Learning is the process in which a person consciously takes their self farther away from ignorance. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge, the inability to understand something without guidance from an outside force. Ignorance can also be the willful act of not learning. As Immanuel Kant said, “Sapere Aude!” (1784 Kant). Dare to know. To take charge of one’s own learning, or the admission of ignorance and the want to change, cannot be done without courage and self-confidence.
Who are these outside forces that guide the ignorant? Those are teachers. In Modern Education, teachers take charge of our learning for 13 years, meeting our individual needs, and educating us in the subjects that have formed the basis for our world. Our teachers become some of the most important and revered authority figures in our lives, next to our parents. We learn from our teachers.
In general, learning is a popular thing. Students learn. It’s our traditional role. Books, and now the wonderful world of the Internet, serve our understanding. They satisfy our requirements. Teachers are generally eager to teach. Teachers are the guardians of knowledge.
However, learning is different from thinking. A teacher can teach and teach but they can never force a student to take the plunge into the vague pit that is critical, applied and abstract thought. A student (with the big brains that come packed onto the human label) can enter in the methodical algorithms that make it possible to pass for a very intelligent person. Yes, they may even be admired by all the right people, and regarded as a prime candidate for all the right schools in all the top places. But the real question is, do they actually think?
In the past, the leap from learning (and knowing) to thinking has been accepted as a dangerous thing. To all oppressed people, learning—accepting facts and dogmas—helped them survive, but thinking got them killed in an instant. My own fair sex learned all about what it had to do in order to live in a world lead by men. Until we started thinking, that is. The key factor in suppression of growth is knowledge without thought. The collective perception of a group of people jumping from merely learning to actually thinking is what spurs revolutions. In it’s purest form it is change.
As I mentioned before, the teachers in our lives have been pervasive authority figures. They have taught us all they could within their own human limitations. As authority figures, they have the responsibility to educate their students (give them knowledge that will help them survive beyond school), and also help them think critically, applicability, and abstractly. Being the catalyst to the thoughts of students is the most important role of a teacher, because, again, it is what changes the world.
Under what conditions can teachers retain their control, while still teaching all they can and most importantly promoting thought at every opportunity? What can lead students away from the dangerous trap of algorithms and into the belief-questioning probe of thought?
The teaching methods of “don’t ask questions, learn!” or “don’t argue, believe!” will absolutely discourage thought. But certainly complete freedom wouldn’t guide students toward thought, either. Total anarchy is never the answer, I’ve found through personal experience, because if learning is as I described (requiring guidance form an external force), then in order for students to learn, the teacher needs to draw on despotism. (A despotism that instead claims the gain of it’s charges, not its own personal gain.) No, I believe the best answer is, “Question, think, explore and dissent at your own free will, but listen (and obey)!”. A student cannot refuse the direct orders from a teacher to learn, but as a thinker s/he must question all the knowledge that s/he is accepts into his/her mind from the teacher or any other external source.
If in learning, a student applies critical thought and decides that that particular piece of information goes against their belief system and all ideas of truth, then I believe the student is still obligated to learn it. Ignorance is the willful act of not learning, and with ignorance there cannot come knowledge. This leads to the logical conclusion that without knowledge there cannot come thought, and without thought there cannot come change. The idea of a generation that does not fight to change what it sense to be wrong in the world is one that literally sends shivers down my spine.
But I won’t ever have to worry about that, because it is impossible. If we loosely use the analogy of the teachers being the powerful bourgeoisie and the students being the lead masses of proletariats, then we can see that because the bourgeoisie seek to take control over the proletariats, without providing a forum to speak through, the natural thing for the proletariats to do is join together. Once united, the now connected proletariats will now have “improved means of communication…created by Modern Industry [Modern Education]” (1848 Marx). Teachers created Modern Education, and through that, the students have united in order to voice their opinions. I don’t need to point out that Students 2.0 is a great example of what I have described.
In classic education, students’ voices were never fully heard because they were divided. Now, in neo-education, we retain the authority of the teacher, while making sure to provide opportunities for the roles of student and teacher to get lost in the greater goal of learning, and later, thinking; and second, to actually take into consideration the thoughts produced from those exercises. To teach in a neo-educational environment is to truly allow for and encourage thinking in the classroom, which means to lose the conventional boundaries of classic education. It means to obey the students’ wishes as much as enforce the teachers own. It is teachers and students learning, and thinking together, in a way acknowledges the connections and unity formed between the students and the world at large. Neo-education promotes learning both at it’s most basic, and most complex levels.
- Original artwork by Lindsea
“Question, think, explore and dissent at your own free will, but listen (and obey)!” sums it up.
