Insight Into: Education & Conceptualization

This begins a series on the difficulties with deliberate development of conceptual thinking in education. My goal is to 1) identify key issues in education and educational systems as they relate to developing conceptual thinking, 2) identify patterns in current educational processes that hinder conceptual thinking, and 3) propose solutions to improve conceptual thinking.

Before I begin, I think it is important to establish how I use certain terms, so here's a short list (I may expand on this later):

• Ideas: our thoughts about things
• Concepts: ideas we hold, where holding an idea connotes ownership and the ability to adapt said idea based on new information
• Definitions: ideas communicated to us via a 2nd person or medium
• Information/Data: ideas we receive through perception or formulate through analysis
• Conceptualization: The process of identifying, reviewing, analyzing, organizing, and generally thinking about concepts
• A, B, C aspects of thinking: refer to previous articles (link provided below)

To begin:

The Core Issue Part 1 (Education)

As I understand it, there is one primary area of conflict in education that tends to drive a wedge between teaching people "how to think" (that is, how to conceptualize and respond to ideas) and teaching "what to think" (i.e. teaching people specific instructional data they need to follow). This conflict stems from one of the primary reasons for education: to make sure people don't do stupid things, where "stupid things" include spending unnecessary effort to relearn ideas humanity has already investigated. 

For example, we have spent decades developing computer technology and programming and it would be incredibly wasteful to make anyone who wanted to work on computers have to figure out basic circuits and logic systems on their own, when we can simply impart known information to them. This way, they can add to the current body of understanding based on our previous research. In addition, we are absolutely sure we want to educate people who manage nuclear reactors on how to manage nuclear reactors - it has proven very bad when those people misunderstood their jobs, or got something wrong.

The need to impart existing information has two central areas of focus: to transfer said data to the student, and to make sure the student accurately understands this data. In short, we are interested in accurate transfer of data. This means, among other things, that error is one of our primary enemies. Let's face it - you don't want errors showing up in nuclear power management, or surgery, or waste disposal. That's really bad. Thus, we structure our education around transfer and accuracy, testing students to make sure they have acquired the data we give them as we intend them to receive it. If they pass the tests, all is well, and we can assume they understand the information.

Except that last sentence has proven to be wrong. Passing tests, it turns out, does not guarantee understanding of an idea. This is because understanding requires conceptualization. That is, the data we provide (in the form of definitions) must be converted into concepts. (I discussed this previously in my articles on direct and indirect understanding; see the link below to the relevant articles). This means that students, to successfully understand the information we are giving them, must be able to conceptualize the information they receive (i.e. transform them into concepts). This is where we run into our core issue, and to understand that issue we need to investigate what we need to do to teach people to conceptualize.

Next time: The Core Issue (Part 2: Conceptualization)

Link to articles on ABC thinking: http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-review-of-reviewing-thinking.html

What is ABC Thinking?

It has occurred to me that, while I have talked about what I do from time to time, I haven't gone into a lot of detail about the underlying philosophy and theories that drive what IRI is about. That should be corrected, I think. So for the next few months, I will be discussing the basics of some of our core ideas. The first, and perhaps most critical of these is the idea of ABC Thinking.

Caveats

Before I begin, I want to make a few notes for the more scholarly minded. First, this is a basic overview, not an academic defense. The goal is to introduce ideas and help people understand what I do and why, not present a full dissertation on the topic. (Who knows? That might come later.) As such, I will be avoiding technical terms as much as my philosophy upbringing will let me. Second, This is a brief overview – I don't intend to go into every detail about the theories (though if there is interest, I may go back over some areas and dive deeper). Finally, this is a blog, so it will probably be a bit informal. You have been warned.

Also keep in mind that this is a theory that identifies problems and seeks a solution. I do not consider it the theory, or the end-all of psychology, anthropology, or whatever other discipline it may touch. This is the world as best we at IRI understand it, and our ideas should be taken as starting points for discussion, not concrete conclusions about reality.

Next Monday: Getting Started - The ABC Theory of Cognition

Doing Much but Saying Little

I’ve been a bit quieter than I expected lately, on account of keeping busy. I have been working on several different things at once – teaching at LCU, helping reorganize parts of IRI, reviewing the training materials for use in our South Africa and Hong Kong pilots, meeting with prospective partners, etc. Unfortunately, while this makes my life interesting, it doesn't necessarily make for good blog posts:

“Today I read books. Then I reviewed the training material I am working on. Then I edited the material a bit. Then I had a meeting. Then I graded papers.”

This is not exactly gripping reading.

So in an attempt to add some actual useful content to this blog, I am going to try to write up a short review of some of the reading I am doing. Some of this will be books we are using in some classes (real books that non-student people read, not just academic books), some of it will be reading of my own, whether that be books, blogs, interesting news articles, etc. I posted that I wanted to do things like this before, and now, with my more academic focus this year, I think I can actually pull them off.

Let’s give it a try.

Check in later this month for my first installment – I have a  couple articles and blogs I have been reading that have posed some interesting questions, so that seems like a good place to start.

Have a great October!

Things We Have Learned: Terms & Concepts

One of the things we are learning in our work is just how different learning terms is from learning concepts. When learning any language, the former is required to speak or write, but the latter is required to understand. We have also learned how easy it is to learn terms without actually learning concepts. This results in a dangerous situation where a person thinks they know the language, but is actually severely restricted in what they can communicate or comprehend.

To ensure good communication, we need to make sure we know what the terms we are using mean. We usually do this by defining the terms – we use other terms to describe the new term. This allows us to expand our vocabulary and thus the scope of things we can easily discuss. Unfortunately, this method makes the assumption that the terms we are using in our definition are already understood. As we have learned in Africa, this is not always the case.

In our discussion with Mozambican nationals, we discovered several terms that are not well understood. That is, the English-speaking nationals may know the terms, but the concept that the term represents is still largely unknown. For example, in our seminar, one of the areas of development we discuss is relationship-building. After the seminar, however, we discovered that some of the nationals did not grasp the concept of a relationship—which reduced the effectiveness of the session quite a bit. The important thing to understand is they know of the term “relationship,” and could use it in common conversation, but they did not possess a working concept of relationship.

We encounter a similar issue in the west—a prime example would probably be corporate jargon.[i] If you have worked in a corporate environment, you have probably encountered this situation: a boss/manager/employee/etc. will use a particular term such as “leveraging”, “diversification“, “asset management”, etc. but clearly does not understand what the term actually means. That is, they know of the term but do not understand the underlying concept. They use the term for a number of reasons: to keep from sounding ignorant, to fit into the corporate culture, or even to impress others who do not understand the concept. The problem, of course, is that when a person uses a term whose concept they do not understand, they quite literally do not know what they are talking about. This can lead to a very unfortunate situation when they are speaking to someone who does understand the concept, and therefore expects a certain set of actions from the speaker. In this case, use of such jargon results in a negative effect for the person who used it, even though they were trying to use it to help themselves.

Anyone familiar with a corporate environment is probably familiar with the illustration above, yet we often assume that this is not the case when working with other cultures. This is especially true of cultures with whom we share a common language—we forget that it is the culture that determines what terms map onto what concepts. In forgetting this important truth, it is very easy for us to make mistakes in communication; most of the time, these mistakes are relatively benign, but when you are working as an educator[ii] (which many charity and social development programs are beginning to focus on), the consequences of failing to understand the difference between terms and concepts can have dire consequences. This is exacerbated when there is also a language, not just a cultural, barrier.

The final lesson? While knowing the national language of a group you are working with is important, it is much more important to make sure you are communicating concepts, not just terminology. When communicating cross-culturally, you cannot just assume you know what you are saying—always seek confirmation that your message was received correctly. That is, assume you aren’t communicating well until demonstrated otherwise. This way is slower (and usually more frustrating), but generally results in much clearer communication.[iii]

---

[i] For the purposes of this article, “jargon” refers to a term used without knowledge of the concept it connects to in the context you are using it. This is a bit different from the dictionary definition of “jargon” so I wanted to clarify.

[ii] I include translators in this category

[iii] Just to give you an idea of how close to home this principle can get, consider that men and women, in most cultures, have vastly different social roles, expectations, and experiences—effectively different subcultures. In the U.S., the same can be said for many racial groups, religious groups, and even political groups. As it turns out, good communication is hard.