Instinct ruled! Those with the best instincts lived. But some learned. In learning, experience was gained, skills were achieved and reasoning evolved. Eventually, other people's experience, combined with reasoning and practice, became the standard way. Recently, facts ruled. Some people still argue that knowledge and skills are all we need. I disagree.
Some teachers still believe in the `sage on the stage' model of teaching. Others believe more in the `guide on the side' notion.
The problem with the facts-skills combination is that, as the bank of facts grows, people have to become greater specialists. For instance, a scientist could be fairly useless these days, but a geneticist is much more able to contribute. To misinterpret this situation you might say, `Well, we need more specialised education'. Wrong, and I'll tell you why.
Not only is the bank of information growing larger by the minute, but access to the information is becoming easier and easier. We simply don't need to internalise all this information because we can go and get it at any time. Learning to access the information efficiently is a small investment in being able to access ALL the information WHENEVER we want it. Of course, if you only want to use old information, then you won't need to acquire these new information skills, but you WILL become an Informat-o-saurus before you know it.
What should we be aiming our development at, then? Well, I believe that instead of facts and skills, we need skills and ideas. We need to be able to manipulate all this information that's available to us, and come up with designs, strategies, proposals. Notice that I've not obfuscated the need for skills, but some of the skills are more related to the information, than the process. For instance, automation has meant that many hand skills have been relegated to the arena of crafts, but the ability to design the automaton itself requires a similar understanding of the need and desired outcome.
In education, it's relatively easy to teach facts and practice skills. On the other hand, many teachers are dumbfounded at the prospect of `teaching' ideas. This again, is to misinterpret the situation. I believe that teachers should teach the basic skills so that the student has a simple understanding of the possibilities, and then the teacher should give the student an open-ended, problem-oriented task such that the student can work on a solution of their own creation. The assessment of progress should not be based on relative alignment on a sliding scale which is based on facts and skills acquisition. Rather, progress should be assessed in light of the employment of ideas and focus on the subject. The outcomes are quite different. The incidence of failing a student because he can't regurgitate particular facts on demand SHOULD be decreasing. If the same student can come up with a use for the facts (that he can't necessarily regurgitate), then he should be given honours, instead of failing. We're still not doing this èn masse. Should students read a book and then articulate their understanding of it, or should students read a book and then produce alternate plots? Should students learn Pythagoras theorem and then show that they can reproduce the correct results, or should they then be challenged to find the least accurate corner in a room? Should students be able to identify conglomerate in a box of rocks, or should they be asked to sculpt something from one rock in the box only? Assessment should not place students on a scale from best to worst, with a pass/fail level built-in. Life doesn't work that way, and neither does learning. Instead, Information Technology should allow us to explore possibilities, produce something new, and then appraise our own contribution.
We have to become critical learners, because once upon a time, if it was published, it was likely to be true. Today, this isn't necessarily the case. In fact, by the time it's published in a book today, the likelihood is that it may not be true. Even information published in encyclopaedae, newspapers, television and even the Internet, can't be assumed to be accurate. As a result, even learning the facts is questionable, unless you're talking about old, proven, unchanging information. And this type of information is easily researched and verified, anyway.
The juggernaut of education is slow moving because it's mostly one generation removed. Teachers teach what THEY think is valuable or what has been valuable to THEM. The result is that curriculum seldom even provides up-to-date skills and knowledge, never mind providing the where-with-all that students need for 5 or 10 years hence. Surely, this is what education SHOULD be providing. The pedagogy of the classroom must change if we're to have our students learning the things which will be of most value to them.
Learning the facts should not get in the way of exploring the information. We either teach our children 1970's facts and skills, or we use Information Technology as a tool to teach 1990's skills and ideas. Your 1970's abilities may have brought you to where you are today, but will it take your students to where you are today?
I welcome your response.
Gordon WHITE 8/95
grdnwht@iinet.net.au