How Teaching Hampers Learning (Part 1)


A common mistake we adults make is that when we think kids aren’t learning enough of something, then not enough teaching is happening. We think learning is as simple as adding sugar in coffee — the more sugar you add, the sweeter it will taste — therefore the more teaching there is, the more learning will occur.

Compared to us oldies, however, kids today have more topics crammed into their schoolday and have even a couple of years added to their curriculum. Why is it then, that many of them still seem not to know a lot (and some seem to know even less), despite all the additions?

The answer is simple. The equation is wrong. More teaching does not equal more learning. In fact, more teaching may even hamper learning if the teaching is forced on a student. The mild disinterest he or she feels for the subject may spiral downwards into open hate or disgust for it.

Coercing a child to learn something when there is clearly no interest or motivation for doing so may push a child further away from liking or loving whatever it is you want them to learn.

As a child, I didn’t go to a Chinese school as most of my other Chineses friends did. My parents felt I was missing something by not taking Chinese (Mandarin) lessons. So they arranged for me to have a Chinese language tutor and I had to go there every Saturday morning and spend an hour or more writing and reciting passages from a small booklet. I hated those lessons for two reasons:

  1. Hardly any Chinese kid or even adult I knew spoke Mandarin in everyday conversation. Chinese people here usually speak Fookien which is about as different as Tagalog is to the Visayan language. So there was no practical application of whatever it was I was learning by rote.
  2. Saturday morning was when all the great cartoons were showing on TV. I hated missing Scooby Doo and Super Friends and Space Ghost.

So after a few years of missed Saturdays, I got so fed up I finally told my dad I didn’t want to take those lessons anymore because they were useless . He was adamant at first and didn’t want to budge, but I asked why he was forcing me to take those lessons. He seemed taken aback by my use of that word, and said that he didn’t want to force me, but rather thought that learning Chinese was for my own good and that I might come to regret it someday. But that if I really wanted to stop, then he would accept that.

So I said yes, I wanted to stop. There were times after that when I was mildly interested to learn Mandarin on my own, but because of those words — that I might regret it — I willed myself not to regret it and even prided myself on being illiterate in Mandarin.

How different things could have turned out, I think, had they not forced me but rather tickled my curiosity by speaking a bit of Mandarin here and there, and left me to wonder what they were talking about, until it drove me crazy enough to spark the desire to learn.

That is the key. Without the desire to learn, no true lasting learning can occur.

Of all the years I spent in that Chinese tutoring class, I remember nothing but a single sentence from that booklet, and I only know how to speak it, not write nor read it — “Wǒ ài fēilǜbīn” — I love the Philippines.

Email me at andy@freethinking.me. View previous articles at www.freethinking.me.

Originally published in Sunstar Davao.

Breaking the Rules

One of my friends, Bryan Tenorio, had an interesting reaction to last week’s article:

“Schools teach us to conform and follow the tried and tested norms…Schools should allot half of the school time encouraging students to think out of the box. However, it is essential for the kids to know and understand the rules first before they break it. That way, there is deeper appreciation of both the orthodox and the unorthodox. 

In photography workshops that I’ve been to, it is always stressed that one should know the rules first before you break them. I find it effective so far.”

I do agree with the general sentiment but I feel the need to explain just a bit further. Whenever I talk about education in my articles, I am almost always referring to what is known as Basic Education or what we call primary and secondary education, or in short, pre-school to high school.

I am not talking about students choosing a particular course of study, or professionals taking special seminars to enhance their knowledge of a certain skill which may be a hobby or which may be essential to their profession. It is in this case that I agree with Bryan’s assertion of knowing the rules before you break them.

But when we talk about Basic Education, however, well what exactly are the rules? What is basic education for, anyway? Isn’t it to equip young kids with how to deal with life?

I mean, sure there’s reading and arithmetic and basic science and languages, but that quickly progresses to things that are not so basic like solving complicated word problems, or algebra and trigonometry, or the various layers of soil or the atmosphere, or Newton’s 3 Laws of Motion, or learning complex vocabulary words you will almost certainly never use in your lifetime, or diagramming sentences. What’s the line between basic and not-so-basic? And is it really necessary to force children to learn them before they can break them?

And how about many “basic” things that should be there but aren’t taught? Like how to talk and relate to people of all ages — not just to sit still and listen to adults. Or how to settle issues by talking and reasoning, how to voice one’s own opinion, how to cooperate and collaborate? How about how to find your own way home? Or how to slice, peel, and chop food, and then cook it? Or using common tools like a hammer, screwdriver, pliers, or a handsaw? Or how to earn a living or how to protect yourself or how to report abuse? Aren’t these more “basic” than a lot of the useless stuff they put into the Basic Education curriculum?

How about finding yourself? Knowing who you are, and finding your purpose in life? Aren’t children entitled to explore these from a very young age, rather than being forced to go through the rigmarole of school and going all the way getting elementary, high school and college diplomas, but not knowing what to do with one’s life?

