Brain, Education, and Inquiry - Fall, 2010: Session 2

Previously, I mentioned that many of my peak education moments have come outside of the classroom.  I’ve been exploring this further to pinpoint that top ten to twenty peak education moments that I think have been the most formative in my education as a child and as an adult.  Most of them involved my parents or grandparents in some way but some of them also involved a teacher that I’ve had somewhere along my educational career.  Interestingly, these peak education moments were interactions that occurred outside of a classroom and, more often, in a social setting.  I remember one interaction specifically where a teacher kept asking me questions in response to my questions.  At the time, I was frustrated and somewhat uncomfortable because I thought that my questions were not being addressed and that I was being judged but, I later learned that this was a technique called “Ask ‘why’ 5 times.”   I still go through the exercise in my head often if I am pondering a question or trying to get to the root of an issue. 

            One of the benefits of “seriously loopy science” is that unconventional methods, such as “Ask ‘why’ 5 times,” are means by which both individuals and teachers can learn about each other and look introspectively to explore their observations.  To me, learning is a cyclical process; every bit of new knowledge is based on previously existing thoughts (conscious or not).  To me, this is what the goal of education ought to be and not memorizing numbers and fact without ability to apply them to actual situations.  What use is knowledge unless you can apply it to situations in your daily life?  Theoretically, wouldn’t the purpose of knowledge be to create more knowledge (or thoughts) and to keep pushing the boundary further and further?  I think that “seriously loopy science” is the way that our minds work intuitively and that one would be hard pressed to argue otherwise.  After all, even science wonks use this methodology when publishing papers (although perhaps they would probably argue otherwise).  Accumulation of knowledge and further exploration of the unknown (which is pretty much everything) is the matter of which scientists are in hard pursuit.  Will we ever answer all of our questions or be able to explain all of our observations?  I hope not. If we do, where will go from there?

As of now, I completely agree that “the objective of an education is to acquire the means to create knowledge.” I also agree that structure is in a way ever-present and necessary, whether it be within or beyond the confines of the classroom, in building and creating knowledge. But when, if at any point, does structure inhibit the very knowledge that it is trying create? At some point structure becomes a barrier rather than a means. In many ways, I think that the structure of school, more specifically college, does not adequately support the creation of knowledge. In my own experience, I feel like I have spent way too much time in the classroom listening and discussing and not enough time out in the real world discovering, doing, experiencing. Not that these things cannot or do not occur within some classroom spaces, but they simply do not occur enough. Consequently, there just seems to be a very strong disconnect where nothing is really made tangible and our own creations of knowledge are….invaluable, I’m not really sure if that is the word I’m looking for.    

In response to what some have said, while we do tend to foucs on the ills of the education system, I do think that one of its "things done right" is providing us all with a common foundation and basis for some kind of learning. Like Abby Em said, while this may seem pointless at the time being, it is helping to build skills that are useful in life....But what is useful in life? That seems like a silly question, but I do think that it has some validity and that the answers vary across cultures and even from person to person- just a thought.

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

An education in general should be able to provide students resources that can cultivate mental and social skills, along side of the “tools” and “facts” necessary to promote knowledge, thinking and learning as Abby discussed. Education should be multidimensional and interdisciplinary. Students should be able to make connections with what they're learning in all of their classes and not only apply that knowledge to other classes (based on the skills that are being taught and emphasized), but also apply it to real life (those life experiences we acquire outside of the classroom on a daily basis).

Education should be conducive to different types of learning (not just visual or by ways of hearing) and engage creativity (to broaden the mind and add dimension to the useful structure an education is said to have), more so in science and mathematics classes.

 
Most importantly, education should be culturally inclusive, not just another representation of any normative, which would allow for new observations, challenging new horizons, new ways of thinking and new possibilities can be learned until one reaches a solid and better-rounded idea/thought or perspective. This aspect of what an education should entail in my opinion reflects what science aims to do. If there is a new observation that a scientist makes and it invalidates the original one, then we discard the previous observation. An observation is the first step in the scientific method, which leads to these new ways of thinking to broaden and extend this field of inquiry. By scientists observing their surroundings it ultimately can help reach an idea of reality or it helps us reach a wrong result (we also have the power to avoid such results). However, science is a type of guide in itself allowing for this transformation of thinking, which contributes to knowledge. This same process I feel holds true for creativity and our sought after life experiences.

 
Lastly, to just briefly touch knowledge as a context of science, I view science as a form of knowledge. Science loops back and forth as far as I’m concerned between information and knowledge because as new Information is achieved, it changes our current understandings forcing us to re-examine our previously held beliefs and alter them in accordance with this new information, which, of course, alters not only our “wisdom” but insight, awareness, etc. With that in mind, I also view the information we collect about our surroundings with the help of our five senses to be a form of knowledge.

I find myself, as you can see from my last post, wanting to defend the formal education system, not in all it's forms and, certainly, failings, but as in institution that aims to do the right thing and sometimes succeeds. Oddly, for the first word association exercise with "education," I was one of those who gave none school related responses (children, people, life,) yet when we keep reiterating that "people thought about classrooms when they heard education" I get defensive of those classrooms that our conversation is saying don't provide as much learning as the ever-hallowed "life-experience." Plenty of learning does go on in school, it's just more foundational, less spontaneous, and not often as distinctly memorable as those learning moments that happen in the real world. As much as the aha! moments of understanding or new ideas reaffirm the joys of learning and stick out, a background and continued experience with formal education primes us to get the most out of those moments, enabling us to draw farther reaching conclusions, ask the right questions, and articulate their importance to others and to ourselves. We do take school for granted, not just because of socio-economic privilege that makes it's availability unquestionable, but because the simple demand that learning be fun is overshadowing the more nuanced truth the learning be worthwhile and rewarding. In truth, not everything of value is fun. Even rewarding school curriculums would not be deemed "fun" in comparison with just playing with friends all day doing whatever you chose, but it far from makes them worthless.

The article we read on "How people learn" helped me focus some of my thoughts by drawing my attention to two separate, sometimes seemingly competing, but actually interconnected types of knowledge taught in school- tools and facts. For a long time for me, I've considered classic complaint that "I'm never going to need to know this formula/ French history/ the themes in Beowulf in the real world" to be foolish, not because it isn't true, but because it misses the point that you're being taught to *think* with these examples. It's a kind of learning that happens slowly and gradually even when properly taught, such that you could seemingly argue that you're getting nothing out of having to write a paper analyzing a character's growth in the Odyssey. Maybe not on its own, no, but repetition is valuable for any kind of training, in this case the training to organize your thoughts, draw conclusions, express them deftly. I believe that we're all better off now for being taught that, even if at the time it was not considered fun. And of *course* we want to have as much joy in learning as possible, both for effectiveness and just for its own sake, but there's a certain kind of discipline required that is inherently less fun than if you were able to just do what you wanted. 

To get back on track, this article helped enrich my understanding of school as something that just gave you tools to learn more and think better by explaining how providing a solid bed of factual information is itself a tool for learning more and drawing more sophisticated and potentially original conclusions. It taught right, in a way the we remember and incorporate it into our knowledge base, knowing "stuff" is, they're right, quite valuable. I would not know this much stuff if I wasn't presented with it in an organized setting, I simply wouldn't. Life experiences, all the day to day learning experiences we have, are more valuable to us because of our knowledge ("things") and thinking ("tools") base we get in school. I just feel it's all too easy to criticize the institution, and that formal education is an easy target of our disdain that we're in danger of beating up in our efforts to feel liberal-minded.

Reading Simone's post got me thinking more generally about how to encourage students. While her example perfectly demonstrates how seemingly innocent compliments can actually negatively affect the growth of a student's creativity, similar influences can hinder student growth in what are classically considered less artistic areas of academics. It may seems innocent to tell a student that he or she is smart, intuitive, etc., suggesting that there is an innate ability. However, such suggestions lead students to believe that their academic ability is not in their control and that they either can or can't, regardless of who their teacher is or what effort they put in. On the other hand, by acknowledging students' diligence and effort they develop stronger work habits and ultimately develop their abilities more than those who believe achievement is innate.

 I've seen the linear vs. loopy science model over seven times now, in class and during summer research, and this is the first time that I've really thought about using them together rather than choosing between the two. I am a fan of loopy science. Not necessarily the model of loopy science, although that's pretty awesome too, but the ideas that go with it-- science is not the final word, it denies authority including its own, it is not really "objective," it is not a matter of "true or false" or "right or wrong," but getting things less wrong and always, always retesting hypotheses. 

But what if we were to use the linear science version together with the loopy science version? Is that even possible? Someone suggested it in our last class and I'm curious about what that might mean. Yes, the models are similar and they suggest similar processes, but it is the approach to each that is different. I don't think the attitudes of linear science could reconcile with loopy science's more open-ended approach to exploration and understanding. 

Linear science is about discovering "what is." Loopy science would argue, I think, that we can't ever be sure about what is. How can we know anything we discover is true? One instance of seeing the sun rise does not mean the sun will rise again. One instance of seeing a molecule behave a certain way doesn't mean that it will behave that way again. 

And I think education is divided along these lines as well. I know that I had a more linear approach to learning in high school; the teacher was the authority and you did not, unless the teacher was secretly "loopy," question them or their authority. You went through your observations, your exploration of a topic, you drew a conclusion and it was either the right one or a wrong one. There was always a "right" answer and, often, only one. If your English teacher didn't think that your paper agreed with what they said in class, you didn't do well. It was less about learning for yourself than playing into what you knew the teacher wanted. And that's not really learning.

In class we talked about grades and their inadequacy. After thinking some more about it, I am not sure there is anything wrong with grades. I think what is wrong is the way in which we use it. I think some arbitrary marker orf progress, if you will (grades) is needed in the academic world, so there is nothing wrong with giving grades. What is wrong is when we expect grades to be the only marker of what is happening. I don't think grades are supposed to measure temperament, or individual skill, or individual creativity. It is we/employers/the system who have forgotten that grades are only supposed to be a marker for how well a concept is grasped.

In the same vein, it is not up to grades to tell us how individual students learn.... it is the job of the education system/teachers to vary teaching styles and pay attention to individual students and notice how we learn. Of course some teaching styles are always going to help some students more than others, and so it is up to teachers to vary teaching styles, or account for the differences in personalities that we all have. Of course all this is easier said than done given the realities of teachers and students and classrooms and education systems. And it is up to employers/students/teachers/everyone to realize that grades are only one arbitrary marker of knowledge and not the whole thing - in fact, not even the most important thing.

Language acquisition came up as an example of learning that occurs without structure and really much “teaching.”  Language is picked up on easily and cross-culturally, with most rules understood although not usually taught.   As we were having this conversation, I kept thinking that language was an “unfair” example, since it is learned in such a different manner than other skills or subjects, and should really be in its own category.  I started thinking about what else would go into the category of things learned in a similar way and came up with skills like eating, walking, running, smiling…and more sophisticated things like mirroring, sarcasm, ways to manipulate the behavior of others…etc. 

All of these things are either necessary for survival, or are extremely social.  As was mentioned, babies learn quickly that if they cry, they can easily manipulate the behavior of those around them.  This type of behavior is somewhat sophisticated, yet required no explanation or training.  Although I do think these are somewhat “unfair” examples to show that structure is not key to learning, it would be interesting to try to develop a system of education based on social learning.  If children can easily and naturally learn things like language because it is a necessary social skill, can we somehow make reading or chemistry into a “social skill”? 

