Before I move on I'd like to expand on my last post and talk a bit more about how and why we learn things. One thing that has always struck me as odd about the way we teach people is the way we force them to learn answers to questions that they haven't even had the chance to ask. We just drop information on people completely out of context. For example, a child will turn up for a science lesson and get told about photosynthesis before they've even had a chance to wonder themselves about how plants work and grow. It's daft to just dump knowledge on people and expect them to take it in without giving them a chance to develop an appetite for that knowledge in the first place - they haven't had a chance to ask the question, so why would they want or need the answer.
The stupidity of this way of getting people to learn things might be better illustrated by looking at how people find answers to questions naturally in real life. Whether it's a scientist trying to find the answers to life's mysteries or simply someone trying to find out something as mundane as where the train station is, learning generally begins with a question. How big is the universe? How does the human body work? How do I send an email? etc, etc. You begin with a desire to do something or find out something and you go on a journey towards the answer.
For example, if you need to find out where the train station is you ask yourself "where's the train station?" If you don't already know you then think how can I find out. Then you do something that might help you find the answer, you might wander around town looking for it, you may ask people in the hope that they can tell you, you might go and get a map. All this is pretty simple and obvious, but it illustrates that learning begins with a desire or a reason to do something. And that there's a journey from the question to the answer.
So, someone who wants to find out where the train station is probably needs to catch a train - either that or they have a genuine interest in train stations. Likewise someone who wants to find out where the Andromeda galaxy is probably already has a genuine interest in space. You wouldn't just randomly tell someone where the train station is if they have no interest or need to know it. So why just randomly tell children about the Andromeda galaxy, or photosynthesis, if they don't have any prior curiosity about it.
Learning should begin with questions and curiosity - and each person has their own unique questions and interests. We shouldn't be forcing people to take on board information they have no desire to learn. We should just let them wander where they feel they need to go.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Abolish Education: Why Am I Learning French Miss?
I guess I should start by asking, in my own bashful way, how and why we learn things. I've thought about this quite a lot and come to the conclusion that we generally learn things for either one of two reasons. The first reason is everyday necessity - basically things we need to learn to conduct our everyday lives. Things like learning to tie our shoes laces, or learning to use the TV remote. We generally learn these things regardless of schooling. The second reason is interest (or if you prefer passion or curiosity). For example, someone who's passionate about football will learn a lot about football - essentially they learn about it because they enjoy taking an interest in it. Anyhow, I've come to the conclusion that anything that doesn't fall into at least one of these two categories people will have trouble learning.
So, for example, you can teach children about the wives of Henry the Eighth until you're blue in the face, but they're probably never going to learn it - as they have no everyday use for it and in all probability no genuine interest in it. The only way they'll maybe learn that stuff is by rote and repetition. Which is a pretty awful way to learn anything really. Certainly not enjoyable. This is why a child will be able to tell you the entire Manchester United first eleven, but not be able to recall a single one of Henry's wives, even though you only taught them it the day before. They're interested in football, but not interested in Tudor monarchs. Sorry.
Anyway, this realisation has led me to the opinion that it's a complete waste of time trying to teach people things they have no interest in or no direct use for. It just doesn't work. In fact, the way children refuse to pick this stuff up is probably a sign that their minds are healthy and in good working order. A healthy mind remembers useful and meaningful stuff and forgets everything else. And of course, what's meaningful and useful to one person isn't necessarily meaningful or useful to another. What use is a mind that remembers every individual blade of grass it's ever seen, or the colour of the front door of every house it's ever walked past, or every meaningless bit of dialogue it's ever heard on TV? A mind shouldn't be clogged and cluttered with useless and meaningless information. It should concern itself with the practicalities of everyday life and things that its owner finds genuinely interesting, meaningful and entertaining.
Therefore it's wrong to try to force people to learn things they have no interest in. It doesn't work and it's a waste of time. We should just let children learn whatever they want. Let them follow their own interests and curiosities. It's pretty striking really that children are much more aware of the pointlessness of our current education system than adults are. It's like French lessons. Children will often ask "why am I learning French when I don't live in France, Miss?" They usually get censured for asking questions like this, but it's a perfectly logical question to ask. What is the point in learning French if you have no interest in it and you don't know any French people? Why spend countless hours of your life learning something if you get no joy out of it and have no need to know it? I really wish adults would ask pragmatic questions like this as readily as children do.
Even if French lessons actually worked and everybody left school fluent in French what would be the point in this? Why have a country full of people who can speak French? What's the purpose? Why not Russian or Japanese or whatever other language? Either way most people, despite five years of secondary education learning French, can't speak it anyway.
