Doing and knowing

This is a follow up to my recent Knowing and Doing blog post. Those who read it will recall that I discussed the tensions between traditional and progressive teaching philosophies. Traditionalists put great stress on the need to memorise facts so that they can apply them later in authentic contexts. Progressives on the other hand, place more emphasis on the need to learn skills, that are transferable in the real world. This is an oversimplification of the two positions, but hopefully the distinction is clear.

For the traditionalists, tools such as Google and other digital media are not to be completely trusted or relied upon, and some even consider them a distraction from the real business of learning, or question the veracity of their content. Tara Brabazon, for example, has written entire volumes (see for example Digital Hemlock, or the University of Google) on what she perceives as the dangers of digital technology and its role in 'dumbing down' learning; toxic educational practices; and that the ease of use of Google for example, causes superficial learning. Nicholas Carr, in his thought provoking book The Shallows, offers much the same critique.

The progressives see the use of technology as an inextricable part of modern education, regarding the use of search, aggregation, curation and creation tools as an essential component in the preparation of young people in a world of work that is dominated by technology. They pay less attention to memorisation (although this is an inevitable and essential byproduct of everyday learning) and eschew drill and practice in favour of more collaborative and student centred approaches to learning. John Moravec's book Knowmad Society outlines some of the key factors of learning in a technology dominated workplace, including an emphasis on learning through social connections rather than simply through direct exposure to knowledge.

Today, I was doing some personal research related to a book I have been reading. I wanted to find the island of Saipan, and all I knew was that it is located somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. I have a map of the world on my wall. It is quite a detailed map, supplied by National Geographic Magazine. I searched for some time but without success (the typeface was too small), before resorting to Google Maps. I found Saipan in seconds, releasing me to do other research on the island, using the links Google supplied.

Thanks to Wikipedia, I now know that Saipan is an island in the Marianas, south of Japan, and that it is a part of the Commonwealth of the US, with a population of close to 50,000 people. It takes only a few seconds to cross reference these facts with another website. This is information that the map on my office wall could not provide me, and information that I probably won't remember for long. Perhaps I won't need to remember it, because political allegiances and populations fluctuate. Some facts go out of date quickly.

My point is this: We all need a certain amount of facts inside our heads. But ultimately, when the chips are down, and time is of the essence, sometimes, gaps in our knowledge (possibly due to never having learnt those facts in the first place, or failure of memory) necessitate resorting to the use of technology. Wouldn't it be tragic if we were raising an entire generation of young people who knew how to find facts, but didn't have the skills to negotiate meaning, discern good from bad content, or practice safely online, because schools were focusing more on the teaching of facts.

Skills and knowledge go hand in hand. We need an equal balance of the two in our school curricula if we want to prepare young people to fully participate in the digital society.

References
Brabazon, T. (2002) Digital Hemlock: Internet Education and the Poisoning of Teaching. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
Brabazon, T. (2007) The University of Google: Education in a (Post) Information Age. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Carr, N. (2010) The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains. London: W W Norton.
Moravec, J. (Ed: 2013) Knowmad Society. Charleston, SC: Education Futures.

Photo by Steve Wheeler


Doing and knowing by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Knowing and doing

Right now there is plenty of debate about the way schools are conducting education. Delivery of the curriculum - and specifically the knowledge versus skills debate - is constantly at the centre of this discourse.

The argument is not about whether facts or skills are more important. Children need to learn a certain amount of facts and they also need to develop their skills. The real battle is actually an ideological dialectic on how learning is changing in the digital age.

The traditionalists are represented by Daisy Christodoulou who believes that committing facts to memory through instruction is the best approach for education. She says: "we can't just rely on the Internet to look things up" and argues that too much information overloads working memory. She gives the example of learning the times table, which she argues will allow children to perform better in mathematical calculation than if they rely solely on technology. She believes that teaching facts is the best way to establish this kind of skill.

The progressive side including Howard Rheingold, disagree. Rheingold argues that direct teaching is not the best way, but that in his experience, students learn better when they inquire among themselves (he calls this peeragogy) while they independently search for meaning. His peeragogy approach demands that he steps away from his students, and embraces social media as a route to learning, because this is where they tend to spend much of their time.

Who is right? Is it more important to be taught facts, and to memorise them; or is self directed peer learning, and reliance on technology the best way forward? Actually, both positions hold some merit, but both only tell a part of the story. We need knowledge and we also need skills to progress. However, ignoring technology is not the answer. Ignoring memory, and relying solely on technology is also a mistake. Working the two in powerful combination - that is using technology as a mind tool to extend cognitive abilities - is a better approach. It is an emerging phenomenon that few understand, and is easily dismissed. Today's society is increasingly engaged with learning through as well as with technology. Keeping up to date through this medium will become a part of the new social capital we will all value in the future.

The problem lies in relying on one or the other while ignoring the most important aspect of education - how children actually learn and how they become engaged in that learning. No amount of good instruction will be enough if students are disengaged with learning. By the same token, facilitating an environment where students are able to acquire new skills is worthless if they don't know how to apply them in the real world.

Several factors are important, including the relationship and interaction that exists between student and teacher, the relevance and meaningfulness of the content the student is learning, and the pedagogical skills and knowledge of the teacher. These are represented in the Venn diagram. The plain truth is this: facts remain facts unless they are transformed by learners into knowledge that they can actually use.

For me, the final word on this topic comes from Richard Gerver, and can be found in his excellent book Creating Tomorrow's Schools Today. He says:

'Information can only be power if you have the skills to use it to develop your journey and turn facts into knowledge. Knowledge is only powerful if it is important to you and your context.'

Photo and graphics by Steve Wheeler
Venn diagram adapted from original (source unknown)


Knowing and doing by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.