MARCH 1985
Archive Fragment: This text is drawn from forthcoming early manuscript reflections (1985-1997) and is presented largely in its original form. It reflects exploratory, lightly edited reflections and working questions (stream of consciousness mainly) rather than a finished or fully developed argument.
Do we really understand what we believe ourselves to understand? Or is our understanding based in large part upon mechanical applications?
Could it be that we are presently like children who have discovered strange articles (in our case, articles from the distant past), and using them in awkward and unknowing ways for which they were never intended? Do we really understand what we are doing with knowledge? Do our teachers really understand what they are teaching? Are we passing on rudimentary or “fake” understanding; that is, demonstrating how to turn on a television, perform an algebraic equation, etc. without understanding how a television works or what forms the basis for algebra? Yes!
Algebra can be summed up in the following way:
x = the sum of the parts of x
So what? This is not new information. Why then is this study significant? It must be because of its problem solving capabilities. What are these?
Driving an auto is a small part of understanding it. It is its “use”. Performing an algebraic calculation is not a part of its use, although it can be involved in its use. Like driving involved in transportation–auto’s use.
Performing an algebraic equation for no reason other than learning its mechanics is to perform an operation without application. It would be tantamount to learning how to count without being able to apply such understanding. What do such notions have to do with our “constructs” and “structures” employed in learning? What is the difference between understanding and use?
We don’t need to understand the workings of auto’s and televisions in order to use them–only how to use them. On the other hand, we can learn to count without actually understanding how to count. But this is not understanding–only imitation. In this case, understanding the use of counting (the application of sequencing) is necessary to being able to perform it. [One to one correspondence for addition.]
What have we done to our machines to make it possible for us to use them without understanding them? We have explained their use and have extended or synthesized their functions into simple operating modes for easy use.
One would not know the use of an auto unless one first understood the machine or, at minimum, some of the various uses to which its observable parts are put to. We explain uses of mechanisms and provide the wherewithal to use them.
We attempt to do the same thing in mathematics–only it seldom works. Understanding mechanical operations will not provide an understanding of its applications.
But those who do understand the machinery and its application take such applications and develop ready made easily accessible routine operations in the form of instructions, tables, rules and procedures for easy usage.
We might all be suffering from myopia. That is, we may be in need of knowing our relative position within the realm of knowledge and thought just as we presently believe ourselves to understand our relative positions within the world. Without this view, knowledge and thought is chaotic at best. Without structure is total chaos. Mankind has also structured his experiences within his existence–until recently, that is. We are presently lost in our own maze; entangled in our own “understanding”. To see that this is so, simply take a group of people and ask a question or state a fact without offering any structure, context, or parameters of any kind. Observe what happens!
Knowledge gained through simple observation or contained in simple statements or assertions undergoes a certain amount of vagueness as it grows. More and more, complex concepts or theoretical models of thought processes are invoked to better integrate the same, thereby causing our own certainty and understanding of it to lessen rather than sharpen.
Integration involves definition, interpretation, and classification. Just as a dictionary term and its own definition are never (and can never be) an actual match–so is it the same with knowledge as it proceeds through its organizational processes.
These very words are packed with concepts invoked to explain a still higher level of conception–that is, the notion that complexity and vagueness grow hand in hand as knowledge extends. The words come easily. They seem to fit in an appropriate way the model I am trying to present. They can be used with only a minimal understanding of their meanings and implications–and still seem appropriate. This is the danger!
MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS/QUESTIONS:
Is “reason” inherent in language?
Is there a “logic” to language?
Do we make “constructions” through language?
What is the role of “nonsense” in the use of language? In the “misuse” of language?
Why do we seek certainty?
Why do we search for substratums, immutable, incorrigible bases for thought?
Are hypothetical constructs exaggerations of ordinary meanings? Extensions?
Is the dichotomy of sensor and thing sensed an analytical construct?
Is group behavior correlated with individual behavior? Group knowledge a consensus of its individual members, grouped to form particular statements, sets of beliefs or actions, etc. thus coming full circle back to the individual?