If you want to quickly learn a language, an immersion class is extremely effective.  If you read often to a child, they may pick up on the skills without ever being formally taught.  Would this kind of immersion/social setting work in other subject areas?  If you took an “immersion science course,” would it be possible to learn the basics of chemistry just by observing others doing problems are being put in a situation where you have to work with others to figure out problems with some of the students never having formally learned the material?

To learn feels good. Education is tool that I feel can broaden one's mind or can narrow it, especially if the curriculum is exclusive of other materials, insights, or methods. 

I think I like structure, or am I just used to it? On the basis of clarifying, to me, structure means a certain organization or direction. Maybe each of our minds have been sculpted by our early molders (primary/secondary education) to respond to structure in certain ways... that's why some of us thrive on it, and others steer away from it. Perhaps having too much structure has its consequences. Sometimes I find myself struggling when given little direction for an assignment or a project.

Education today is still very structured and perhaps it inhibits individuals from thinking out of the box, breaking out of the norms that we participate in, in order to "transform" the common way of thinking. We briefly discussed that a group of homogeneous individuals that think, act, or do, is much less effective than a heterogeneous group. Perhaps the way to enhance the mosaic is to have less structure. Or maybe its better to say that from the beginning of one's formal education (in the form of going to school at the age of 5 or so), there should be a greater emphasis to tap into individual creativity and passion for different things. Our "system" should emphasize the importance of exploration, inquiry, excavation of something that may be buried or of something that has not even been found yet... Transforming current ideas and developing new ones.  This should begin from the earliest years, and it seems as if a child's mind is the most curious anyway. Let's enhance it. Let's congratulate them for asking questions, encourage it, reward it...

But how to transfer this idea from childhood to adulthood? Is that a valid idea when we are students of life no matter which age? Can there be a combination of structure and creativity? Can one exist within the other?

Is there really a linear model of science, or is it just an idea that some try to cram loopy science into for their own sake?

I want to think more about whether there are important differences between the first steps of these competing scientific methods.  I like seriously loopy science.  I like it's dynamism.  I prefer circles to straight lines.  I think they feel more appropriate in an age/society/culture that's basically left teleological/theological thinking behind.  And I'm glad that we've ditched/are ditching those ways of making sense of the world. 

The thing I still like about "Hypothesis" that I'm not sure I get from "Summary of Observations" is the more active, co-constructive connotation of the verb "hypothesize" versus "summarize."  Tonight we accepted some pretty big claims with minimal resistance.  There is no such thing as empirical knowledge.  No such things as facts.  If next week we're talking more about the brain, maybe we can talk about how the brain feels about/deals with living this kind of schizophrenic existence where we can believe that the only proper attitude towards "reality" is radical skepticism about everything that appears to "work," but simultaneously go ahead putting one foot in front of the other, flying in airplanes that we assume won't crash because the high priests of physics have arranged the numbers in such a way that they appear to be infallible. 

Do we end up with a new kind of dualism?  Does weightless, creative, inquisitive thought spin off into some parallel reality, an anarchic space where the goal is an endless circle of cognitive self-pleasuring?  That doesn't sound too bad, but then there's just something a little uncomfortable about this new kind of "mind" being inconveniently housed in the "body" that is our life-world with all its lame, heavy, existing systems and structures.  How does transforming thought, or even education, become the "transformation of the world."  Should this new spirit of unfettered, purely creative thought feel remotely responsible for dealing with/helping out the existing life-world, or can the world only be a drag on it? 

Or is some yet to be articulated vision of "education" that potential point of convergence?  Where the übermenschen, reach back to help new generations find their way out of the graveyard of ossified "truths" that can't actually be truths (because there's no such thing), only hypotheses that have forgotten they're just temporarily serviceable hypotheses.  How much of the old muck does this require us to muck around in?  What does it mean to "transform" rather than simply negate or discard?