[coberst]

What they never taught us

“Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.” Voltaire (1694-1778)

We learned in school and college that the teacher furnishes the question and the answer that will fit the question. If we want to continue to learn after our schooling is over what must we do?

Bootstrap is defined as: designed to function independently of outside direction—capable of using one internal function or process to control another.

For a 12 to 18 years period from the age of 6 to our mid twenties we have lived constantly in an educational system wherein we seldom if ever learned to function intellectually independent of outside direction.

How is it possible for such an individual to develop the internal processes (bootstrap) that allow him or her to become an independent, critically self-conscious, thinker?

When schooling is over the citizen who wishes to reach beyond naive common sense reality must develop the ability to generate questions. Questions result from a critical self-conscious intellect and depend upon the priorities of that intellect. Formal education has always furnished the learner with a question for consideration. The question asked determines the knowledge achieved and the understanding created.

The self-actuated learner must develop the ability to create questions. We have never before given any thought to questions; but now, if we wish to take a journey of discover, we must learn the most important aspect of any educational process. We must create questions that will guide our travels. After our school daze are over we can no longer depend upon education by coercion to guide us; we have the opportunity to develop self-actualizing self-learning driven by the ‘ecstasy of understanding’.

[coberst]

I am talking about learning how to approach the world with a critical attitude.

Most people seem to confuse critical with being negative. When I apprach the world with a critical attitude I am engaging the world minute by minute. I am conscious of what I hear, read, and see. Being critical means to be conscious of, to analyze, and to examine for possible improvement. This sounds like a lot of stuff to be filling our mind constantly but it can become just standard operating procedure once we make it a habit.

Notice the difference with how a cat moves through the forest and how a turtle moves through the forest. To be a critical thinker is to be cat like. Nothing within the range of the senses goes without consideration.

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by coberst

We learned in school and college that the teacher furnishes the question and the answer that will fit the question.

Knowledge falls into two categories: explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is hard, factual knowledge. It easily codified and so readily accessible. It absolute and objective. In contrast tacit knowledge is personal and subjective, it is based upon culture & experience. It is difficult to capture and to commonunicate.
Skills, including the skill to acquire further knowledge, tends to fall into the tacit knowledge category.
Much of the knowledge we acquire in school is explicit knowledge and it is therfore appropriate that, as you say, the teacher furnishes the question and the answer that will fit the question. This is an effective way of transferring explicit knowledge.
A good teacher will also find ways of teaching their students how to acquire tacit knowledge. This will include teaching them how to ask questions. Consequently, I quite disagree with your assertion that "from the age of 6 to our mid twenties we have lived constantly in an educational system wherein we seldom if ever learned to function intellectually independent of outside direction."
My experience is that we were constantly being challenged to think independently, to be critical, to question what we were told. Of course we were also expeceted to learn the explicit knowledge 'parrot fashion', but that is appropriate for explicit knowledge.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Eclogite

A good teacher will also find ways of teaching their students how to acquire tacit knowledge. This will include teaching them how to ask questions.

Therein lay the rub. How many good teachers are there and how many school systems provide the structure that allows a good teacher to be a good teacher?

In the US our educational system that teaches our teachers are perhaps the begining of the chain of error. But we must also include parents who themselves were never taught these things and thus do not appreciate the problem.

[Eclogite]

I know little of the US educational system. My own experience in the UK was certainly different, in a positive way, from what you describe. Some years as a school governer and a daughter training as a primary school teacher, lead me to believe things have, if anything, got better.

Perhaps I am a naive optimist, but I don't think so.

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by coberst

Therein lay the rub. How many good teachers are there and how many school systems provide the structure that allows a good teacher to be a good teacher?

In the US our educational system that teaches our teachers are perhaps the begining of the chain of error. But we must also include parents who themselves were never taught these things and thus do not appreciate the problem.

HI Coberst, like you, I left school over forty years ago. Unlike you, I don't profess to know how children are taught today. As an outsider, I can form an opinion, and, in the UK, teaching seemed to go "off the rails" and too much emphasis was put on allowing children to express their creativity, and not enough on learning to count or spell. Thankfully, that trend seems to have reversed. But I get no impression that it has reverted to the rigid rote-learning regime that you seem to have experienced.

So on what basis do you suggest that modern teaching is overly rote-learning based?

Regards,


Terry

[coberst]

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

So on what basis do you suggest that modern teaching is overly rote-learning based?

Regards,


Terry

Observation and judgment based upon being father of 5 and grandfather of 7 plus 4 years of posting on these Internet forums. Posting on the Internet has been especially an eye opener.

I must also include reading papers and magazines and books. I am now reading "The Closing of the American Mind" by Allan Bloom. Just a few days ago Niame Wolf wrote an article for the op-ed page of the Washington Post complaining about the lack of eduction in civics and history in the upcoming generation.

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by coberst

Observation and judgment based upon being father of 5 and grandfather of 7 plus 4 years of posting on these Internet forums. Posting on the Internet has been especially an eye opener.

I must also include reading papers and magazines and books. I am now reading "The Closing of the American Mind" by Allan Bloom. Just a few days ago Niame Wolf wrote an article for the op-ed page of the Washington Post complaining about the lack of eduction in civics and history in the upcoming generation.

Which begs the question: Have you questioned the reports you quote? What evidence do they have to support their view? Do they "have an axe to grind"? What is their background? What have civics and history been replaced by in the curriculum? Is it more or less "rote learning"?

There's always another side to an argument. What is it? What evidence do the proponents of that argument have to support their view?

There are people who make a living out of "knocking the status quo", in whatever field they chose. Just because something is in print, that doesn't make it authoritative, or true.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

Which begs the question: Have you questioned the reports you quote? What evidence do they have to support their view? Do they "have an axe to grind"? What is their background? What have civics and history been replaced by in the curriculum? Is it more or less "rote learning"?

There's always another side to an argument. What is it? What evidence do the proponents of that argument have to support their view?

There are people who make a living out of "knocking the status quo", in whatever field they chose. Just because something is in print, that doesn't make it authoritative, or true.

You make a very good point. I shall have to drop Wolf an email.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by coberst

I am talking about learning how to approach the world with a critical attitude.

I am critical, i.e. skeptical, of everything. I think I've learned this quite well myself, if it's actually learned. I have always questioned things as far back as I can remember so I suspect that maybe I was just born that way.