Is such a synthesis of group efforts and intelligence what makes progress so rampant? Is it knowledge that is multiplying exponentially, or people with knowledge, or structures/methodologies of knowledge?
Is it progress or knowledge that is multiplying or simply applications of old knowledge, used over and over again? What are the true relationships between theory and application, science and technology? How do they affect one another really? Does technology or knowledge derived through application ever add to the science from whence it came? Did it actually come from the science in the first place? Or did the science come from the technology or an “idea of application” that gave rise to the theoretical constructs?–an “idea” which merely “presented itself”!
Sound communications rests upon two individual’s having had the same or similar experiences. When this is not the case, difficulty ensues. Examples are when two individuals are years apart in age or levels apart in learning. Parent child, teacher student relationships, etc.
We resort to trying to explain the results of our experiences without explaining or relating the experiences themselves. Like teaching history to persons having little conception of “time”.
History is studied and understood from “present to past” even if we believe otherwise. This is necessary because we are now in the present and cannot escape the baggage we carry. When we write a history book, we start at a point where we left off in our thinking, i.e., in the past, and we then write forward toward the present. We believe that such a sequence is in keeping the horse in front of the cart–from earliest to the latest, from beginning to the end–but we are duping ourselves!
SCHOOL CURRICULUM AND SCOPE
What is a student? What does one do? What does one not do? (Responsible for and not responsible for?) What should one know in order to perform his job successfully? (Knowledge to learn?) What should one learn? (Knowledge to grow? Knowledge to work?) Altogether a different question from the former!
What is a parent? What does one do? What does one not do? (Responsible for and not responsible for?) What should one know in order to perform his or her job successfully? (Knowledge to teach? Knowledge to rear?)
What is a community? What functions do communities serve? Which do they not serve? (Responsible for and not responsible for?) What should one know in order to perform its functions? (Knowledge to serve?)
What is an educational institution? Which functions does it serve? Which does it not serve? (Responsible for and not responsible for?) What knowledge is necessary to performing such functions successfully? (Knowledge to rear? To teach? To serve? To govern?)
What is a teacher? What does one do? What does one not do? (Responsible for and not responsible for?) What should one know in order to perform his job successfully? (Knowledge to teach? To rear? To serve?)
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
World – Lowest base human acts to highest ideals
Freedom vs. Totalitarianism ontrol of human action vs. freedom of access to all such actions
A free open society leaves access to, or participation in, sex, crime, pornography, alcohol, smoking, drugs, violence, etc. Open to everyone.
Current trend or motivation is toward accentuating the negative aspects of human nature and dealing with the vulgar, violent, sexual, etc. Media exploits freedom of open societies, thus “creating” through heightened awareness or feeling of sanction, a further enhancement of the same.
Youth must be educated to the existence of all such motivations in order to develop a healthy understanding of what it is that is happening to themselves.
Youth must be shown that improvement, excellence, values, are desirable traits and should be sought while base ones should not.
There is a responsibility that comes with freedom: law, human rights, individual beliefs and pursuits, societal goals (whether absent or simply not spelled out), community goals that can be developed, discussed, and communicated to our children.
Above values and beliefs are not only personal, dependent upon family, religion, etc. Media and peers constantly putting reverse pressure (away from ideals)
GRADING
1. Grading based upon personal achievement of standardized subject matter according to ones own capabilities.
2. Grading based upon personal achievements of standardized subject matter.
3. Grading based upon personal achievement of only subjects of interest to learner.
4. Grading based upon personal achievement of standardized subject matter at learners own pace and without a peer group.
We can grade “accomplishment” of subject matter or levels of learning achieved, or we can grade the percentage of material achieved while holding time a constant. “He got an `A’ in math” or “he’s at level #27 in math”
Achievement implies that a goal has been met–that something was learned, overcome, won. Not a percentage of it–but the whole of it!