In fact, this last observation generally sums up the entire point of this post. If you look at what knowledge the average person leaves school with it just goes to show that people only learn if there's a genuine passion or a genuine purpose. The average person (and I appreciate there are always people at the extremes that do very well or very poorly) generally leaves education with the ability to read and write - generally to a level that they need/use in everyday life. And they generally leave with basic maths - again, generally to the extent that they need it in everyday life - the ability to count and use money is needed in everyday life - unsurprisingly most people can do this. The ability to use calculus or quadratic equations generally isn't - unsurprisingly most people can't do this.
And that's about it. Basic maths, basic English and a few trinkets and baubles from other lessons. Basically the stuff they actually need in everyday life plus a few other bits and pieces that occasionally aroused their interest - they may vaguely remember, for example, that Henry the Eighth was a cruel dude with six wives or that Victorian Britain was generally a bit grim. In fact, French is a good example of this type of thing actually (sorry to keep picking on French). If you ask the average adult what they remember from French lessons they'll be able to count up to ten or twenty in French, say please, thank you, hello and goodbye, and maybe say one or two other words or phrases. Essentially the stuff they learnt in the first few weeks of doing French before the novelty of speaking in a foreign language wore off.
Anyway, my opinion is that teaching people things they're not interested in is a waste of time. And that therefore the majority of schooling is a waste of time. In fact, it's more than a waste of time. It's actually, in my opinion, doing more damage than good.
So, for example, you can teach children about the wives of Henry the Eighth until you're blue in the face, but they're probably never going to learn it - as they have no everyday use for it and in all probability no genuine interest in it. The only way they'll maybe learn that stuff is by rote and repetition. Which is a pretty awful way to learn anything really. Certainly not enjoyable. This is why a child will be able to tell you the entire Manchester United first eleven, but not be able to recall a single one of Henry's wives, even though you only taught them it the day before. They're interested in football, but not interested in Tudor monarchs. Sorry.
Anyway, this realisation has led me to the opinion that it's a complete waste of time trying to teach people things they have no interest in or no direct use for. It just doesn't work. In fact, the way children refuse to pick this stuff up is probably a sign that their minds are healthy and in good working order. A healthy mind remembers useful and meaningful stuff and forgets everything else. And of course, what's meaningful and useful to one person isn't necessarily meaningful or useful to another. What use is a mind that remembers every individual blade of grass it's ever seen, or the colour of the front door of every house it's ever walked past, or every meaningless bit of dialogue it's ever heard on TV? A mind shouldn't be clogged and cluttered with useless and meaningless information. It should concern itself with the practicalities of everyday life and things that its owner finds genuinely interesting, meaningful and entertaining.
Therefore it's wrong to try to force people to learn things they have no interest in. It doesn't work and it's a waste of time. We should just let children learn whatever they want. Let them follow their own interests and curiosities. It's pretty striking really that children are much more aware of the pointlessness of our current education system than adults are. It's like French lessons. Children will often ask "why am I learning French when I don't live in France, Miss?" They usually get censured for asking questions like this, but it's a perfectly logical question to ask. What is the point in learning French if you have no interest in it and you don't know any French people? Why spend countless hours of your life learning something if you get no joy out of it and have no need to know it? I really wish adults would ask pragmatic questions like this as readily as children do.
Even if French lessons actually worked and everybody left school fluent in French what would be the point in this? Why have a country full of people who can speak French? What's the purpose? Why not Russian or Japanese or whatever other language? Either way most people, despite five years of secondary education learning French, can't speak it anyway.
In fact, this last observation generally sums up the entire point of this post. If you look at what knowledge the average person leaves school with it just goes to show that people only learn if there's a genuine passion or a genuine purpose. The average person (and I appreciate there are always people at the extremes that do very well or very poorly) generally leaves education with the ability to read and write - generally to a level that they need/use in everyday life. And they generally leave with basic maths - again, generally to the extent that they need it in everyday life - the ability to count and use money is needed in everyday life - unsurprisingly most people can do this. The ability to use calculus or quadratic equations generally isn't - unsurprisingly most people can't do this.
And that's about it. Basic maths, basic English and a few trinkets and baubles from other lessons. Basically the stuff they actually need in everyday life plus a few other bits and pieces that occasionally aroused their interest - they may vaguely remember, for example, that Henry the Eighth was a cruel dude with six wives or that Victorian Britain was generally a bit grim. In fact, French is a good example of this type of thing actually (sorry to keep picking on French). If you ask the average adult what they remember from French lessons they'll be able to count up to ten or twenty in French, say please, thank you, hello and goodbye, and maybe say one or two other words or phrases. Essentially the stuff they learnt in the first few weeks of doing French before the novelty of speaking in a foreign language wore off.
Anyway, my opinion is that teaching people things they're not interested in is a waste of time. And that therefore the majority of schooling is a waste of time. In fact, it's more than a waste of time. It's actually, in my opinion, doing more damage than good.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Abolish Education: Introduction
This is going to be the first post of a series of posts about education, or rather about why I feel all formal education should be abolished. Quite a grand vision I guess. I suppose I want to be the Thomas Cromwell of modern learning or something. Basically I feel that schools aren't working, aren't making children happy and aren't having a good affect on society generally. This is something I've wanted to write about for a while, but I've never been quite sure what form it should take - book/essay/blog? Or what style I should write it in, so I've kept kicking it into the long grass. Now I just feel it's time to just get it out there in writing. I'm not one hundred percent sure where I'm going with all this so there'll probably be a lot of re-editing, which I don't like doing on a public blog, but it's better than doing nothing. Anyway, here goes - wreck the classroom!
Abolish Education: Why Am I Learning French Miss?
Abolish Education: Photosynthesis
Abolish Education: The Misery Factory
Abolish Education: School Uniforms and Other Forms of Institutional Bullying
Abolish Education: Abolish Homework
Abolish Education: Knowledge and Cultural Snobbery
Abolish Education: Why Am I Learning French Miss?
Abolish Education: Photosynthesis
Abolish Education: The Misery Factory
Abolish Education: School Uniforms and Other Forms of Institutional Bullying
Abolish Education: Abolish Homework
Abolish Education: Knowledge and Cultural Snobbery
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Doors and Dreams
Over the last year or so I've noticed that when I sleep I tend to have more dreams (or at least remember more dreams) when I leave the bedroom door open. I'm saying door, my bedroom's in the attic, so it's more the door/lid above the stairs than a door in the traditional sense, either way it seemed worth making note of.
I've read that in Feng Shui windows and doorways are seen as portals or gateways for energy and that this in turn affects sleep and dreams. I'm not really sure I can buy into that but it's interesting non the less. The relationship between leaving the door open and remembering my dreams seems fairly well established to me from a personal point of view, as I've observed the correlation far too often for it to be mere chance (although Bayes' Theorem may have something to say about that). It's certainly happened often enough to arouse my interest anyway.
When it comes to dreams and nightmares, of course, there's always the tendency to look for supernatural explanations. However, the real explanation may be something much more prosaic. Maybe leaving the door open is creating a draught that's affecting my sleep, maybe it's simply the fact that leaving the door open is allowing more noise to enter my room. Then again, maybe it's the amount of light getting in the room that's affecting my sleep and dreams. Who knows? I guess I'll just have to watch and see if the correlation continues.
I've read that in Feng Shui windows and doorways are seen as portals or gateways for energy and that this in turn affects sleep and dreams. I'm not really sure I can buy into that but it's interesting non the less. The relationship between leaving the door open and remembering my dreams seems fairly well established to me from a personal point of view, as I've observed the correlation far too often for it to be mere chance (although Bayes' Theorem may have something to say about that). It's certainly happened often enough to arouse my interest anyway.
When it comes to dreams and nightmares, of course, there's always the tendency to look for supernatural explanations. However, the real explanation may be something much more prosaic. Maybe leaving the door open is creating a draught that's affecting my sleep, maybe it's simply the fact that leaving the door open is allowing more noise to enter my room. Then again, maybe it's the amount of light getting in the room that's affecting my sleep and dreams. Who knows? I guess I'll just have to watch and see if the correlation continues.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Swifts, Swallows (?) Flying Back and Forth
Just arrived home after a longish walk. Was cutting across a field when I noticed a low-flying, swooping bird that kept flying back and forth in front of me - always about 5 metres in front. I think it was a swift or maybe a swallow - I'm not too au fait with birds. Either way it had pointy features and kept swooping close to the ground. This is about the third or forth time I've experienced this sort of behaviour with these birds and I thought it was something worth making note of. It definitely seemed to be deliberately flying in relation to me, almost circling me at times. Why I don't know. A brief internet search turned up nothing. I live in North Yorkshire by the way if that helps with the birds identification.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Recently Read: The Celestine Prophecy
Just read The Celestine Prophecy by James Redfield. I would describe it as a new age Da Vinci Code, although it was released in the 1990's before that book was published. It was an international bestseller so it must have been pretty successful at the time although I wasn't aware of it until I came across it by accident in Waterstones. The book is kind of a spiritual quest and it takes the reader on a journey through the 'nine insights' - insights revealed via a newly discovered ancient manuscript that concern the spiritual evolution of humankind. These insights deal with how humans relate to the universe, the earth and each other. One of the more interesting insights was the idea that coincidence plays a pivotal role in a person's life and that coincidences are not just random events but meaningful happenings with deliberate purpose (strange that I was reading it at a time when coincidence was (is) playing an interesting game in my own life). Anyway, it was a really good, thought-provoking book. A little bit wishy-washy and new-agey at times, but overall I'm really glad to have read it. Definitely a lot of food for thought. Recommended.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Shaving The Hair - A Dying Ritual
Over the last four or five years I've gotten into the habit of letting my hair grow long, then shaving it all off, then letting it grow long again. Normally I let my hair grow for about eight to twelve months before shaving it off. At that point it's generally fairly long - think Beatles Revolver era. Part of the reason I shave my hair is because I like having long hair but generally get fed up with it after a while. Another reason is that I'm simply too lazy to make the effort to go to the hairdressers. I also for some reason feel it's healthy to shave the hair off once in a while, don't ask me why.
Anyhow, the reason I mention this is because last night I watched the BBC Four documentary 'Roundhead or Cavalier: Which One Are You?' The basic premise of the show was that Britain is divided by two conflicting personality types, the puritanical Roundheads and the fancy-free Cavaliers. The Cavaliers were defined by "panache, pleasure and individuality", the Roundheads by "modesty, discipline, equality, and state intervention." The show also provided modern examples of these two personality types. For example, Boris Johnson was held up as a classic example of the modern Cavalier, whereas Ken Livingstone was judged to be more of a dowdy Roundhead. However, for all the political and social commentary in the documentary the general thrust of the argument seemed to revolve more around the length of a person's hair and style of their clothes than anything else. Laurence Llewelyn Bowen appeared on the show as a spokesperson for the Cavaliers - need I say more.
Anyway, this got me thinking about the relationship between hair length and personality, as from my own experience I do feel like a completely different person after I've shaved my hair off. I also look completely different too. Maybe it's simply a confidence thing or just a social attitude I've been brought up to have about long hair. It might also be that other people react differently to me depending on my hair length - that may in turn effect my general outlook. Whatever the reason I find it quite fascinating.
Whenever I shave my own hair I think of the story of Achilles shaving his head after the death of Patroclus in Homer's Iliad. For some reason shaving the head does feel like a ritual. I also think of the seasons and harvests, and the scything of the corn. It grows, it gets cut down, it grows again. It seems like a natural cycle. I'm sure there must be other examples of ritualistic hair shaving from history. It may be something worth keeping an eye on.
In any case, the 'Roundhead or Cavalier' documentary was excellent, in spite of my nitpicking, and I thoroughly recommend it. I also recommend the periodic shaving of ones head. Why choose either long hair or short hair when you can have both. A seasonal shift from long hair to short hair and back again. If there is a relationship between hair length and personality it may be the perfect way to freshen up the mind.
Anyhow, the reason I mention this is because last night I watched the BBC Four documentary 'Roundhead or Cavalier: Which One Are You?' The basic premise of the show was that Britain is divided by two conflicting personality types, the puritanical Roundheads and the fancy-free Cavaliers. The Cavaliers were defined by "panache, pleasure and individuality", the Roundheads by "modesty, discipline, equality, and state intervention." The show also provided modern examples of these two personality types. For example, Boris Johnson was held up as a classic example of the modern Cavalier, whereas Ken Livingstone was judged to be more of a dowdy Roundhead. However, for all the political and social commentary in the documentary the general thrust of the argument seemed to revolve more around the length of a person's hair and style of their clothes than anything else. Laurence Llewelyn Bowen appeared on the show as a spokesperson for the Cavaliers - need I say more.
Anyway, this got me thinking about the relationship between hair length and personality, as from my own experience I do feel like a completely different person after I've shaved my hair off. I also look completely different too. Maybe it's simply a confidence thing or just a social attitude I've been brought up to have about long hair. It might also be that other people react differently to me depending on my hair length - that may in turn effect my general outlook. Whatever the reason I find it quite fascinating.
Whenever I shave my own hair I think of the story of Achilles shaving his head after the death of Patroclus in Homer's Iliad. For some reason shaving the head does feel like a ritual. I also think of the seasons and harvests, and the scything of the corn. It grows, it gets cut down, it grows again. It seems like a natural cycle. I'm sure there must be other examples of ritualistic hair shaving from history. It may be something worth keeping an eye on.
In any case, the 'Roundhead or Cavalier' documentary was excellent, in spite of my nitpicking, and I thoroughly recommend it. I also recommend the periodic shaving of ones head. Why choose either long hair or short hair when you can have both. A seasonal shift from long hair to short hair and back again. If there is a relationship between hair length and personality it may be the perfect way to freshen up the mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)