I would change the last part to hear (and respect). The most pertinent part of this is to QUESTION. The “student voice” is often one of the most overlooked pieces to the education puzzle.
I teach Science to grades 2-5. The classes are monitored by me, but facilitated by the students. The direction my teaching takes is student directed.
Which comes back to the point... the student voice is widely overlooked, especially at this young age. Teachers tend to do most of the thinking and facilitating in the classroom. This creates more work for the teacher and less discovery for the students.
I do think that your post is powerful. I wish more teachers felt the same way. Thanks for the post, and I look forward to hearing more of your ideas in the future
Great article! This really hit home as I have been attending many conferences and seminars on the future of our education. I recently had the honor to hear Dr. G. Thomas Houlihan speak. He refers to our educational process being a systemic problem. “Any system is designed to produce exactly what it produces.” His point very closely relates to your entry. Here is a link to the slides from his presentation, I though you would enjoy it. Let me know what you think. Obviously it is just his slide show, listening to him in person was great! The other link gives a brief bio of Dr. Houlihan.
http://www.siia.net/etbf/2007/presentations.asp
http://www.ait.net/about_us/board_members/houlihan.php
Best,
Aaron
Founder of StudyCurve.com
Providing a new way to study.
I really liked this piece. So much so i wrote a post on it. http://thegordonschools.typepad.co.uk/asu/2008/01/what-is-learnin.html
I’d be interested to know how you came about these thoughts.
Adam Sutcliffe
However, I disagree with you that learning can be had without thought. I do not believe memorizing information for a test is learning—it is memorization. I do not believe the acquisition of knowledge is learning. I believe learning is the understanding of knowledge. In my opinion, real learning requires the ability to synthesize and apply knowledge. That is, learning requires understanding. Of course, understand requiries thinking. Therefore, I think learning = thinking.
To note, I do not think must of what we do in school is learning. It is memorization and recitation. That is why I hesitate to use the words student and learner interchangeably. A student acquires knowledge. A learner understands it. All learners are students, but not all students are learners.
I also object to the idea that learning requires an external guiding influence and that thought requires knowledge. I think most individuals, especially those closer to the “ignorant” level, require an external guide. However, some individuals have the ability to acquire knowledge and understand it without the assistance of an externally sentient guide. However, if we agree that a guide need not be sentient: that a map is a guide, then I believe a guide is always needed to acquire knowledge.
In addition, I do not think knowledge is required for thought. Rather, the two are mutually exclusive. Together, they form understanding (which requires both thought and knowledge).
(Oh, how I love a good debate. :))
@A. Woody: I agree! However, I would change hear to listen. Hearing is done with you ears; listening is done with your brain. My revised line would read
Some great work being done here. I have just started a new searchable International Edubloggers Directory and I would like you to add your blog details to the Directory, if you are interested.
Have a look at http://edubloggerdir.blogspot.com
Thanks
Patricia Donaghy
Site Administrator
In my (perhaps slightly self-involved) reading of it, I hear a clearer, more articulate version of the kinds of thoughts that helped me make up my mind to become a teacher.
All I can add is this: I have absolutely *no* doubt that you would find some excellent food for thought in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, by Paole Freire. This guy, Freire, was amazing: he had tons of on-the-ground experience helping oppressed workers in Brazil *educate themselves*, and in this book, he distills the principles he gleaned from that.
I am one of the choir that often gets “preached to” when I read one of your posts. I am so impressed with your intelligence and the patience you use when trying to make the world aware of your needs. I applaud you and only pray that I have raised my two children to speak out as well are you do. I have two questions.
1st. You have covered this in round about ways but would love to see real text on the following concern: In many school divisions, collaborative tools such as wikis, blogs, twitters, tumblrs, etc are banned totally due to their classification as social networking sites. Divisions have filters that prohibit the page from displaying. Teachers who are just learning about online communication are feeling that it must be wrong if school administrators will not let it pass filters. This makes giving students voice difficult. What are your thoughts on filters and bans?
2. Teachers are facing huge restraints in time due to increased federal accountability requirements. Pacing guides leave very little time for anything other than the old stand and deliver approach. Convincing a teacher to try weaving any type of technology into the learning process is difficult because of the fear of “taking away instructional time.” America is in a political year with elections coming up. You are our future voters. What would you say to the politicians in regards to the complaints of the teachers concerning standardized testing pressures?
