History of Uncovering the Act of Learning LO28731

From: Fred Nickols (nickols@safe-t.net)
Date: 06/22/02


Responding to At de Lange in LO28708 --

Replying to an earlier post of mine (LO28693), At posts a fairly lengthy
essay regarding the subject line above. I printed it out, made margin
notes and am responding here. My comments are embedded in At's post
below. I've snipped all of At's post but the portions to which I am
responding. That said, if you haven't read his post, I encourage you to
do so.

...snip...

>With this topic I do not mean what to learn, but how to learn. I also do
>not mean the act of teaching, but the act of learning. I also do not mean
>education, but the very act upon which all of education are founded. As I
>did research on the topic, I once again became deeply under the impression
>that the act of learning itself was usually either neglected or taken for
>granted. Much had been written through the centuries on education,
>teaching and knowledge, but far less on the act of learning itself.
>Furthermore, that which had been written on learning itself, concerned
>mostly the child and not also the adult. Learning is the activity most
>central to acting humane rather than like a beast.
>
>Like for education, the Learning Organisation (LO) is founded upon the
>very act of learning. Here the focus is not merely on individual learning,
>but also on collective learning in whatever kind of organi- ation.
>Collective learning cannot be done without individual learning and vice
>versa.

What is "collective learning"? Many people learning the same thing?
Many people learning different things from the same experience? The
learning of some kind of collective consciousness? Could you please say
what you mean by "collective learning"?

>Therefor I decided for the benefit of fellow learners to give an
>account of the how the act of learning was understood through the ages. I
>want you to share with me what compassionate minds had wrought out of
>their toils.

Following the paragraph immediately above, At provides a fascinating recap
of teaching and approaches to learning spanning many millennia. My
responses are confined to a few points that struck me as especially
important.

...snip...

>In the Far East a similar unawareness to the act of learning existed. In
>the sayings of Confucius and his followers (470BC-249BC) only one refers
>indirectly to learning:
>
>2.17 "The Master said, Yu, shall I teach you about knowing?
> To regard knowing it as knowing it; to regard not knowing
> it as not knowing it -- this is knowing."
>
>On other words the emphasis is learning the unknown rather than accepting
>information unquestioningly.

I got some other points out of the Master's statement. First, it is about
knowing, not directly about learning. Second, it is important to know
what we know and to know what we don't know. Third, the ability to
correctly classify is evidence of knowing. Fourth, knowing is evidence of
learning. This seems consistent with one rather commonplace view of
learning, namely, that to learn is to come to know. Learning is the
process; knowing is the outcome.

..snip a section on the Greeks..

>Among the Romans a similar situation existed. Much had been written on
>education, teaching and knowledge, but little on the act of learning. The
>first sketch on a theory for education can be found in the great treatise
>of Quintilian on oratory. But neither he nor Cicero afterwards wrote
>anything substantial on the act of learning itself. They concerned
>themselves much more with prescribing what had to be learned.

The prescription of what is to be learned -- that is, content or subject
matter -- has always been an important aim of educators and others. It
stems, I suspect, from a failure to distinguish between knowledge as
information (e.g., a rule, a principle, a formula, an algorithm, a
statement of relationship or some other captured, codified observation)
and knowledge as an internal state of a human being (especially, the
capacity for action). With this information-view of knowledge, the
educational problem reduces to popping open the students' skulls and
pouring in the information-knowledge at hand. (Whether this
information-knowledge enters via the eyes by way of reading or through the
ears by way of a lecture is immaterial to educators with this
orientation.) The shortcomings of relying completely on this approach to
educating people have occupied lots of people for a long time.

...snip...

>The first attempts to provide formal education for Christians, even those
>who could not afford it, were by Clement and Origen at Alexandria. They
>also concerned themselves with prescribing what had to be learned rather
>than how to learn it. The later Latin church fathers like Terullian,
>Cyprian and Jerome followed them suite. But it is here that learning
>driven by information existing outside the mind began to overtake learning
>driven by knowledge living inside the mind. They struggled in not letting
>paganism took hold of christianity. Both pagans and christians began to
>prescribe information so as to stay on course. Informing from the outside
>began to replace learning from the inside.

I really like the last sentence in the paragraph above; it captures the
essence of the problem: informing vs learning, with the former being
external and content-driven and the latter being internal and shaped by
experience.

...snip...

