Myths of Learning and Teaching – 1

An overview of Tamil language learning.
Image via Wikipedia

Thus begins a series of posts on themes related to myths and legends on education, elearning and similar beasts. It will be a series of posts because I like the idea of cutting down to pieces some thoughts I have been accumulating around the world of teaching and learning. Also, I have been inspired by the many bloggers who have posted series on many subjects. I enjoyed quite much the idea of Jim Groom‘s 100-days-to-XMas series of last year, for instance. So, here’s the first post of the series. Later I’ll find a name for it.

The Myths of Teaching and Learning -Or so I think.

Myth 1 – Teaching and Learning

The first myth comes from the dysfunctional idea we have built of teaching and learning, and mostly of learning. Let’s begin with Learning. We talk today of anytime learning, of mobile learning, of whatever learning. Of course, we do have mobile learning. And certainly we do learn at any moment of our lives. Or we’d be dead.

Still, I prefer to think of learning in just a dual way. Essentially, we learn either consciously (when we are aware of our own learning, and because we chose to learn something) or unconsciously (sorry for my unschooled psycho terminology, but I hope I can give the idea). Let’s make an example.

When we were babies, we learned language. Without any conscious effort (still, with a lot of effort!) but we did learn first to understand spoken utterances, then to replicate them, and then to formulate our own. That’s a lot of learning, all of which we were completely unaware of. Actually, we managed to learn all that stuff without a teacher! We had a professional mother or equivalent, but not a person who consciously tried to teach us the language. Of course sooner or later, mother or father came down with their ridiculous efforts to have us learn some specific thing or sentence or whatever… but that doesn’t count.

Second example: please bear with me, I’ll get to my point.

Later in life, perhaps as a teenager, you decided you liked Astronomy and you bought a wonderful book. You read it, and you started to learn about wonderful concepts. You connected some of these concepts to earlier known facts (for instance, the explosion of supernovae with the dinosaur age), and you began forming an idea of your appreciation of Astronomy. Perhaps you developed the wish of visiting an observatory. Thus, you learned something out of your reading pleasure. Again, no teacher involved. (Should I begin to worry?) But you learned because of a volition act: you made a conscious effort to read and know more on a subject. You didn’t equate at the time learning with knowing or understanding, and even if we may want to leave the philological discussion elsewhere, we must admit the three concepts are very much interconnected.

Still, when someone asked you about light-years, you could not explain what they are. So, you discovered a bug in your learning, or better, you realized you hadn’t learned something, or that you hadn’t understood it completely, which in my opinion is very close to learning, if not identical. [In fact, some people, of whom I remember Winograd, say that the breakdown moments are the essential moments that lead to analysis and ultimately learning.] You then went back yo your book and decided that this time you wanted expressly and affirmatively to know and learn what light-years were. This time then the full learning experience is happening within our sphere of awareness. We agree it’s learning, but some extra ingredient was needed, because reading by itself was not enough. Perhaps not even some elementary explanation from a teacher or parent was not enough. (Perhaps it was, but then you would easily think of another example). You had to go beyond reading. You had to study.

Same happened at school, where we were explicitly asked to study (as a prerequisite to learn). Unfortunately, the “study” word is not much used in the US mainstream education. Thus, students are not often asked to study explicitly, but they are sometimes convinced by lazy school systems that they will learn within the classroom (by virtue of some magic “delivery” process of knowledge chunks from their teachers onto their minds/brains).

This is the first myth: in our western/americanized culture we talk a lot of learning and teaching, but rarely of the conscious act of studying because one wants to learn something. Studying may mean reading thoroughly and deeply and forming networks of concepts interconnected with one another and with previously known ideas. It may involve discussing, dialoguing, practicing and all, but it always implies effort. Our schooling system, with its wish to talk about how easy and fun it is to learn, forgets this simple truth. With this, the education systems forgets that students need to be exposed (like Jim Groom philosophically expressed it just this very afternoon) to material they elsewhere would not be exposed to!

Learning can happen 24/7, everywhere, under any conditions. But most of the time, it means effort. We may say mobile studying, anytime studying, but please leave mobile learning to the realm of oxymora.

Learning, it’s known, won’t let itself be delivered. But that’s another myth.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted in education | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Basterds

Mélanie Laurent at a premiere for Inglourious ...
Image via Wikipedia

A few days ago I watched again Inglourious Basterds.

What a masterpiece of mashup cinema! Only Tarantino is so able of mixing pieces of film history and rearranging them to form a unique tale. That’s it: unique story telling. Through a compelling art and master craft Tarantino builds a very well told story, which is what cinema is almost all about. And he does so with bits and pieces of the films he likes.

So, I was again surprised and amazed at the beauty of the scene in which Shosanna (Mélanie Laurent) kills Frederick, her hopeless pursuer and lead actor of the nazi-propaganda film they are showing at her cinema theatre in Paris. Shosanna, the woman who once, when she was a girl, had escaped from the nazi killings at the beginning of the film, now shoots Frederick. Then there’s this climaxing scene with such rethorical but beautiful music. Like in a Western, a bit slow-motioned Shosanna reaches out -almost to repentantly take care of the man, who then shoots her back in a flashing surprise. No second thoughts are admitted in Tarantino’s cynical world. It’s like this, no objection taken. The rethorics of music superimposed on the rethorics of the war-hero movie being shown, superimposed on the rethorics of Shosanna’s feelings, noble but in a way so predictable, so built-in in the woman, she cannot do anything but fall. Still, she manages to win in the end.

It’s sublime Tarantino!

Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted in films | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Sclipo: the Social Learning Revolution

Another nice surprise from Barcelona: Sclipo: the Social Learning Revolution! Sclipo: Social Learning Revolution

Sclipo is a web application to teach, learn and share with your students and fellow teachers. This video tutorial shows you the following tools:

  • COURSES: Publish, manage and teach face2face and online courses!
  • LIVE TEACHING: Hold live online classes, webinars and meetings with 100 people or more!
  • LIBRARY: Share content in any format (videos, documents, audio & more)!
  • EVENTS:…
  • Let’s give it a try! BTW, Sclipo is @goSclipo on Twitter.

    Posted in education, tools | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

    Faulty new-age reasoning?

    I’m going to use a sentence from a person I admire and follow, whose work I am fond of. Thus I am not disclosing the name. Still there are too many new-age-like thoughts that need to be uncovered and an inference apparently sound becomes untrue. You may say I am lacking poetic sense. But this sentence was not taken from a poem: the issue here is that the author stated the sentence as a teaching moment. And that terrifies me. It’s a beautiful, suggestive sentence. We have heard or read it already.

    If the sky is infinite, it has no boundaries, it’s everywhere. You are one part of it: the sky is within you. [Thus] you are within everyone and everything.

    Let us assume for the moment that the assumption is true: the sky [the universe] is infinite. Has it got no boundaries? First false inference: the universe may be infinite but bound in one direction. For instance, it may have a west boundary, and still be infinite. The line starting at point zero and going forever to infinity has certainly the zero boundary. So an infinite sky [assuming the sly is infinite] may be bound. However, by definition, the universe **must** contain everything, so it must be true in some sense that it “is everywhere.” But not because it is boundless or infinite.

    If it is everywhere, then certainly you and I are part of it. Is the sky part of me? Well, in a poetic sense, yes. But it’s really myself who am within the universe. This little inference is wrong. If I am part of something, then it’s not true (though I’d love it to be!) that “that something” (even if it’s infinite”) is part of me!! Example: “I am part of the Internet” certainly doesn’t mean the Internet is within me! The “spirit” of the Internet is, but that’s BS! Ok, up to now, that’s a lot of BS in just one sentence!!!!

    Again, one may say that I lack poetic sense, and I love poetry! Or that I want to spli a hair in four and miss the poetic points of the sentence. Which brings me to asking: what is exactly the point of that sentence? Who does it help? Or is it uttering some syntactic sugar so to help us feel well for a second?

    Thus, for the sake of poetry, I am including a brief parenthesis with a nice little (nonsense) poem.

    `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

    All mimsy were the borogoves,

    And the mome raths outgrabe.

    “Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

    The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!

    Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun

    The frumious Bandersnatch!”

    Now this is poetry!

    Let’s go on. For all I said before, the conclusion is another great piece of BS. “I am within everything and everyone”. I will accept though that this conclusion may actually have some truth, notwithstanding the faulty inferences that yield it. It’s true in a sense that part of me (99% of my DNA for instance) is within everyone, but not really everything. Thus I am certainly connected to all other human (and to a lesser extent to all living beings), but not to rocks or diamonds! Come on, of course I am connected to rocks, you may say, since we both come out of the same big bang, or because Peter is the rock upon which I found my church, or whatever, but… that’s stretching it!

    Now, let’s go back to the first assumption, which we thought initially as true. But is it really true that the sky is infinite?

    Well, no, no way. At least, we don’t know. If I don’t know something, I must stay with known evidence, though it may be hard to accept. In fact, for our humble mind, it’s a lot easier to accept the universe is infinite (after all, the universe is greater that all of us, and it’s unthinkable…), that that it may be finite. As soon as we think the universe is finite, our mind jumps to ask: “Then, what is there **beyond** the universe?” Which is an unfair question to ask. Because Out Of The Universe There Ought To Be Nothing. That’s it. The universe is everything there is, by definition. Thus, there’s no “outside it” even if it’s finite, and even if I cannot understand it. It’s our mind who wants to believe it is infinite! It may be, but we think it is not, since we have absolutely no evidence.

    Now, I showed a faulty reasoning together with many false assumptions as they are commonly used in the media and by people. Only reason can defend us from such BS. This doesn’t mean of course we should only use reason. Sometimes, the heart without any reason is quite good! Still, beware of false science and worst, of fake reason!

    Enhanced by Zemanta
    Posted in abismos | Tagged , | Leave a comment

    delicious Packrati

    Packrati.us = Twitter + Delicious

    Packrati.us follows your Twitter feed, and whenever a status you tweet or re-tweet contains URLs, we add them to your delicious.com bookmarks.

    Posted in delicious, twitter | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment