needlepoint, the anatomy of caribou, or Beat literature, and although I think they are cute, I have no compulsion to learn about growing little trees in a container.
Yet, the professionals won’t cease experimenting with educational methodologies in hopes of getting all of us to learn whatever. A few decades ago a system called Outcomes Based Education began to ooze like backed up sewer water through public education in the United States. One of the principles of the system was that individual student success could be tied to class success. As a result, if something like 70% of a class failed to achieve 70% on a test, then all in the class had to retake the test. Yes, students who had perfect scores had to retake the test. Call it educational socialism. Think of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.’s story “Harrison Bergeron.” It’s about a time when “equality” isn’t about opportunity, but rather about leveling. The government has a “Handicapper General” whose office oversees handicapping all who have “above average” abilities. Harrison is one of those “above average” individuals (very tall, athletic, strong, and exceptionally bright) whose talents the government needs to quash. That, in essence, was the outcome of Outcomes Based Education. Educators were the handicappers.
Having spent years in academia, I have come to the conclusion that only personal interactions and unidentifiable penchants coupled with abilities result in the “education” of individuals or small groups. Think otherwise? Then why do so many Americans struggle with functional literacy and math? Why under the educational assault of those who “know better,” do contemporary youth still have members who spiral down the path toward a culture of inhibitory drugs?
Let me give you a summary of anecdotal evidence that would not have been acceptable at the Paris conference in November, 2018. Numerous colleagues have told me that after delivering what they thought was an inspiring lesson, no one in the classroom seemed to respond. On other occasions, when those colleagues gave what they called a rather mediocre lesson, some student or students would seek them out after class to ask where they could get more information on the topics or to say “That was a good lecture.”
All of us are a bit whimsical, aren’t we? Regardless of the so-called science of learning, learners learn what they want to learn. And no one has yet discovered a universal principle of shaping the mind to enthusiastically seek learning outside its interests. What works for one doesn’t necessarily work for another. That difference, I believe, is what distinguishes mere neuronal learning from a mind’s lifelong obsession to learn.
Learning around those ancient campfires probably involved personal survival. Eventually, we added history and myth. Today, the campfires are classrooms and online programs that cover topics too numerous to mention. We’ve tried every method for hundreds of thousands of years. We try and abandon, repeat and abandon: Still a universal method eludes us.
Take heart, however. The desire to learn in others manifests itself as a surprise for everyone else. Lacking predictability, learning occurs at odd times in those we least suspect as interested individuals. Maybe the people at the Sorbonne conference and at every similar conference should spend their time simply relating how they were surprised by someone who learned and by the extent of enthusiasm that accompanied that learning. Obviously, all past methodologies appear to be hit-and-miss at best.
Brain or mind? How is it that after campfire educational systems from the time of the first hominins to contemporary universities’ high-tech classrooms, that we still can’t decide on what system of learning works?
From November 2 through 4, 2018, professional educators met at 108 Boulevard Malesherbes in Paris under the auspices of de l’Universite Paris-Sorbonne to exchange information on just about everything educational. Two decades into the 21stcentury, and we’re still struggling with methodologies. Here’s some pessimism: All the ostensibly new stuff has been tried. Sometimes it worked; often it didn’t.
Think Plato had willing students with undivided attention? Think Alexander the Great paid attention to all of Aristotle’s lessons? More pessimism: We can study neurons in action, implant devices into brains, do statistical studies till cows do circus tricks, and we’ll still come up against barriers to learning emplaced by the mind. We can try any method we want from rote learning to the supposed scientific but somewhat free-wheeling Montessori methodology, only to find that learning still is a matter of relevance recognized by the mind.
And the individual mind makes its own parameters for relevance without much regard for anything other than personal logic. See meaning; learn. Find no meaning; disregard. Isn’t that your personal experience? Random interviews about history, science, and even current events conducted with students and the “man-on-the-street” reveal the failures, also.
That we probably run into the same problems in educating the next generation that the professors at the University of Bologna encountered with the world’s first “college” students centuries ago, is indicative of the failure of all educational systems to reach large numbers of people.
No doubt there will be yet another education conference in which the research elite will pull out their graphs and statistics and explain the efficacy of their “new” methodologies. But the ultimate reality is that unless any educator, from parent to professional, can convince a young mind that specific knowledge has relevance, little learning will occur. And I can apply the principle to myself: I have little to no interest in learning about needlepoint, the anatomy of caribou, or Beat literature, and although I think they are cute, I have no compulsion to learn about growing little trees in a container.
Yet, the professionals won’t cease experimenting with educational methodologies in hopes of getting all of us to learn whatever. A few decades ago a system called Outcomes Based Education began to ooze like backed up sewer water through public education in the United States. One of the principles of the system was that individual student success could be tied to class success. As a result, if something like 70% of a class failed to achieve 70% on a test, then all in the class had to retake the test. Yes, students who had perfect scores had to retake the test. Call it educational socialism. Think of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.’s story “Harrison Bergeron.” It’s about a time when “equality” isn’t about opportunity, but rather about leveling. The government has a “Handicapper General” whose office oversees handicapping all who have “above average” abilities. Harrison is one of those “above average” individuals (very tall, athletic, strong, and exceptionally bright) whose talents the government needs to quash. That, in essence, was the outcome of Outcomes Based Education. Educators were the handicappers.
Having spent years in academia, I have come to the conclusion that only personal interactions and unidentifiable penchants coupled with abilities result in the “education” of individuals or small groups. Think otherwise? Then why do so many Americans struggle with functional literacy and math? Why under the educational assault of those who “know better,” do contemporary youth still have members who spiral down the path toward a culture of inhibitory drugs?
Let me give you a summary of anecdotal evidence that would not have been acceptable at the Paris conference in November, 2018. Numerous colleagues have told me that after delivering what they thought was an inspiring lesson, no one in the classroom seemed to respond. On other occasions, when those colleagues gave what they called a rather mediocre lesson, some student or students would seek them out after class to ask where they could get more information on the topics or to say “That was a good lecture.”
All of us are a bit whimsical, aren’t we? Regardless of the so-called science of learning, learners learn what they want to learn. And no one has yet discovered a universal principle of shaping the mind to enthusiastically seek learning outside its interests. What works for one doesn’t necessarily work for another. That difference, I believe, is what distinguishes mere neuronal learning from a mind’s lifelong obsession to learn.
Learning around those ancient campfires probably involved personal survival. Eventually, we added history and myth. Today, the campfires are classrooms and online programs that cover topics too numerous to mention. We’ve tried every method for hundreds of thousands of years. We try and abandon, repeat and abandon: Still a universal method eludes us.
Take heart, however. The desire to learn in others manifests itself as a surprise for everyone else. Lacking predictability, learning occurs at odd times in those we least suspect as interested individuals. Maybe the people at the Sorbonne conference and at every similar conference should spend their time simply relating how they were surprised by someone who learned and by the extent of enthusiasm that accompanied that learning. Obviously, all past methodologies appear to be hit-and-miss at best.
RSS Feed