Learning as we generally conceive it is a combination of information and experience. That assumes that the information and experience will work together to create learning and understanding.
The idea of a professors of information and personal experience is older than universities. It's sharing what we know and believe. Everybody does this when we try to communicate. So, having a person that is viewed as an expert in a field professing their knowledge and experience is done. Until recently in history this required in person meetings for dynamic dialogue.
Books worked well for static background information, references. Rather than having people go through the experiences, they would read about them. However, at the start of this way of teaching you commonly had students working a job. Then there were the jobs with built in training and stores of trade information.
That makes sense and works fairly well, because information is dynamically mixed with experience. That where and when the learning really happens. However, something changed.
As the results of such a combination were noted, people tried to redesign the system, to make it more efficient. Play, free-time, experience and other such non-serious/measured/hard tasks were removed as unneeded.
Think about that in light of modern schooling. Recess is a part of elementary school for exercise and to use up some of their energy. The later is to help children sit still in class. Recess is removed and physical education is left as required in middle school. In high school a fourth of my time in school I was required to take physical education. In college, I've taken one physical education class that was also half health class. Most classes are asking you to memorize a set of behaviors and then tests your execution in ritualized scenarios.
Why? Why is it that activity, creativity and spontaneity are removed from the school life? Why was it such a natural progression?
Answer: Because the original process had active, creative, spontaneous doing as an unwritten assumption.
That assumption is known to the doers. The knowers in charge of designing the system don't deal with reality, they deal with mental models. If those mental models are inaccurate, the conclusions are liable to be worse. Without knowing what the doers/masters know through experience and open minded observation, the knowers/designers are not prepared to design a school.
It's still a little vague. Why would that lead to the present situation? There is information being passed on. There is experience in school work. So what's the problem? Simply put, it's like giving potting soil, a pot, seeds and water to a person who knows nothing of gardening and asking them to garden.
Some might consider that last statement a little, or very, harsh. Well, how many people understand how they learn? Yet, the student is handed information and experience and told to learn.
Unfortunately, even that way of looking at things is too nice. The gardens we are told to create are like normal gardens; nothing like the wonderful natural beauty on the other side of the fence. Why is that garden not like the natural wonders we want to mimic? It's because we don't include the natural factors.
Learning is growing. Mess with the plant or student too much and you'll stunt it's growth. Those that do grow will either fit into the nice linear borders, or the gardeners will try to "tend" to them. Some are lucky to have gardeners who understand natural growth.
The mental models CONNOT account for everything. If you look back at what works, you'll see guidance in teaching. Guidance is not the same as leading. Students are to explore, experiment and ask questions in the old models of teaching that are STILL effective.
Wait a moment; questions. Those require activity, creativity and spontaneity. More than that, they require thinking. Obstacles and problems are expected. Their treated as potential learning experiences. Why? Because that's where the learning happens. It's also where innovation happens, but that's another topic.
Questions take time, lots of it. Patience is also needed, just like in good gardening or cooking. The student needs time to observe, consider and make mistakes. This is the mind set of play. So WHY is this such a missed part of the education when we've spent centuries trying to figure out how to teach people faster?
Did you catch that? I'll repeat the question. WHY is this such a missed part of the education when we've spent centuries trying to figure out how to teach people faster?
When you try to grow a plant faster, the plant lacks something. The stem will be weaker than a plant given time to grow naturally. The fruit will be lacking nutrients, flavor and substance.
Have you caught the problem? The goal was not to teach people to the best of our abilities, but rather the overall goal is to do so faster. Questions and deep learning do take time, in the now, not the overall. (That's yet another topic.) The students are to be "made' into "workers" as fast as possible in most systems. More and faster are generally equated to better.
That works with teaching, but not learning. You see, the faster you teach more people a set of facts and behaviors, the better you are at teaching. The faster you are taught more, the shallower and easier to forget that knowledge is. The faster you are taught more, the less you actually learn. This is because the act of teaching is the act of giving. The more you teach, the faster you get, and the less you learn. That's due to it becoming a routine. So, the faster you do that routine for more people, the less you are helping the individual students learn.
Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
View Blog Reactions
0 comments:
Post a Comment