What does it mean to learn? Include thoughts and definitions regarding knowing and understanding? (Final conversation due Feb 20th)
We learn to know, and in knowing, hopefully come to understand. But what does that sequence really suggest? What do these concepts of learning, knowing, and understanding really mean? Perhaps knowing is having possession of the facts, but understanding is the grasp of the meaning behind those facts (Wiggins & McTighe, 2006, p. 38). Simply stated, I know that 2+2 equals four, but I understand that if I add one more I get 5. Or I know that being approximately 93 million miles from the sun it takes light approximately 8 minutes to reach earth. From that I can extrapolate, given I know the distances from the sun of other planets, the length of time needed for light to travel to them from our central star.
The authors propose “An understanding is a mental construct, an abstraction made by the human mind to make sense of many distinct pieces of knowledge” (p. 37). Any creature with a brain can learn and know. Pavlov showed us that a dog can come to associate particular stimuli with the introduction of food. Mice learn that a stimulus can presage the introduction of a pain stimulus and will act accordingly even though that second stimulus never comes. But these actions, in and of themselves, do not constitute an understanding. These animals have learned and know what to expect, but in possessing such knowledge, are they able to apply what they know to other situations? This, I believe, is the foundation of understanding – being able to take a piece of knowledge and use it to solve a different but related problem. Perhaps, understanding then is a recognition of patterns in things; having one piece of knowledge we can then see how that knowledge relates and can be used in other instances.
In going back to Pavlov's dogs "learning" to respond to stimuli you bring out an interesting issue - how complex is learning? Perhaps understanding in the complex process, and learning is quite simple? Or perhaps responding to stimuli isn't learning? it is response? When you start to tease apart these differences you start to wonder what is it I want to achieve in teaching? I think teachers would say understanding but then the question is as Wiggins and McTighe ask are we designing for that? and are we assessing that? Loaded question. Hmmm......
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that knowing and understanding is a learned behavior? Thom suggested something similar to your idea about taking baby steps in the learning process. This reminds me of that old saying "to know you is to love you". We can know someone in the general sense as a friend. However, understanding that person involves inquiry and knowledge. What is their favorite color? What are their thoughts about the world around them? What are their philosophies of life? It is only through inquiries and knowledge of that person over time that we begin to understand what they are about.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think it is a learned behavior. This would and should never happen, but in line with Thom's post, let's suppose you take an infant and lock it away in a dark room without any stimuli save that which keeps it alive. What would it know, what would it understand? What would it actually learn? I know it is a grisly and inhumane scenario to imagine, but I think considering it could suggest that the path from learning to understanding is not a passive one. These are learned traits.
ReplyDeleteI think you make a great point that applying knowledge to new circumstances demonstrates the transition from knowing to understanding.
ReplyDeleteBut you know, I'm not sure I agree that knowing and understanding are learned behaviors. I think that we innately have a desire to make sense of the world around us, and explore it creatively in all sorts of ways. In an extraordinary case, like the infant-with-no-stimuli scenario above, this wouldn't play itself out in a normal way. But babies are born wanting to find out about the world. Kids are curious. I think that, at our core, humans have a genuine drive to know, to find out, to understand. My worry is that when schools and teaching are focused primarily on the "knowing" (without the all-important application/understanding piece), the effect undoes that natural instinct that we have to learn. I think Sir Ken would agree, but he would be more articulate and would draw fun pictures while explaining his point.
In your example about the mice and pain stimuli, I would not exactly say that they have "learned" to associate a stimulus with pain but instead that it is a conditioned reflex. Am I mincing my words?
ReplyDeleteIn our culture, the color red is usually used to attract attention or symbolize the need to stop, such as traffic light signals, stop signs, curb color, and flashing lights on an emergency vehicle. What is the correct term for the symbolism of the color red? Learn, condition, know, understand?
I agree Rebecca, from the beginning we are naturally wired to try to understand the world around us. Children usually start off as very eager learners, but if this curiousity is not encouraged in school and at home and their questions get tossed aside in favor of the traditional curriculum, then students become nonchalant or even resent the knowledge presented to them at school.
ReplyDeleteGood question Thom, I'd think it's a combination of all four, though it would be presented as layers of conditioned reflex, learning, knowing, and finally understanding.
There is an assumption that learning takes place in a generalized and typical way. But, what if the student is not typical or what is termed "normal"? What if the student has a disability? What happens to a child's learning process then?
ReplyDeleteI think that, perhaps barring a severe mental or neurological disability, people have the innate drive to learn about the world around them. Our task as educators is to respond to our learners' needs so that we best tailor learning situations to them.
ReplyDelete