>European civilisation began to decline gradually to such an extent that it
>could not prevent the Dark Age coming over it. Voluminous prescriptions of
>what had to be learned was made by men like Capella, Cassiodorus and
>Cisio-Janus. The highest effort in the education of the Greeks, namely to
>excite curiosity and thus promote learning, was replaced by having to
>memorise what the Greeks had written upon such learning.

By "excite curiosity" I assume you are referring to stimulating a desire
to know.

...snip...

>Whereas Sturm aided Protestant education, among the Catholics
>some thinkers also began to question their system of education,
>notably Montaigne (1533-1592). He wrote that the faults of
>education in his days were:
> * over estimating the intellect and neglecting character
> * exaggerating memory and depreciating experiential knowledge
> * putting foreign tongues before the mother tongue
> * teachers forcing their whims on pupils rather than drawing out
> the learning power of pupils themselves
> * training ancient topics rather than attending to practical issues.
>He made several suggestions to improve education. Nevertheless, he
>wrote nothing on the act of learning itself.

Hmm. No wonder Montaigne has held up so well; he's still on the mark.

...snip...

>Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was born in Geneva and died in Paris. He
>wrote several books which made him famous, but also several enemies.
>However, none shocked the world of learning as much as his Emile (1762).
>He saw in the tears of a child a petition to heaven. He deemed the
>civilization around him as false and revolted against it. The
>heartlessness of the rich existing beside the misery of the poor made him
>deeply unhappy. His penetrating comments on the shams of government and
>window dressing of organised society at large were such that the book was
>banned in many cities like Geneva and Bern.

Hmm. I am resolved to read Emile.

...snip...

>The next figure was Pestalozzi (1746-1827), ...snip...
...snip...
>He believed that learning begins with observation which
>leads to consciousness as to what has been observed. This consciousness
>then leads to speech. Afterwards follow other creative acts like writing,
>drawing, measuring and solving problems.

I read that as follows:

observation > awareness > articulation > etc

I think there are two fundamental avenues to learning (of coming to know).
One is rather casual or incidental and it does indeed begin with
observation, etc. The other is more purposeful and deliberate; it begins
with the desire to know and that is rooted in reflection. It can be
argued, of course, that reflection is upon experience and that, too,
begins with observation but I'm driving at something more basic than the
point of origin of a process. I'm suggesting a different state of mind on
the part of the learner. It seems to me that a large part of deliberate,
intentional learning is essentially a quest for answers. Often the
questions are vague and ill-formed because we don't yet know enough to
formulate them in a crisp fashion. Sometimes, however, the questions to
be answered are razor-sharp and that is good because they are meant to
slice away at ignorance (at reducing the state of not knowing).

...snip...

>By now the historical course was set according to which education as a
>science would develop for the next hundred and fifty years. Inputs from
>Richter, Goethe, Carlyle, Jacotot, Froebel, Spencer, Bain, Barnard and
>Bavinck merely refined the paradigm shift began by Rousseau and
>Pestalozzi.

...snip...

>It is becomes clearer to me how people who have crammed lots of
>information in their heads by processes which they have been told are
>learning, but have little nowledge by way inner development, have little
>capacity to act.

Amen.

>I think that the battle for respecting the knowledge which lives within
>against the information which exists outside has begun.

I think it's been going on for quite a while.

...snip...

>I want to encourage each of you fellow learners to observe and contemplate
>the act of learning, in yourself and in others. Obviously, you will have
>to distinguish between authentic learning and rote (machine-like)
>learning. The best way to learn this distinction is to observe children
>closely, especially those too young to be used as information slaves or
>those made destitute by society. Once you are able to make this
>distinction, you can study the act of learning among people of all ages
>and colours. I have found myself the tenet "to learn is to create" crucial
>in probing difficult and complex issues. Perhaps it is now time for you to
>contemplate how learning is an outcome of creativity. Perhaps it is also
>now time to distinguish between learning and training, what role a teacher
>has to play in learning and what role learning has to play in teaching.

I'm a little reluctant to go down the "creativity" path because it so
often seems to me to lack structure and purpose and, as a result, lead
absolutely nowhere. On the other hand, if we are talking about
creatively, imaginatively finding ways of formulating questions and
finding answers in the course of "probing difficult and complex issues,"
then I agree wholeheartedly.

Thanks, At, for a stimulating, thoughtful post.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
Senior Consultant
"Assistance at A Distance"
The Distance Consulting Company
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@att.net
(740) 397-2363

-- 

Fred Nickols <nickols@safe-t.net>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>


"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.