In response to your first question regarding social networking in schools. I am the founder of StudyCurve.com a social networking site with an academic purpose. I have seen this response from administration time and again. It is primarily a fear of the unknown. I have been invited to numerous conference, one of which was the National School Board Associations (NSBA) conference. It was extremely interesting in that the president of the NSBA, Anne Flynn, is a huge supporter of the idea of using these tools in school, yet there is a big break down at the administration level. Very few are willing to take the risk. I have been working with a very large school district to implement our site into their schools and we have been very successful so far. I know we will look back in a relatively short period and ask ourselves why we didn’t do “it” a long time ago. I don’t mean to rant, this is just a topic that I am very passionate about. I run another company and have held high level positions and know how important it is for our students to be able to use these tools properly. If you would like to talk further please email me at: aaron@studycurve.com
Thank you for listening and again I apologize for going on about this.
Aaron
This is a great post. Thanks for writing it. While I mostly agree with you, be very careful with your generalizations. There are many, many teachers out there who are trying desperately not to oppress the talents and critical thinking of our students. I wish I could do more, but the crushing nature of testing and misguided accountability structures work to stifle our ability to do what is “just”. Nothing will change in education until we work to emancipate teachers from those burdens.
Careful with the easy Marxist analysis too. While I think that you are generally correct, reality is much more complex than a simple bourgeois versus proletariat dichotomy. Teachers might maintain that power structure (petite bourgeois), but I’d be hard pressed to find a teacher that “created” it, as you suggest. Too often, I think it’s more that most teachers are ignorant of their own situation within the larger structure. Those are the ones I worry deeply about. Know that there are some of use who are trying desperately to work towards the type of critical education that you so passionately speak about. We are out there. I think your last paragraph ultimately hits that point, and I was glad you got there, as this seems closer to reality.
Keep up the questioning. It’s more important now than ever...
“Respect” would have to be key. I chose the word “obey” because not only would the students listen, hear, respect, etc, but the whole idea of obeying might spur some of the students to rise up and dissent. I am all for civil disobedience.
@Arthus
I don’t think you disagree with me as much as you want to. If you would acquire a bit more knowledge, and then think about it, you’d find this to be true.
I suggest you look up “learning” in the Oxford English Dictionary. You will find that it is in fact exactly what you say it’s not: “the acquisition of knowledge”. What you call “learning”, I call thinking, but the fundamental difference between learning and thinking is the acquisition of knowledge (learning) vs. intellectual activity (thinking). Memorization is a part of learning (i.e. in order to write, you must memorize the spelling/definitions of words). Memorization is the acquisition of knowledge; therefore it’s learning, not thinking. Using those memorized words to create a beautiful poem, or say, a comment on Students 2.0, that would be thinking (intellectual activity).
In reference to your objection of external guidance in learning, is it the voices in your head that tell you what to do? I guess you could call that internal guidance. No seriously, I’m really confused about the basis of your objection towards external guidance. How have you managed to escape it? What or who you chose to be your external guidance is what helps you to learn; parents, peers, the media, teachers, the list goes on and on. Growing up in a complete vacuum would allow you to escape the myriad of possible external influences, but short of that, there is no escaping from them. Even if you’ve never come into physical contact with any other living being, you would still have the internet (or television, radio, twitter, skype), which is still external guidance.
You said, “I do not think knowledge is required for thought.”
You proved your point.
@Anand Thakker
I’ll definitely take a look at it
I’m excited.
@Joe
Thanks for reading my post! I’m glad that you are working towards a better system of education. I’m interested to know what your constraints are that limit you from teaching the way you want.
I trust teachers (and higher authority figures) to not be afraid of change, and to not be afraid of learning. I’ve already seen proof that some of them are willing to use their knowledge to think (and create) ways to improve our education.
I have complete faith in learning.
From Wikipedia:
True, memorization is a form of learning. However, not all learning requires the acquisition of knowledge: the acquisition of skills, understanding, and wisdom are also forms of learning which are not necessarily dependent upon raw knowledge. Thinking is the application of that skill, knowledge, and wisdom.
There is a difference between guidance and influence. Guidance tells you what you should do. Influence gives you choices and allows you to chose for yourself. I do think it is impossible to learn without influence, but it is possible to live without external guidance. I am influenced by my Many of them have also attempted to guide me. That does not mean I accept their guidance—in many cases I take their influence, then go in the other direction from where their guidance directs me. For instance, nobody ever guided me to learn a programming language. However, I was influence into doing so by the prevalence of technology in our lives. In learning best practices, I am influenced by Twitter and the blogs I read—but I am not successfully guided by them. You guessed it: I’m the type who will take a map (reference source/influence) and set out into the wilderness on my own.
Don’t hate the freshmen, he’s read more than you think.
Regarding the word “obey”, of course I don’t expect you, or anyone else, to obey every word teachers (or any authority figures) say. It’s not about that. It’s about learning what the teachers (whoever they are–three dimensional or flat) are teaching you, and then forming independent, unique ideas based on your on experience and beliefs.
You say that “the acquisition of skills, understanding, and wisdom are forms of learning which are not necessarily dependent upon raw knowledge.” So in lieu of “raw knowledge”, what exactly do you think skills, understanding, and wisdom are produced from? What exactly is “raw knowledge”?
Trusty Wikipedia says that knowledge is “(i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.”
So if acquisition of skills, understanding, and wisdom are not dependent on, or don’t need, “raw knowledge” (and here I’m making the assumption that raw knowledge is basically the same thing as knowledge), then information gathered from experience, education, practical understanding, facts, and situational awareness is all ruled unnecessary.
Ok, now I have to bring Thoreau into this:
“If I have any experience which I think valuable, I am sure to reflect that this my Mentors said nothing about.”
This relates to what you said about external guidance/influence. The point is that whether it be guidance, influence, whatever (I’m not going to argue semantics), you jump from just learning (knowledge acquisition) to independent thought. Mentors, guides, and maps all become obsolete because you switch from learning to thinking (and questioning and growing).
In the neo-education that I was talking about, independent thinking, and, like you said, going off in a another direction, so to speak, would be encouraged.
Hey, I’m not hating the freshman, I’m just “debating” with him. I believe in peace and love, young friend.
Raw knowledge is simply facts — the sort of stuff a computer can “know.”
Well, I would argue some of it is unnecessary (as Anthony said, the need to know the capitol of Florida died when our phones learned it), especially the majority of the knowledge given to students in public schools today (from my experience).
I do think there is a place for knowledge in the 21st century. However, I think that knowledge must become situational. That is, when you need a certain piece of knowledge then acquire it as the situation requires. When I have the WWW in my pocket, there is no reason to use my (valuable) brain as a cheap hard drive. Situational knowledge also implies knowledge gained through experience. Instead of memorizing the capitols of 40 countries, visit a half dozen—you will gain far more useful “knowledge” which can be applied to a greater diversity of situations.
Semantics are important. Guidance vs. influence is the difference between a teacher talking to you and a teacher talking with you. Do we agree that we do not all need guides to learn? (or at least can be self-guided)
I fail to see how the neo-education you speak of would encourage independent thought when one of it’s principles is that students must “obey” - thoughtless obedience is the exact opposite of independent thought.
Debate the ideas, not the person. (You can not justify your argument simply by saying the opponent lacks “knowledge”)
In the portion of your discussion about guidance/influence, “obeying”, etc., it sounds to me like you two have quite different ideas of the nature of a student-teacher relationship.
My students “obey” my directions, but I sincerely hope that it’s NOT simply because I’m the person officially in charge. Rather, I hope they obey because they and I have developed some basic trust, so that when I offer instructions, suggestions, hints, questions-to-think-about, they have faith that I’m doing so with *their* growth in mind (rather than any benefit to me).
Strangely, one of the best bits of evidence that this trust exists is that, on occasion, they question my “orders”, asking me to explain the rationale behind them. I can’t always do so, but because I do most of the time, they seem to trust me when I say, “I can’t, but just bear with me and you’ll see why soon, ok?”
There is nothing contradictory in saying “obey” and “think independently” with the same breath. Lindsea wrote, “Mentors, guides, and maps all become obsolete because you switch from learning to thinking (and questioning and growing).” Indeed, I often remind myself that the whole *point* of the ‘orders’ I want my students to ‘obey’ is to help them become LESS dependent on me — i.e., to render myself obsolete.
@Lindsea and Arthus: Knowledge
Wow, this is a huge question. I’m going to call the “memorizable”, or “acquireable” stuff (names, dates, etc.) *factual* knowledge. And skills and techniques (drawing a straight line, using a calculator), then, would be *practical* knowledge.
My question is: doesn’t “good” thinking (whatever that is) change depending on the factual and practical context? If so, then it might be problematic to imply a dichotomy between these kinds of knowledge and “thinking”.
For example, when I read a story about what’s going on in Africa, can you really say I’m *thinking* about the importance of it if I don’t have certain facts in mind about the various cities / regions being mentioned? (If I don’t have *some* factual knowledge, how would I even realize that there’s something worth looking up about Apartheid?)
And is the answer to this as simple as saying that factual knowledge is stage 1 and critical thinking is stage 2? Or is it a more complex back-and-forth?
-Anand
Very nice post!
I agree with you on the thought that complete freedom will bring thinking. I have a few reasons for this. First of all, something will always be “wrong” with society even with complete freedom. (A perfect, or Utopian, society is impossible on earth.) Secondly, people will always think. They will always want better things and ways to live life by. This will cause thinking and thinking will possibly even bring revolution. Finally, I think that complete freedom does bring thinking.
GOOD POST:)!!!!