The debate between "learning facts" and "learning to think" is nothing new. For decades, educators have voiced the importance of "thinking" and ranked the skill much higher than the accumulation of facts (i.e., memorization). "Thinking is a habit of the mind that can apply to any information," they say. Their intent is to teach students how to learn instead of what to learn.
Honing one's thinking skills is certainly a skill I value. In fact, I often like to see it in action. Formulating questions, considering multiple viewpoints, making connections, and examining a writer's craft are just some of the thinking skills stressed when actively reading a text. Of course I am a fan of critical thinking. My concern; however, has to do with completely downplaying the importance of pure facts or basic knowledge.
In the article, Goolge generation has no need for rote learning, Wikinomicks author Don Tapscott, states, "The existence of Google, Wikipedia and online libraries means that there is no useful place in school for old-fashioned rote learning." Seems extreme, don't you think? I, for one, never want to hear my doctor say, "I'm not really sure what exactly makes up the respiratory system, nor do I know exactly how it works. But, as soon as I run a few more tests, gather the data, and get online, I'll figure this out. I may not have a lot of knowledge, but I sure know how to synthesize data." That's the day I change doctors.
Yes, thinking skills are crucial to academic, professional, and personal success. But, without the core knowledge, what are you going to think about? Your turn. What do you think about the debate between "learning stuff" and "learning how to learn stuff"?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment