Why some of the most important learning you do does not always involve 'new' information
Much of the study of education and psychology revolves around learning. How we obtain and encode, and then retrieve and implement information is vital to both fields. In my studies in both areas, one of the theories that had stuck out to me the most was Bandura's social learning theory which is essentially the idea of 'monkey see-monkey do'. People learn by observing and imitating others ie. my daughter cleans up her mess because she sees me clean up my mess. Classical conditioning is another example of a learning theory that illustrates that learning is associative and often automatic or subconscious ie. my daughter associates cleaning up her mess with getting a treat so she cleans up her mess. I'll mention one more learning theory and then we can move on from here I promise. Cognitivism is the idea that humans are more rational. That there is more to our behaviour than just copying others or being programmed by rewards. The idea is that our brains are more like computers; information goes in and gets processed which leads to some behavioural outcome ie. my daughter (who is 3 mind you) receives the request to clean her mess, processes it and rationally decides that it is in her best interest to clean said mess.
These theories all hold their place in describing *part* of the learning story. Where they fall short has to do with the fact that not all learning involves absorbing new information from an outside source. If you think of it, much of your learning and progress has involved drawing new connections between concepts you already know rather than acquiring a new concept altogether. This would be considered more of a constructivist theory of learning (according to how I understand it anyway. Nowhere have I read that this theory is constructivist but I have made the cognitive connection in my mind between the two and until someone corrects me that is how I will store it... meta). Here's another very meta example if you can follow. I have read about learning theories dozens of times over the last 8 years or so but in forcing myself to explain it in this very post I have strengthened the connections between these concepts, polishing my understanding. I haven't acquired any new data about learning rather I have deepened my understanding and increased the probability of being able to discuss these theories off the top of my head in the future. Let's try another simpler example. I remember learning how to calculate averages because of the stats on the back of my basketball cards as a kid. When that concept was brought up in Math at school I didn't get it at first, only because I knew it in a different context. When I was able to draw the connection that what my teacher was asking me to do was the same thing that I was doing on my own when I kept stats for our schoolyard ball games, I was made in the shade. I didn't have to "learn" how to calculate averages I just needed to "learn" that it's called "calculating an average".
So who cares? What does this matter?
I'm using the term 'learning' and using academic examples but learning goes far beyond the classroom. Learning is changing. Improving (hopefully). The right kind of learning leads to progress. Personally, communally, and universally as the human race, what and how we learn is essential to making the world a better place, which is at the top of my bucket list by the way.
Cognitive psychologist Dr. Tania Lombrozo stresses the value of what she calls 'learning by thinking' (as opposed to learning by observation). This idea that you can learn something new without 'new' input from the external world, can be achieved by using explanation for the purpose of learning. In others words, when you teach something, you retain the information better (see! you already knew that. Now you know what to call it.) When you explain things for the sole purpose of your own learning (like I'm doing right now) you benefit in two key ways as far as I see it. First, you will quickly become aware of the gaps in your knowledge and this is a very good thing. You can't know what you need to know until you know what you don't know. When you discover those gaps (ie. what was the theory called again? or what was that researcher's name who got me started on this post idea in the first place?) you begin your search to fill them. The second benefit of using explanation for learning, as previously mentioned, is that you will integrate the concept with prior knowledge. I can think of dozens of occasions where, being in front of a classroom as I teach a concept for the first time I am struck on the spot with real-life examples for said concept (Can you tell I had just been struggling with my 3 year old about cleaning up her mess before I started writing?). When you are explaining concepts to other people (what we in the business call "teaching") the pressure of others eyes and ears on you pushes your cognition to make connections with other pre-existing constructs.
So what is your homework? Teach. Read, reflect, and explain it to someone else. This can include some concept or theory that you read in a book but I think one of the richest applications of this practice is in the integration of morality and ethics. This is where it gets more controversial but I think it is a healthy practice to explain some kind of moral argument that is new to you so that you can see where your knowledge gaps are and further integrate the moral information you hold.
And then you say...
"but I don't want to explain information in case I get it wrong".
Nobody wants to look dumb. It is a very vulnerable act when you share newly acquired knowledge with other people. And let's face it, for some reason a lot of us love jumping all over ideas that sound wrong to us, so of course you wouldn't want to subject yourself to such ridicule.
If you're truly a truth seeker though, you will dive into these unchartered waters with abandon because being proven wrong is a wonderful thing! Sure it stings a bit but it's a bump that boosts you onto the shoulders of giants.
These theories all hold their place in describing *part* of the learning story. Where they fall short has to do with the fact that not all learning involves absorbing new information from an outside source. If you think of it, much of your learning and progress has involved drawing new connections between concepts you already know rather than acquiring a new concept altogether. This would be considered more of a constructivist theory of learning (according to how I understand it anyway. Nowhere have I read that this theory is constructivist but I have made the cognitive connection in my mind between the two and until someone corrects me that is how I will store it... meta). Here's another very meta example if you can follow. I have read about learning theories dozens of times over the last 8 years or so but in forcing myself to explain it in this very post I have strengthened the connections between these concepts, polishing my understanding. I haven't acquired any new data about learning rather I have deepened my understanding and increased the probability of being able to discuss these theories off the top of my head in the future. Let's try another simpler example. I remember learning how to calculate averages because of the stats on the back of my basketball cards as a kid. When that concept was brought up in Math at school I didn't get it at first, only because I knew it in a different context. When I was able to draw the connection that what my teacher was asking me to do was the same thing that I was doing on my own when I kept stats for our schoolyard ball games, I was made in the shade. I didn't have to "learn" how to calculate averages I just needed to "learn" that it's called "calculating an average".
So who cares? What does this matter?
I'm using the term 'learning' and using academic examples but learning goes far beyond the classroom. Learning is changing. Improving (hopefully). The right kind of learning leads to progress. Personally, communally, and universally as the human race, what and how we learn is essential to making the world a better place, which is at the top of my bucket list by the way.
Cognitive psychologist Dr. Tania Lombrozo stresses the value of what she calls 'learning by thinking' (as opposed to learning by observation). This idea that you can learn something new without 'new' input from the external world, can be achieved by using explanation for the purpose of learning. In others words, when you teach something, you retain the information better (see! you already knew that. Now you know what to call it.) When you explain things for the sole purpose of your own learning (like I'm doing right now) you benefit in two key ways as far as I see it. First, you will quickly become aware of the gaps in your knowledge and this is a very good thing. You can't know what you need to know until you know what you don't know. When you discover those gaps (ie. what was the theory called again? or what was that researcher's name who got me started on this post idea in the first place?) you begin your search to fill them. The second benefit of using explanation for learning, as previously mentioned, is that you will integrate the concept with prior knowledge. I can think of dozens of occasions where, being in front of a classroom as I teach a concept for the first time I am struck on the spot with real-life examples for said concept (Can you tell I had just been struggling with my 3 year old about cleaning up her mess before I started writing?). When you are explaining concepts to other people (what we in the business call "teaching") the pressure of others eyes and ears on you pushes your cognition to make connections with other pre-existing constructs.
So what is your homework? Teach. Read, reflect, and explain it to someone else. This can include some concept or theory that you read in a book but I think one of the richest applications of this practice is in the integration of morality and ethics. This is where it gets more controversial but I think it is a healthy practice to explain some kind of moral argument that is new to you so that you can see where your knowledge gaps are and further integrate the moral information you hold.
And then you say...
"but I don't want to explain information in case I get it wrong".
Nobody wants to look dumb. It is a very vulnerable act when you share newly acquired knowledge with other people. And let's face it, for some reason a lot of us love jumping all over ideas that sound wrong to us, so of course you wouldn't want to subject yourself to such ridicule.
If you're truly a truth seeker though, you will dive into these unchartered waters with abandon because being proven wrong is a wonderful thing! Sure it stings a bit but it's a bump that boosts you onto the shoulders of giants.
Here is a quick tip on how to explain things so that if you are wrong you can maximize your learning. Think of Occam's Razor which is the idea that simpler explanations are better than complex ones. You might ask, but isn't this the problem with today's news and social media? Over simplification? Yes, but when you're explaining a concept to others your ability to simplify it will help you synthesis and integrate the information more effectively and in the case that you are wrong or at least 'off', your explanation will be more easily falsified. This is important because you will find the gaps in your knowledge. You will be able to go back to the drawing board and find out why it was that you got completely owned in that debate. Is the idea completely bunk or is your understanding of it not yet complete? Simplify the argument and test it out with other smart people. If it gets shot down. Great! You're on your way to genuine learning! Congratulations.
Comments
Post a Comment