In fact, children have already begun this process since they began learning how to communicate and how to move around. For a lot of these kids, school is an interruption of this process. Instead of of being a help, it has become a hindrance, and a huge one at that.

Email me at andy@freethinking.me. View previous articles at www.freethinking.me.

Originally published in Sunstar Davao.

School Destroys Creativity

One of the most ironic things I read about these days is about schools attempting to teach creativity.

I am not saying that there are no creative teachers, or those who valiantly attempt this lofty task, who break the mold and sometimes ignore protocol and tradition to achieve this goal. I am saying that the traditional structure of school itself is geared towards the suppression of creativity.

Children are not uncreative to begin with, in fact, they are the most creative creatures ever. Their imagination is boundless. They know no limits. They see possibilities, not problems, in every situation. They are simply bursting with creative energy from the moment they were babies. Anybody who has had to raise children or has interacted with toddlers will attest to this. 

So what happened? Why do schools now think that it is important to teach creativity? (I remember back when I was teaching high school, we teachers were made to attend a seminar on creative thinking, which turned out to be quite uncreative and forgettable as I don’t remember a single thing about it other than being there, and probably heckling the speaker).

The structure of school itself kills creativity. The child, bubbling with ideas, is now told to sit, listen to teacher and copy what she writes on the board. Anyone challenging her authority will be the object of various disciplinary measures designed to control the classroom environment. Woe to the teacher whose supervisor passes by and observes an unruly classroom.

So the artist soon learns that even if her drawings draw oohs and ahhs from her classmates, they are not worth much if she keeps failing her math quizzes. The dancer is made to sit still. The comedian is told to shut up. The dreamer is told to focus on “more important things” like grammar and the multiplication table.

For roughly 10 months out of a year, students lives are neatly organized into tiny compartments of time. The first hour is for Math, the second for Science, then English, then Social Studies, then FIlipino, then arts or music or something else. They are then tested, graded, classified and labeled according to how they perform in this narrow band of human knowledge deemed by experts as “basic”and “essential” — by what conceivable metric no one knows.

The whole system is naturally geared towards conformity, not creativity. In fact, it is a systematic drowning of creativity — which is why it is laughable that it is now seeing the need to introduce (or reintroduce) it — because it was the one that murdered creativity in the first place.

Author and self-directed education advocate, Kerry Mcdonald, says “It’s our antiquated system of forced schooling that was designed to crush creativity in the name of conformity…Young people who learn without school, or in other non-coercive learning environments, retain their natural creativity and curiosity. We don’t need to rekindle creativity; we need to stop destroying it.

Amen to that.

Email me at andy@freethinking.me. View previous articles at www.freethinking.me.

Originally published in Sunstar Davao.

Two Parables on Holiness

One

News spread around the city that a holy man had taken residence there, in one of the outlying villages. Now, this was a true holy man, unlike many self-proclaimed charlatans or sons of god or some other such nonsense.

The mayor heard about this man and went to look for him, searching from village to village. Finally, in one of the villages, someone pointed him to a solitary hut away from the rest of the other houses.

He came upon a thin young boy in dirty clothes chopping wood outside the hut. His hair was unkempt and drenched in sweat. “This must be the holy man’s servant boy,” thought the mayor. 

He called the boy and said, “Hey there, I would like to seek advice from the holy man. May I come in and see him?”

“Of course,” said the boy. “Please come in.”

The mayor stepped inside the hut, which contained only a small table, a couple of old chairs, some utensils and a cot in the corner. He looked around, wondering where the holy man would come from. The boy sat in the corner and grinned, “So what seems to be troubling you, sir?”

“I don’t understand,” said the mayor. “I said I wanted to see the holy man.”

“You already are,” said the boy. “And if you want my advice, here it is. See every man or woman you meet as holy. That should take care of most of your problems.”

Two

A pilgrim stopped by a temple where the head monk was famous for his holiness. “Where is this holy monk?” He asked one of the disciples outside.

The disciple ushered him inside the temple and led him down a narrow corridor with a door at the end. As they approached the door, the pilgrim heard loud noises coming from the door, and as he drew nearer, he heard boisterous laughter, loud music, and sounds of merrymaking. 

The disciple opened the door and pointed to the head monk, standing on a table holding a bottle of wine and dancing to the music. There were other people all around cheering him on, laughing and clapping.

The pilgrim turned to the disciple who had led him there. “This is an outrage,” he said. “I thought that this monk was supposed to be holy.”

“Oh, he is a holy man,” replied the disciple. “It is one thing for a man to be holy, and it is a totally different thing that he should seem holy to you. Who are you to judge what is holy or not?”

He who has ears, let him hear.

Email me at andy@freethinking.me. View previous articles at www.freethinking.me.

Originally published in Sunstar Davao.