Replying to LO28693 --
Dear Organlearners,
Fred Nickols <nickols@safe-t.net> writes
>I think the proper starting point is what we mean by
>"learning." Doubtless, we all mean many things by it
>and therein lies much of the difficulty.
Greetings dear Fred,
I appreciate your thoughtful contribution to our LO-dialogue very much. I
hope to respond to it in another reply. As my mind was contemplating our
LO-dialogue during to the two weeks "off air", I became deeply under the
impression that we ought to know more how people through the ages thought
about learning. So I worked through my notes once more and wrote the
following essay.
As for this essay I linked it to your contribution, but changed the
subject to the topic indicated. I furthermore want to dedicate this essay
to you because of your persistence in pointing inconsistencies out. I may
not always agree with you why they are inconsistent, but I find each time
that they do concern a subtler inconsistency. It is valauble to have you
on our LO-dialogue.
With this topic I do not mean what to learn, but how to learn. I also do
not mean the act of teaching, but the act of learning. I also do not mean
education, but the very act upon which all of education are founded. As I
did research on the topic, I once again became deeply under the impression
that the act of learning itself was usually either neglected or taken for
granted. Much had been written through the centuries on education,
teaching and knowledge, but far less on the act of learning itself.
Furthermore, that which had been written on learning itself, concerned
mostly the child and not also the adult. Learning is the activity most
central to acting humane rather than like a beast.
Like for education, the Learning Organisation (LO) is founded upon the
very act of learning. Here the focus is not merely on individual learning,
but also on collective learning in whatever kind of organi- ation.
Collective learning cannot be done without individual learning and vice
versa. Therefor I decided for the benefit of fellow learners to give an
account of the how the act of learning was understood through the ages. I
want you to share with me what compassionate minds had wrought out of
their toils.
In the ancient civilisations like that of Mesopotamia and Egypt learning
generally took place in families. The only formalal learning took place in
the schools of priests where the focus was on religion and statehood..
This was also the case for Israel before it became a kingdom. But once it
became a kingdom, the priests began to neglect or pervert their job. So
prophets began to set up schools to do once again what Moses commanded --
to learn the will and way of God by letting God to be their ultimate
Teacher.
Very little was written on the act of learning itself in those
civilisations and even in Israel. In Deut 11:19 it is written that
learning happens through talk (dialogue). In Job 12:7 it is written that
learning happens when observing nature. In Ps 25:9 it is written that
learning requires a gentle mind. In Prov 9:9 it is written that learning
requires a just heart. In Hos 4:12 it is written that learning requires
sound guidance. These verses summarise about what the Old Testament
(Torah) have to say on the act of learning.
In the Far East a similar unawareness to the act of learning existed. In
the sayings of Confucius and his followers (470BC-249BC) only one refers
indirectly to learning:
2.17 "The Master said, Yu, shall I teach you about knowing?
To regard knowing it as knowing it; to regard not knowing
it as not knowing it -- this is knowing."
On other words the emphasis is learning the unknown rather than accepting
information unquestioningly.
The Greeks were the first to develop a science of education distinct from
religious training. They arranged all the subjects in two broad categories
-- gymnastics and art. Thus they admitted indirectly that learning has a
physical and a spiritual dimension. Their highest effort was to excite a
curiosity into the unknown which grew stronger with the revelation of each
mystery made aware of by observation or contemplation. Thus they admitted
indirectly that learning has an emergent character which is crucial to the
motivation for learning. Only with Plato came the first systematic
treatise on education.
Plato himself wrote little on the act of learning itself, but much on what
should be learned. What he wrote on the act of learning itself is mostly
in his documentation of the life of Socrates. Socrates taught by asking
incessantly questions. He saw himself as a midwife of the mind -- to help
noble thoughts get born in the mind of a student. He himself followed the
wisdom of Confucius, claiming that he himself knew too little to say that
he knows. Then Aristotle came with his magnificent writings which occupied
human thinking for centuries to come. But even for that, he wrote less on
the act of learning than Plato.
By then most formal education in Greece took place in a gymnasium.
Informal education took place at home employing learned slaves as
teachers. The poor people and ordinary slaves could not afford education.
They just had to learn incidently. Nobody even thought to observe how they
learn.
Among the Romans a similar situation existed. Much had been written on
education, teaching and knowledge, but little on the act of learning. The
first sketch on a theory for education can be found in the great treatise
of Quintilian on oratory. But neither he nor Cicero afterwards wrote
anything substantial on the act of learning itself. They concerned
themselves much more with prescribing what had to be learned.
The formal education of Romans who could afford it took place in a
scholastium. Likewise informal education took place at home employing
learned slaves as teachers. Again the poor people and ordinary slaves
could not afford education. They just had to learn incidently.
The New Testament has a peculiar message. Focus on Jesus Christ and do
what he did to excel in learning. His deeds pleased the Father and he told
of his experiences to the Holy Spirit. With this the Holy Spirit will
Guide the children of God into the Kingdom of Heaven. What Jesus did, was
to teach by setting example.
The first attempts to provide formal education for Christians, even those
who could not afford it, were by Clement and Origen at Alexandria. They
also concerned themselves with prescribing what had to be learned rather
than how to learn it. The later Latin church fathers like Terullian,
Cyprian and Jerome followed them suite. But it is here that learning
driven by information existing outside the mind began to overtake learning
driven by knowledge living inside the mind. They struggled in not letting
paganism took hold of christianity. Both pagans and christians began to
prescribe information so as to stay on course. Informing from the outside
began to replace learning from the inside.
European civilisation began to decline gradually to such an extent that it
could not prevent the Dark Age coming over it. Voluminous prescriptions of
what had to be learned was made by men like Capella, Cassiodorus and
Cisio-Janus. The highest effort in the education of the Greeks, namely to
excite curiosity and thus promote learning, was replaced by having to
memorise what the Greeks had written upon such learning.
The Dark Age began with the closing of the School of Alexandria and the
burning of its immense library. From then on all formal education took
place within castles and monasteries. Here the torch of formal education
was kept alive, but again we have nothing in writing of any contemplation
on the act of learning itself. In stead of contemplation, we have many
documentations of how apprentice knights and apprentice monks were flogged
harshly should they fail to become informed or not adhere to rigid
practices.
Meanwhile the torch of informal education was kept alive in the medieval
guilds. Guilds for many kinds of jobs were created. Here a worker learned
how to do a particular job under supervision of a skilled worker. The
master of a guild was responsible for not only teaching a person a trade,
but also for the development of the whole personality of the worker. The
guild functioned like an ancient kind of learning organisation.
Europe probably would never have awakened to education again were it not
for the Arabic civilisation who took a serious interest in learning. While
Europeans were drilling their students in past information as knowledge,
the Arabs began to explore the unknown once again. After the introduction
of the Islamic religion, this process accelerated. The reason is that in
the first centuries of this religion, much emphasis was laid upon
religious and political leaders not to follow their own understandings,
but to consult those people trying to excel in knowledge of life in
general. By the 11th century knowledge in the Arab world was at a high
point while knowledge in Europe was at its lowest point. However, even in
Arab literature little can be find on the act of learning itself, despite
all the subjects in which they excelled.
Since Europeans began to experience through trade with the Arabs that they
have self an inferior knowledge, they began to take a serious interest in
the information which the Arabs could provide them with. This led to the
birth of the first universities like that of Bologna (Italy), Paris
(France), Oxford (England), Heidelberg (Germany) and Krakow (Poland). In
those universities students began to explore once again the unknown at the
feet of masters who studied self the unknown. Men like Bacon in England
and Dante in Italy became aware once again what should be avoided in
learning and what should be promoted. Several new subjects were introduced
in addition to the classical subjects. But once again, little attention
was paid to the act of learning itself.
Probably the first to realise that the act of learning was crucial to
education and that education for all was essential to the upliftment of
society was Gerhard Groote (1340-1384). He is obscure to even many
interested in the history of education. He was born at Deventer in the
Overijsel region of the Netherlands where the remaining Saxons
("Nederduitsers"=Low Germans) stayed after the majority migrated to
England several centuries earlier. Like Waldo in northern Italy and Huss
in Czechoslovakia, he can be called a reformer before the Reformation.
Groote realised that the Overijsel region, by then the poorest part of
Europe, can only delivered from its fate by the region investing self in
its own education. He began a society called the Brethren of Common Life.
He saw education as crucial to christians to imbetter their own lives.
However, the Roman Church, by then the Holy Roman Empire, took strong
exception to his preaching and actions. What he did for his own people did
not fit in what they thought to be fittingly for christians and making the
Holy Empire richer. He was skilfully made a cast out by the church because
of preaching while not being ordained to do so. But as testament to his
influence the Hansa League began to emerge, dominating the last centuries
of the Middle Ages. Most of what we know of him comes through the writings
of Thomas a Kempis. But again, nothing has been written on the act of
learning itself
Even the great reformers themselves like Luther and Calvin had anything to
say on the act of learning itself. Erasmus, rather an outcome of the
Renaissance than the Reformation, wrote much on education, but very little
on the act of learning. Melanchton, on the other hand a product of the
Reformation, did also the same. The act of learning remained an enigma. On
the side of the Roman Catholic Church two names stand out in the same
period -- Vittorino and Castiglone. Both were considered as school masters
who accomplished miraculous things with their pupils. But again we have
too much information on what they did rather than how they did it. One
thing stands out -- their awareness to LRC (Law of Requisite Complexity).
Teach children only those things which they are capable to master
according to their youthful nature while playing with their peers and
talking about their own experiences.
The next figure in education to bore down on the act of learning was Jacob
Sturm (1507-1589) of Strasbourg in Germany. He must have been a remarkable
person because he was revered by academics, politicians and clergy all
over Europe. Yet he insisted that his primary calling was that of
schoolmaster. He taught children in his own region, but drew adult
scholars from the whole of Europe as far as Portugal and Russia in doing
so. His aim was to guide children into gentle adults, having respect for
the values of civilisation and enabled to sustain their own future. His
influence in the reforming of English education was immense. His ideas
were followed in Strasbourg itself up to the late 19th century. But again,
he wrote little on the act of learning itself.
Whereas Sturm aided Protestant education, among the Catholics
some thinkers also began to question their system of education,
notably Montaigne (1533-1592). He wrote that the faults of
education in his days were:
* over estimating the intellect and neglecting character
* exaggerating memory and depreciating experiential knowledge
* putting foreign tongues before the mother tongue
* teachers forcing their whims on pupils rather than drawing out
the learning power of pupils themselves
* training ancient topics rather than attending to practical issues.
He made several suggestions to improve education. Nevertheless, he
wrote nothing on the act of learning itself.
Wolfgang Ratke was born in Holstein in 1571. Perhaps others
before him followed similar guidelines as he did, but we have no
written account of them. Despite the lack of information on Ratke, his
influence on later educators seemed to be immense. Believe it or not,
he was persecuted and imprisoned for stressing the following
guidelines in teaching:
* Begin in prayer, thus acknowledge the need for superior guidance.
* Learn things in increasing order, thus following the course of nature.
* Do one thing at a time, but never stay on one thing all the time.
* Learn all things, but practise each thing into excellence.
* Teach everything first in the mother tongue since it aids collective
learning.
* Proceed from the mother tongue to all other major languages to
explore the wealth of human learning.
* Teach without compulsion while creating conditions for
spontaneous learning.
* The doings of schoolmasters should be respected rather than hated
by children.
* When a master presents information, it should not be learned by
heart using memory.
* Give children sufficient time to play, let them explore their own art
and encourage them to solve their own problems.
* Avoid uniformity in teaching by making a comparative
comprehension of different view points.
* Offer no rules before a variety of examples have been given.
* Teach as much as possible by incidental experience and planned
experiment.
* Respect the intuition and imagination of the learner because they
are needed to explore the unknown.
It is clear from these guidelines that Ratke was a keen observer of the
act of learning and the complexity which it involved. However, brilliant
as these guidelines are, they are guidelines to the teacher and not a
description of the act of learning itself. Should we want to know more
about the act of learning itself, we will have to infer it from these
guidelines. For example, why does he stress that things have to be learned
in increasing order? I think that he was tacitly aware of the LRC (Law of
Requisite Complexity) in learning. The learner has to proceed from each
emergence to the next and not try jump some. Most exciting to me is that
Ratke had some insight into what I call the Elementary Sustainers of
Creativity (ESCs) -- game-playing, art-expressing and problem-solving
being three of the five which I have identified so far.
The next great figure after Ratke was Johann Comenius (1592-1671), born at
Comna in Moravia. He led a wandering life in several countries of Europe,
an antithesis to Sturm and Groote. Wherever he went, he struggled against
pedantic systems of education in which teachers forced pupils with the rod
to memorise empty information as they had been forced themselves. He began
to write books for pupils which became translated into a dozen European
and several Asiatic languages. He also wrote an encyclopaedic work on
education, the Didaskalia Magna. His ideas were accepted by most advanced
thinkers of his age, especially by Milton in England and Oxenstiern in
Sweden. The principle which he insisted upon most, is that words and
things (theory and practice) should be taught together hand at hand.
Nevertheless, like Ratke, he wrote little on the very act of learning
itself.
Milton (1608-1674) wrote the essay Tractate of Education which had an
everlasting influence on English education. It was, as he wrote, the
outcome of many years of research and contemplation. Although an essay, it
is astoundingly rich in wisdom, ideals and practical advice. For him the
most important principle was a comprehensive education, promoting the
whole personality of the pupil so as to become an asset to society.
Nevertheless, even he failed to uncover the act of learning itself.
Meanwhile in the Jansenite cloister of Port Royal in France, Arnauld,
Lancelot and Nicole began with a small school, imbettering their teaching
method as they proceeded. It is almost as if they put the essay of the
protestant Milton into practice in France. However, as their success grew,
so did the jealousy of the Jesuits. Eventually they were forced to close
their school.
The next figure arose once again in Germany, August Francke (1663-1727).
He was educated in private since his father, a doctor of law, could afford
it. Then he attended the universities of Erfurt, Kiel and Leipsic. At the
age of 29 he became a pastor at Halle and a professor at the newly
established university. His passion was the education of the poor. He
began with seven guelders At his death his venture had grown into many
institutions, all working together in giving education to the poor. His
great merit was to demonstrate that the poor can advance just as much as
the rich when having the right kind of education which Comenius advocated.
But also he did not write on the act of learning itself. This honour goes
to the next figure.
Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was born in Geneva and died in Paris. He
wrote several books which made him famous, but also several enemies.
However, none shocked the world of learning as much as his Emile (1762).
He saw in the tears of a child a petition to heaven. He deemed the
civilization around him as false and revolted against it. The
heartlessness of the rich existing beside the misery of the poor made him
deeply unhappy. His penetrating comments on the shams of government and
window dressing of organised society at large were such that the book was
banned in many cities like Geneva and Bern.
He laid great stress that the child should be a pupil of nature. Natural
learning has much in common with the ways in which nature works. Just as
there are progression in living things, there is also progression in the
bodily and mental faculties of child. A child is not a small adult, but
has to grew up through stages into adulthood. In this the experiences of
the child in nature are far more valuable than copying the hypocritical
"virtues" of society. Avoid books (information) which appear to be
learned, but which teach not learning. Above all, avoid doing harm to
others and nature.
Such was the book Emile that many in 21st century would find no error with
it. But in a world which had not yet had its French Revolution, it caused
almost as much stir as the book of Copernicus. Catholics and Protestants
condemned it. The rich and the powerful scorned at it as worthless
phantasy. The learned deemed it as criticism on their own learning. But
nobody tried to contemplate just exactly what Rousseau accomplished. What
he did, was to observe that the act of learning is (to use modern terms)
"spontaneous, irreversible and self-organising". Teaching had to comply to
this nature of learning. By using his imagination, he sketched how the
fictive young Emile should grow up into full manhood. One thing Emile did
seem to accomplish -- a renewed interest in theories of education. But as
for the cat of learning itself, only Rousseau and later Goethe seemed to
become deeply aware of it.
[The terms "spontaneous, irreversible and self-organising" did not exist
in those days. And the developing of these terms is just as arduous as
uncovering the act of learning. That is why Rousseau had to tell his tacit
knowing by a fictive story.]
The next figure was Pestalozzi (1746-1827), born in Zurich. In him the
spirit of Socrates was renewed. He gathered a number of destitute children
in a deserted convent where he lived together with them for a year. They
had only him to care for them and nobody wanted to help him. He had to
abandon his project when the French invaders needed the building for a
hospital. But he reworked his experiences in the book How Gertrude teaches
her Children. He believed that learning begins with observation which
leads to consciousness as to what has been observed. This consciousness
then leads to speech. Afterwards follow other creative acts like writing,
drawing, measuring and solving problems. The next 16 years he worked at
several public schools, refining his own observations and understandings
based on them. He was visited by the majority who took a keen interest in
education. Wilhelm von Humboldt praised him as the best teacher ever. He
complemented in practice what Rousseau envisaged by imagination. His
example was so telling that it gave birth to the science education (or
paedagogics as its called in Germany and Holland).
By now the historical course was set according to which education as a
science would develop for the next hundred and fifty years. Inputs from
Richter, Goethe, Carlyle, Jacotot, Froebel, Spencer, Bain, Barnard and
Bavinck merely refined the paradigm shift began by Rousseau and
Pestalozzi.
So far as to the history of uncovering the act of learning. History never
stops in its making. The world began to change because of
industrialisation and later technology. Since WWII education began to move
steadily into a crisis once again.
Like a Sturm for the Protestants and a Montaigne for the Catholics five
centuries ago, the world need once again dedicated and ompassionate people
who will seriously question the errors in modern education. Is that which
Ratke observed finally outdated? Has the insight of Rousseau and example
of Pestalozzi been in vain? Or have we reached an age in which what had
been learned through five centuries, will erode away because of a too
great deluge of information? What did Goethe actually foresee in Faust --
a humankind becoming enslaved by its own creativity rather than freeing
itself from all forms of slavery with its creativity?
It is becomes clearer to me how people who have crammed lots of
information in their heads by processes which they have been told are
learning, but have little nowledge by way inner development, have little
capacity to act.
I think that the battle for respecting the knowledge which lives within
against the information which exists outside has begun. It is part of a
much greater war waged in saving the "world-within-me" for every person
from the world outside which humankind had been creating for ages. We may
think that our world now is much better than what it was in ancient Egypt
and Mesopotamia. But what we took from nature to become better without
giving it back will for sure boomerang against us.
Rousseau saw the act of learning as "spontaneous, irreversible and
self-organising". I see it one step further. It requires free energy as
the necessary condition and the 7Es (seven essentialities of creativity)
as the sufficiency condition. Both are deteriorating rapidly in the post
modern world. Rousseau saw a civilisation false to the very foundation
which led to its emergence. I see the same happening -- the rich trying
every heartless trick to become richer while the misery of the poor
increases rapidly. Rousseau did not foresee the French Revolution. I
cannot foresee a World Revolution because our educational systems have
become enslaved to sustain material growth at all spiritual costs. I
foresee only die-off, a topic which I intend to sketched elsewhere.
I want to encourage each of you fellow learners to observe and contemplate
the act of learning, in yourself and in others. Obviously, you will have
to distinguish between authentic learning and rote (machine-like)
learning. The best way to learn this distinction is to observe children
closely, especially those too young to be used as information slaves or
those made destitute by society. Once you are able to make this
distinction, you can study the act of learning among people of all ages
and colours. I have found myself the tenet "to learn is to create" crucial
in probing difficult and complex issues. Perhaps it is now time for you to
contemplate how learning is an outcome of creativity. Perhaps it is also
now time to distinguish between learning and training, what role a teacher
has to play in learning and what role learning has to play in teaching.
With care and best wishes,
--At de Lange <amdelange@postino.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.