The distinction between knowledge and wisdom is subtle, but very important to comprehend. John Dewey brilliantly explores the difference between the two in a chapter of How We Think.
Whenever I hear the word "wisdom," I automatically associate it with "sage." A sage is extremely insightful, not just because of all the knowledge he has received in his life, but also--and most importantly--how such knowledge has been applied to his personal life. That is the true distinction between knowledge and wisdom, which Dewey emphasizes.
Dewey discusses the "abuse of linguistic methods" in school. He claims that schools inform students with many facts for each subject-matter, but neglect the most essential part of education: incorporating such facts to one's personal life. He states that if a student cannot implement what he has been informed in school to his life, there is no relevance, and thus the student cannot fully comprehend the information he has received. Dewey further explains how schools don't apply the facts taught to students to personal experiences, but rather tend to use the facts taught in texts as the basis, and expound from that with even more facts. For this reason, students find many school subjects irrelevant to their personal lives.
I have one more thing to add pertaining to knowledge, which Dewey made mention of as well: No matter how much knowledge an individual has acquired throughout his education, it is all fruitless if he has not incorporated it into his life somehow. The "educated idiot" oxymoron clearly exemplifies this statement. One may be erudite, but that doesn't make him wise. There is no significance to a piece of information unless someone has experienced (whether it be through first-hand experience, second-hand, etc.) something associated with it.
-Chloe Martianou
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sheer memorization is on one level of understanding, but application is on a higher level of thinking. I find that as I go through the various levels of education from elementary school to high school, I find more connections. From your explanation, I guess this is because I am learning more and more each year how to implement what I've been informed with in school. In third grade, I didn't understand why we filled out those timed sheets with about 30 multiplication problems and we did them as fast as we could. But then I realized we use multiplication all the time in life. And this year, I was pretty amazed at all the connections among my subjects. Contemp related to Euro and they both related to Hayakawa (basically everything can be related to Hayakawa). Your book's ideas make perfect sense.
ReplyDelete-- tori
I also agree with your book. Along with what Tori was saying, it is important for people to understand why they are learning things. I know for me, at least, I pay more attention and get more out of classes that I see a point to. If the subject seems like a waste of my time, I don't put as much effort into it. Making connections between school and life, gives school a purpose, and having a purpose, makes people more willing to work.
ReplyDelete~Becca
I also find that I'm alot more involved in a subject if I see a purpose to the class. Last year, I had a certain chemistry teacher who may very well have destroyed any interest I would have in the subject. However, I chose to continue taking chemistry (largely because alot of people I knew were also taking it and because I'd heard good things about the teacher) and I now enjoy the subject much more.
ReplyDeleteThe question I have, though, is whether schools should put more focus on everyday application or on excessive knowledge/repetition (the things that yield those high standardized test scores)?
sorry forgot my name -Bryce
ReplyDeleteThat's a good question. I've wondered the same thing. I feel as though learning the everyday applications (e.g. labs, experiments, life examples in Euro, applying the history of American economics into today's terms) are more effective than learning it from the textbook. But some people learn from the textbook (the visual learners) while others learn better from hands-on experience (kinesthetic learners... I think that's what they're called). The real-life experiences are more memorable to me, because I remember exactly how the NaCl conducted electricity and the light bulb lit up rather than memorizing meaningless formulas. But that's just me.
ReplyDelete-- tori
I think you have to teach both ways. You have to have the text book to explain the things that can't be shown in examples and to provide a basic general foundation. You can't apply school to everyday life if you don't have facts to apply. The textbook provides that. As far as the teaching to the test question Bryce brought up, I think the problem lies in the test. Schools out to teach to real life and to things worth knowing. The test should then test what we've been taught, instead of consisting of random facts that can only be understood through memorization.
ReplyDelete~Becca