Explore
Gaia Soulmates
 Advertising keeps Gaia free! Interested in sponsoring us?

What Is A Student?

Posted on Nov 4th, 2006 by Steven : Emergence Personality Theorist Steven
4statesoflearninghead
Have you ever asked yourself, what makes a good student? I have. Many times. I've also asked my self, time and again, if I, myself, am a good student. This week, in our ongoing series on education and learning, we're going to talk a bit about what makes a good student? Do you know? Are you a good student? Let's look together.

Doing Thought Experiments ..."
Whenever I try to learn something, I almost always begin the same way; by asking myself a series of "what is" questions. How? By trying to see what I first picture when I ask myself about this subject.

For instance, when I ask myself the question, "what is love?" the first thing I picture is a six year old boy. It' summer and he's rolling around on newly mowed grass, being jumped all over and nipped at by a litter of ten beagle puppies. He's laughing. And they're yipping. And they're loving him. And he's loving them back. All eleven of them. All in love. All without words. All without help.

This is the first thing I picture when I ask myself, "what is love."

It always thoroughly satisfies me as to what it feels like to be in love.

And how about the opposite picture then. Hate. What is my first picture of "hate?"

The first thing I picture when I ask myself, "what is hate?" is me walking past a house and being told by some older boy not to go near "those people." The mother was white. The father was African American. And the baby boy was so beautiful and innocent.

I remember going up to the door one day just to say hello. Only once. After that, I got called "nigger lover" by the other kids for a while. It frightened me, I guess, because I didn't have a picture for what they were feeling let alone calling me. I had, by then, figured out though that for some reason, people who hated others could easily hate me.

And after that, many people did, although I still have no picture of what makes people hate a seven year old boy for saying hello to a baby. Only Layer 2 explanations, like pure stupidity and total ignorance. And Layer 4 revenge feelings best left out of the present text.

Over the years, when I've thought about that day, I've asked myself, many times, what made that boy so full of hate? And for a family whom he had never even met, no less. I never did find out. Which in effect means I never did get a picture of what could turn a boy like him into such a patently hateful person.

So what about my picture of "students?" What do I picture first when I ask myself what a student is?

My answer? My father. Sitting, late at night, in an almost completely dark room. Lights out to save money, no doubt. The room is very dark, in fact. It's winter and all the lights are off. Except for the one floor lamp to the right of his chair. The one with the orange lamp shade. Which meant it was throwing an orangey light all over him. And his book. And his never to be completely clean again auto mechanic's work clothes.

Even now, I can picture myself standing there in the shadows, watching silently. His head is bent forward, and his eyes are as close to the page as he can humanly get.

He would get so still, at times, I thought he might have fallen asleep. At other times, I worried that something had happened to him. Something bad. Like a sickness or something worse.

Nothing ever did. He was simply so deep in thought that he looked like he was dead. In truth, he was just revisiting, again and again, the details of some kind of a technical drawing, some kind of a diagram of machinery or an engine.

Although I had never been formally told, I knew to never disturb him on these kinds of nights. Not even to say goodnight to him, which is what I always remember wanting to do on those nights. Not that he would have heard me call to him while he was in that state anyway.

So what exactly was he so engrossed in? My belief? He was doing thought experiments. Imaginary visual exercises in which he would dissemble and reassemble either some kind of automotive machinery, like a transmission or such, or some sort of broken appliance, like a lawn mower or a washing machine.

Years later, I remember feeling proud of him when, as a man, I learned that Einstein taught himself by the very same method as my father did. Imagine. My father had something very significant in common with Einstein. They both taught themselves by doing thought experiments. They both studied things in life by imagining how they worked.

Is this the essence of being a student; doing thought experiments?

A part of me thinks it is.

To read the rest of this article, click here.

And If you wish to read more of these articles, you can find the complete Education and Learning Series, beginning here, on the Emergence Site.
Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (230)  

Accessing the Alphabet - Sequentially and Randomly

Posted on Nov 12th, 2006 by Steven : Emergence Personality Theorist Steven
Emergenceanchorpoles
Do you own a computer? Then in all likelihood, you have read, or heard, the word, "RAM"; random access memory. Do you realize, though, that the technology this acronym refers to is relatively new? What I mean is, for a long time, computers retrieved data sequentially, not randomly. Why mention this? Because random access and sequential access are the two ways we access the information in our minds as well. This week, then, in our ongoing series on education and learning, we're going to take a look at how these two ways ways of memorizing things affect how we learn, beginning with a look at how well you know the English alphabet. Do you think you know it well? Let's find out.

Week Sixteen - November 13
Suddenly Noticing Things ...
Recently, a very conscious woman, someone I've been seeing for years, on entering my office, asked me, "Is that chair new?" The woman was very conscious at the time, and the chair had been there, unmoved, for more than a year.

At first, I saw nothing significant about her remark. After all, I've heard people say things like this for years. For some reason though, her comment stuck in my mind. Something about a conscious person saying they had been this unconscious set off a series of questions in me. For one thing, it made me ask myself, "how much of what we think we know do we really know?"

My conclusion? It seems we know a whole lot less than what we think we know. Moreover, it seems we do not notice this because our minds function a lot like our word processors and automated computer forms. In other words, it appears our minds visually "auto fill" a lot of "what we think we know" with "what we expect to see."

As I thought about this further then, I realized this, in part, is exactly what William James, the father of American psychology, said more than a hundred years ago. In essence, he said that the reality in our minds changes based on what we currently need to believe. Quite a far cry from how current theorists claim our minds work.

Can this be true then? Can a significant portion of what we believe we have learned be what our minds visually "auto fill" onto the screens of our minds? In effect, is the learning we access mainly just what we expect to see? Literally?

If so, then what does this imply about the validity of how we test people for learning? For instance, is how we currently test kids in school as flawed as this autofill idea would imply? In other words, are we testing more for the sequence in which information is learned than for the information itself?

More important still, if this is true, then is there a real, pragmatic way to test kids for learning? Or is testing for learning valid only during the temporary period of time wherein the learned sequence is present?

These are the questions we'll begin to explore this week, as we take a another look at how momentum affects the what, when, how, and how much of what we actually learn.

To read the rest of this article, click here.

And for those wishing to see how open they are to this and any new learning, here's a link to the Teachability Index Worksheet.
Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (213)  

Using Fractals to Test For Learning

Posted on Nov 19th, 2006 by Steven : Emergence Personality Theorist Steven
Twogeometries1
Have do you feel when you have to take a test? Anxious? Excited? Worried? Angry? This week, in our ongoing series on education and learning, we're going to take a first look at an alternative to statistically based academic testing, something I call, "fractal testing." Our goal? To find a non injurious direction we can take toward realistic educational accountability.

Plastic Flowers
Even realize you've been fooled by something artificial, such as silk tiger lilies or a fake granite counter top? Feels bad, doesn't it? Ever consider what makes this feel so bad though? Or how in the heck you came to realize this thing was fake? If not, then know this. Within the answers to these two questions lies the thing most missing from our schools today. What thing? A real, blameless way to test kids for learning. And when I say "real," I don't mean that how we currently test is unreal. I mean that how we currently test kids measures mainly what these kids may have gained temporary access to; what they will remember and can access only while in the sequence of this learning and not afterwards.

What I'm saying is, the class ends and what you think you learned you forget. Has this ever happened to you? Of course, a better question might be, has this ever not happened to you?

My point is, the way we currently test kids for learning pretty much measures only what these kids can regurgitate while still in the glow of the class environment. More important, while learning to see these tests as invalid is important, what is more important is that we stop using testing methods which often do more to break kids' love of learning than they do to measure their success or failure to learn. Which makes the way we currently test kids in school as fake as artificial flowers. And as hurtful as well.

What is the answer then? I wish I could easily put it into words. In truth, I can't though. Why not? It turns out that anything really true; true "love" to true "justice," cannot be put into words. At least, not into words which contain the whole measure of this truth. Which means what, exactly?

Which means I'm going to have to find a way in which to show you what I'm saying which paints pictures rather than states logic. In other words, I'm going to have to follow the writer's maxim and "show, don't tell." And lest you see this disclaimer as a copout, please know that by the time you finish reading this column, you'll understand why I can't so easily put these ideas into words. And how this inability to put something true into words is what underlies our inability to define a genuine test for learning.

But if I can't put these ideas into words, then how am I going to teach them to you? Good question. And herein lies the heart of what we'll be exploring today. What defines something as being real? And how do you teach this real thing? In other words, how do you know if something is true or not. And how do you then teach this true thing?

The answer? Any truth which can manifest in our world has but two basic qualities. One, it cannot be put into words. And two, it can be drawn as a fractal shape. No fractal shape. No real truth. And yes, I realize what I've just said sounds very oblique and sci-co-babble-ish. It's not, though. It's just that what I've just said is a "meta-truth." And meta-truths are so concise and head banging that in order to understand them, you must completely reorganize what you know to be true.

How would you then do this? In fact, how do you even know for sure if something is worth the pain you'll endure during this process? Simple. You watch for the two criteria.

One, it cannot be put into words, at least not words which completely describe this truth.

Two, it can be represented by a fractal shape which completely encompasses this truth.

This is the nature of any real world truth. Including the nature of any true test for learning.

Now let's look at what makes these two things define what is true.

To Read the rest of this article, click here.

And for those wanting to see how open they may have been to this week's ideas, here's a link to fractal test; Teachability Index Worksheet, as well as a link to The Emergence Site.
Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (160)  

What Makes Teachers Boring

Posted on Nov 26th, 2006 by Steven : Emergence Personality Theorist Steven
Funnelofbordom
Have you ever felt like you would go insane if you were forced to listen to one more minute of what a teacher was saying? I have. So what makes this happen? And is this pain necessary? This week, in our ongoing weekly series on education and learning, we're going to explore the many aspects of what makes a teacher boring.

Exploding Heads
Ever see the old sci-fi movie, "Scanners?' You know, the one wherein the bad guys can make peoples' heads explode with thought alone. Imagine having one of these guys as your teacher?

Back in high school, I had a guy like that. He might have even been a "scanner." And as I think about it, it might have been better for me had he exploded my head. His class was that painful. Really. A true horror flick.

So now. Let me ask you. How do you think a person like him ever got to be a teacher?

The answer? He passed exams. In fact, I'm sure he passed a lot of exams. All of which were supposed to measure his ability to teach. Did they? Well based on how boring his classes were, not really. So what did those tests measure? You tell me. Not how to teach, that's for sure.

Perhaps, then, it's simply a case of "garbage in, garbage out," as the computer geeks say?

To be honest, I doubt it. I know some pretty good teachers who have gone through the very same kinds of schools.

So what made this guy so boring? In everyday language, he made information more important than people. And in the language of Emergence Personality Theorists, he presented his teachings from the "Outer Layers."

Making information more important than people. Teaching from the "Outer Layers." What does all this mean? And what does this have to do with what makes teachers boring? These are the questions we'll be exploring this week.

To read the rest of this article, click here.

(to learn more about Emergence Personality Theory, visit The Emergence Site)
Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (290)