A grade is supposed to reflect how well this goal has been met: an `A’ may mean that a student demonstrated his having reached higher aspects of the goal–mastered greater amounts of material, for example. A `C’ might imply that only an average amount of learning took place.
The problem with the above is that the person receiving the `C’ could have worked toward, or been made to learn, an `A’s amount of material. The problem is that he is part of a group.
Our system is based upon group learning and individual testing within this setting. The group moves together in the learning process and is tested individually at the end of it [change of rules?]. They start at a certain location and finish at a certain location within a certain time frame. “Percentage’s of success” are then applied to a students being able to demonstrate his having learned the given material within the time frame allotted.
Note! We think that quick is better. That a person’s quickly understanding a learning aspect is a sign of his superior intelligence. Maybe, but it may also be a sign of an inability to abstract different possibilities, thus more a sign of certain corresponding “inabilitys”.
If our society were not so competitive and comparative, we would not suffer hurt feelings from being with younger peers than ourselves in learning situations.
Public education imposes a definite subject matter to be learned– presumably for the betterment of individuals and our society as a whole.
GRADING
1. Based upon personal achievement–an individual’s own capability regardless of level of task learned.
2. Based upon achievement of particular level of subject matter regardless of time taken.
3. Based upon achievement of subject matter of interest to participant–regardless of imposed curriculum requirements
4. Based upon achieving standardized subject matter within a time and age framework.
5. Based upon levels of standardized subject material regardless of time or age without any confines!
PROBLEMS
Grading constitutes praise for performing to one’s own capability. Discrepancies in applying an “A” grade to one level of material and an “A” grade to another. The inference is that “A” applies to a standard “level” of task accomplished rather than standard level of learning.
Forces alterations of subject matter to fit varying aptitudes of students because of constant time frame employed. Students progress from grade to grade in accordance to age. Also forces us to form “levels” of achievement or “percentages” of achievement such as 70% of subject matter learned.
Students would not progress from grade to grade because of age. Some would perform more slowly and have to remain behind. An individualized approach would be necessary to offset this.
Students would be “doing their own thing”–whatever interested them and at whatever pace they chose to pursue such interests. Totally unstructured in terms of imposed content of curriculum to be learned.
STRUCTURE
To create sense out of chaos requires structure or focus. We ask individuals to focus upon learning when in school. We ask them to forget their problems, their pains, their disinterest, etc. and to concentrate on the material at hand. This in itself would be a major undertaking for anyone. Unlike adults, however, they cannot walk away from a boring or unwanted situation.
The notion that “trying” should be rewarded and taken into consideration when assessing a given grade, has led to punitive measures when there is a lack of sufficient interest demonstrated, a lack of appropriate behavior, etc.
Take all of mathematics and divide it into levels. When one masters a given level, he goes on to the next. Standardized testing can be used to demonstrate mastery.
Take American History and do the same. Students must demonstrate general knowledge of dates and events considered to be important to our understanding. Need not be specific dates but more or less be able to demonstrate a time frame and general knowledge of important events, ideas, and status of life at the time.
Students can work according to their motivations as well as aptitude and can quit if a level of competence is reached. Levels will take the place of grading.
There may be required levels of competence for different tasks, jobs, schools, etc., but individuals will know this beforehand. They will know where they are at, what jobs they are already qualified for. Government job classifications will indicate competence levels necessary for jobs.
LEARNING CHARACTERISTICS
What are the most fundamental skills necessary to learning endeavors of any kind?
Reading, writing, arithmetic
What are the most fundamental concepts necessary to understanding whatever it is we are reading, writing, or computing?
Elements of reading, elements of writing, elements of computation
Note! Too many constants held in learning enterprise.
Age, time, knowledge content, community, learning location, grading, goals,
We pretend as though the group is nothing more than an `extended individual’! Groups can be made to be such, and are in many cases, but this is another thing entirely. This type activity is undergone to arrive at a group consensus or synthesis of varying opinions in order to decide on a particular set of individual actions, beliefs, and the like. The corporate head, for example, is then able to act as an individual for the group he is responsible to.
In the learning environment, however, we do not elicit any form of consensus from the group. The consensus of opinion is formed by some relatively small group of individuals representing a particular social, political, and economic bias. Furthermore, once the parameters are set, they tend to solidify into institutionalized practices that become very difficult to change.
Some considerations that are made for us
In developing our learning group, age and community are the primary considerations. For example, we are told to choose all five year olds from our immediate community to come together for the first year of school.
Next we are told to set their environment by placing them within a particular classroom within a particular building within a particular community. That is, we put them into a school built and maintained by the residents of each respective community.
We then decide our time parameters for the school week, the school day, and the class period.
Next we set what are to be the desired goals of all those to be educated, (what is right for the individual, the community, the nation), and further decide on which of our knowledge skills and learning will best meet the chosen criteria.
We then take the subject matter and break it down into twelve levels, or one level of knowledge for each of the years to spent in school. Some subjects will extend for the full twelve years while others will last for only a part of the time. We decide which skills are appropriate to which learning and go from there. We decide which learnings are appropriate to a respective age level and which are not. And in this manner, our chosen knowledge is broken down into `general skills learning and `courses’ whose goals are to be reached within the yearly time span allotted.
We then assign a teacher to the respective course, or, in the case of the elementary grades, a single teacher for the total curriculum content with a few exceptions involving reading specialists and art teachers.
All that remains is to decide how the subject material is to be taught to twenty or so individuals and how each of these learners will be graded. This act of `magic’ we leave to our teachers primarily.
Well, it goes without saying that the degree to which any individual learner, teacher, or institution meets with success is going to be extremely variable. As human beings we do in fact share many commonalties that can be made use of in learning (as well as other) situations. But there are differences as well that will surely get in our way. To ignore such differences in favor of looking and dealing only with our successful group outcomes, is to commit a grievous sin toward our fellow members of the community.
Genetic and environmental differences make all of us fairly unique in spite of our obvious social similarities in terms of attitudes, values, and beliefs. Although we may share certain psychological and sociological needs in common with our neighbors, the degree to which such needs have to be met will differ for each of us. For the effects of our individual genetic codes and characteristics upon ourselves is simply not known. The effects which our environmental characteristics will (or do) have upon us certainly needs to be known.
PERSONAL CONCEPTIONS
Freedom to follow one’s own inclinations is to follow the dictates, values & beliefs of the society at large. We need to renew our confidence in and energies through a wholesale effort at interpreting and synthesizing the facts of the world with facts about individuals, their families and local environment.
Notion that people will do their own things if given the freedom is probably false. Trying to force `vicarious’ experiences upon an individual who cannot appreciate it is self defeating. The individual and society both lose.
All learning seems to involve vicarious experience based upon another’s experience’s; descriptions & explanation’s of the same.
There is too much stress on curriculum content and too little on learning processes and individual differences. Curriculum offerings should reflect factual or conceptual approach depending upon subject matter and learning goals
Too much emphasis on learning `facts’ rather than conceptual understandings coupled with information gathering skills. More emphasis needed on personal aptitudes, family and community environments. Need to demonstrate that it is okay to be on different levels from others in one’s own age group. Having parents in learning situations next to youngsters would go a long way toward righting this problem.
Individual explorations and research have gotten ahead of evaluation and synthesis. Most of such research deals with peripherals of knowledge branches whose gaps are never bridged. Analysis can and often is taken beyond the point that would have satisfied the original query. One must connect all such explorations up with the original query in order to see that this is so.
Analysis is carried forward by structure inherent in language, mathematics, logic, etc. Which all provide a forward momentum. The hidden impetus is the question or activity itself: “what are all the possible descriptions, delineations, circumstances, etc. About the thing in question?”
We engage the activity from this point, and, if we are fortunate, we add facts beyond those previously had or experienced. That is, we add potential or possible alterations to such experiences and call this new knowledge. The results of analysis must necessarily involve a good deal of `imaging’.
: