Insight Into: Education & Conceptualization Part 4

In my last article, I talked about the potential conflict between traditional educational techniques and conceptual development. For those who want the TL/DR version:

1. Traditional education focuses on imparting information and eliminating error
2. Conceptual education focuses on developing ways of processing information and utilizing them effectively through constant re-examination.
1. Part of this re-examination requires brainstorming ideas and new perspectives
2. These ideas and perspectives will almost certainly include errors
3. Self-identification and correction of these errors are part of the conceptual development process

The key term in part three is "self-". To develop good thinking skills, the learner must be able to work through errors on their own. This makes the actual acquisition of correct data much slower than the traditional process wherein the student is corrected by a knowledgeable source. In fact, it is possible for a student to never properly identify certain errors, leading to long-term misconceptions. It is the risk inherent in thinking for yourself.

Clearly, both forms of education are important. Both having access to correct information and the ability to process, analyze, and innovate said information are both critical to long-term development. Unfortunately, the techniques which effectively impart correct information (and include external correction) create thinking habits that can be counter to good conceptual thinking and development - in particular, dependence on external correction and the tendency to "learn for the test" instead of understanding the content of the material.

I think that this can be addressed in a number of ways. In all cases, it is important to remember that understanding is more than mere knowledge and thus, the conceptual development is necessary for genuine educational development. Thus, we need a combination of methods - on one had, disseminating valuable information accurately and, on the other hand, providing the mental tools to understand and build on that information. I think there are a number of ways we can do this. Keep in mind that the list below is a simple overview, and not intended to be exhaustive, either as a description of the methods, nor as a complete list of possible methods. These are just ideas for discussion.

Method 1: Include conceptual development exercises in traditional education

This method involves taking the currently existing classes and curriculum and introducing exercises designed to force students to interact with the information in ways outside of those they have already been taught. This may include brainstorming new ideas or connections to ideas, as well as proposing various ways the information may be used in unusual circumstances.

Strengths:

• Minimum amount of change to overall educational structures (i.e. no new classes needed)
• Can be added to existing material
• No new teachers needed

Weaknesses:

• Teachers will experience some loss of control over the material as students innovate
• Some teachers may need to be retrained to work with these new approaches
• This will extend the time it takes to cover any particular subject
• Some students may not learn the information or be able to think conceptually as easily as others - there is a danger of students being left behind the rest of the class

Method 2: Student-directed learning

This method gives students much more control over their material, allowing them to learn at their own pace. These methods have been effective in several private schools.

Strengths:

• Self-directed teaching means that all students are able to learn at their own pace, ensuring maximum understanding for each student
• Teachers have less to work on in terms of material, as the students are actively involved in determining what they learn and how

Weaknesses:

• Teachers lose a substantial amount of control over the material
• Self-directed curriculum usually includes material to guide the development, such material can act create the same "learn for the test" behavior that is found in more traditional education
• The role of teachers can change dramatically - from "teaching" to "supervising"
• There is a substantial change in the structure of the educational institution at this point

Method 3: Dual-track curriculum

In this method, the regular classes progress as normal, but an additional "interdisciplinary" course is added that focuses on integrating the ideas from the other courses and prompting students to think about the whole of their education in new and creative ways.

Strengths:

• Existing classes would experience minimal changes, with the exception of having more cognitively engaged students
• The separate course not only serves as a way to promote conceptual thinking, but also helps integrate and provide relevance for many of the other classes the student takes
• One teacher can specialize in conceptual development, leaving other teachers to their specialties

Weaknesses:

• This requires changing the overall structure of the school's classes, as well as the addition of new teachers for the new classes
• Existing teachers will need to make some adjustments, in order to keep discouraging students at the kind of creative thinking the new class encourages them to do
• There is a real danger that the existing courses could be viewed by some as supplementary to the new conceptual course, especially from the perspective of the students (for whom the interdisciplinary, conceptual course provides relevance for some of the other courses' topics).

-----------------------------------------------

Conclusion:

While I have my preferences in methods (which I may get into at another time), the point here is not so much finding a solution as it is understanding that solutions are available. What is not optional, in my opinion, is to sacrifice conceptual/analytical understanding for the sake of imparting more and more data. It is also important to note that it is surprisingly easy to undermine conceptual development, as the "Common Core" curriculum in the U.S. has demonstrated. In my investigation of Common Core, I have found the principles it is intended to promote to be very positive, with a strong emphasis on conceptual development. Unfortunately, the application of the curriculum has, from all accounts I am hearing, resulted in less critical and conceptual thinking by its students. I think this is, in part, because the application of the curriculum is at odds with the intent and perhaps even the content of the curriculum. Unfortunately, this issue is bigger than my article here has time for, but suffice to say I think there is a solution, if we are willing to change not just the content of our material, but the style we use to teach. Thinking is a action, and actions are guided by habits. We need to instill not just the idea of conceptual thinking, but the habit in our students.