Setting the pace.

Lately, I’ve had a real desire to unload a spate of education-related posts on the world. Everyone seems to be talking about the money, as if degrees are some kind of substitute for education. Public school districts are passing the buck – hustling semi-illiterate, unqualified applicants through the doors of college financial aid offices, where something like 80% of them end up paying for dumbed-down college courses to teach them what they should have learned in high school, before dumping them into the job market, scarcely prepared to land “good jobs,” never mind rewarding careers.

In “Question of Motivation,” I closed with mentions of my “Career Modification for Gearheads” book project and “High Performance Skills” hinting at the connection. There are a number of automotive and knowledge management topics I’d like to talk about in the near future, but these thoughts on education are the pace car leading them ’round the track. Let’s take a look at the starting grid.

“Information is not knowledge.”

Einstein said, “Information is not knowledge.” I feel the modern education system is far more focused on information than knowledge. Knowledge is synthesized through the dynamic application of information. After two weeks, we remember about 10% of what we read, 20% of what we hear, and 30% of what we see, but we remember 70% of what we say, and 90% of what we say and do. (Hat tip to the always inspirational Scott Gould for those statistics.)

Now then, think back to the last classes you took; in high school, in college, in your MBA program, etc.. More often than not, we sat in classes and listened to others present information to us. Our homework would be to read countless pages from overpriced academic texts written years prior. There were always papers to write, with a good portion of your grade depending upon how well you adhered to some damned set of formatting rules. Then, the night before the test, we’d end up cramming.

If I have to study to pass a test, you failed yours.

Rather than grinding out diplomas and degrees through the continued re-stacking of the same weathered building blocks, it is time for new building blocks. The key to it all is connection. People need to be connected to ideas via engagement in order to synthesize knowledge.

I made this connection myself sitting in rush hour traffic one evening a few weeks back. It was one of those nights when my 20 year old Mitsubishi Galant VR4 wasn’t reminding me of the downsides to procrastination under the hood. I was listening to a story on All Things Considered (NPR) about high school dropouts who returned to school after a couple years and how their perspectives changed. The story closed with mention of what each renewed student planned to do with their education. Blake Wilcox said he wanted to study film at the University of Rhode Island.

Click!

What if there were basic expectations for elementary, middle, and high school graduates; not just to pass standardized tests of information retention, but knowledge synthesis? Pushing generic, one-size-fits-all information creates dissonance. Consonance comes from creating an environment wherein participants can discuss how the information might be relevant to their personal interests.  In the case of this aspiring creative from the NPR piece, how might the fundamental building blocks of education be tailored to his interests?

Reading, writing, math, communications, social business skills, personal and business finance – relate the information to individual interests so they can synthesize knowledge. Math is tedious work, but present it as a tool to help an aspiring director get the best deal when he finances a video camera – it’s important. Reading and writing, done to anyone’s standards but your own, is a pain in the ass, but discuss writing and understanding contracts to protect your movie – it’s critical information.

High Performance Skills

I realize our teachers are overworked, underpaid, and often under-appreciated, and figuring out how to tailor each piece of information to each student’s interests  may be a tall order, but maybe the focus should shift from the meaningless chore of rote memorization and blind obedience in pursuit of grades, diplomas, and degrees, to engaging conversations around high performance skills.

  • Search – Getting the right information when we need it.
  • Critical Thinking – Finding meaning and significance in the information we process.
  • Creative Thinking – Coming up with new ways to ideas through dynamic application of information.
  • Analytical – Solving problems.
  • Networking – Building relationships.
  • Logic – Applying reason, validating assumptions, building confidence.

We remember 70-90% of what we say and do. True education reform is not a question of more money. It’s a question of social learning, of teachers and students engaged in conversations about their interests; collaboratively synthesizing knowledge through more dynamic application of information. In our hyper-connected world, perhaps we ought to focus on core competencies – reading, writing, math – only as they relate to these high performance skills.

[Image: First Stop/Adrian Hoskins, Flickr CC]

In the glovebox:

Tagged with:
 
  • Dusten B.

    We’ve had very different experiences with academia.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention In Formation -- Topsy.com

  • http://dr1665.com Brian Driggs

    So it would seem! :)

    Curious, then, what you might suggest are areas for improvement in education. It’s not a one-sided issue, meaning there can be no one-sided solutions.

  • Dusten B.

    I believe that the bigger issue is with the methods used in the elementary through high school systems. Those schools tend to just push students through, with little to no preparation for life or further education. These local school conglomerates have their state curricula and grade requirements and seem to barely meet them.

    It seems that most of the time spent prior to high school graduation is spent memorizing things, and very little on applying it. As an example, we had a blizzard here yesterday, and while my mother was toting me around town in her 4wd vehicle, we were discussing people getting stuck in the snow and sliding into curbs. I argued that everybody with a high school diploma (or GED) has learned enough basic physics to understand why they have difficulties going, stopping, and turning on the snow and ice and should know how to apply what they know so that they are able to go, stop, and turn. They have the information pounded into their heads, they just don’t know how to apply it. I, like so many others in high-school, thought with physics as well as other classes “how am I going to ever need to know this?”. This stuff is used everywhere, every day, but the link has to be made between these seemingly “useless” informations, and every day actions. Once the mind is molded in a way that allows people to apply what they know to miscellaneous situations, only then will they have the mental foundation needed for improving their own life, succeeding in college, and benefiting society.

    Some college classes do seem to require lots of rotes memorization, like foreign language and early mathematics – such as algebra and trigonometry. These are understandable. Other courses should not. I took an AST/Intro-APhy class last semester, I did surprisingly well. On our assignments and tests, the professor was more concerned with HOW we came to our conclusions, rather than the conclusion we came to. The first week or so of class, he proved to us that the moon and earth were not flat and that the earth orbited the sun, with very basic and rudimentary knowledge. He pushed us to take what we learned in class and apply it (hopefully successfully) in various imaginary and real situations – and I liked it.

    In summary, my personal experience at Indiana University has been essential that which you describe as the way things should be. and my previous experience at Ivy Tech was much like yours experience with high education. Universities are run traditionally, with every school doing things the way they want (this is why a degree from some schools is more meritous than the same degree from a lesser school) as opposed to primary schools. I believe that the issue with education is from the meat that is pumped out of the local high-schools. Yale would have a difficult time teaching things to a high school graduate that is barely literate.

  • http://dr1665.com Brian Driggs

    YES!

    I sort of came to a similar conclusion as I wrote this one, Dusten. Almost as though college has to be dumbed down to prevent the majority of new freshmen from flunking out. Rote memorization is a poor excuse for education. We have to USE the information if it’s to become knowledge and, if there is such a marked number of new college freshmen unable to read and write, it’s apparent the elementary and high school system has major issues.

    I still maintain this is not “reform” in the mass media/political mouthpiece sense of the word (read: money), but a fundamental reassessment of how knowledge is synthesized from information through dynamic application, such as with the examples you shared of your astrophysics professor.

    I’m starting to hear about people spending four years on their Associate’s degree or six years on their Bachelor’s. Remedial math and reading classes are not free – this failure of the basic education system is partly to blame for the college students graduating with excessive debt.

    Truly, a multi-faceted issue worth thinking about.

  • Dusten B.

    While I agree completely with the fact that it should not take a person 4 years to get a 2 yr degree, and 6 to get a 4yr degree, you have to keep in mind certain excusable instances which may lead to that. I use myself as an example. I am currently on track for a 4 yr degree. I stopped working to go to school full time. I’m a grown man with a wife, child, and mortgage. At the first sign that family is in need of more money, my school plans will have to be put on hold while I start working proper again. This happens to many non-traditional (read: old) students. They may be mentally prepared for school, but their particular situation (ie: having financial and family obligations prior to starting school) may cause them to either drop to part-time schooling, or stop all-together. Unpreparedness is never a good excuse though, and the primary education system needs to address this.

    Another thing worth mentioning, though not quite on topic, is the professors level of knowledge. This isn’t generally an issue in fields whose mechanics don’t change much such as philosophy, mathematics, or writing, but is a majour issue in technology fields. I take web design as my greatest example. It is taught in high school, vocational school, and even university classes. The professor, more often than not, is inept in the current going-ons of the field. Teaching HTML3 when the HTML5 proto-standard is already taking shape on the web is inexcusable. Current design trends have more than moved on from things like static frames, pop-ups, and web-ring use. That’d be like not learning about fuel injection in an auto-tech class. Unexcusable.

  • http://dr1665.com Brian Driggs

    Precisely, Dusten.

    Here’s how I did my schooling:
    - 2 years community college –
    full time, paid cash, no-degree. Planned on going to KU, bought a new DSM instead.

    - 5 years private university –
    part time, federal financial aid, bachelor’s. Changed major toward the end, adding additional courses.

    Each student’s situation is going to be different, but I’m thinking we’re beginning to see 2-year degrees take four and 4-year degrees take five or six not entirely due to part time attendance, but also due to unprepared college freshmen having to take high school level courses (which aren’t free) before they get to their college level curriculum. They should have learned this in high school, but because they didn’t (and somehow got their diplomas anyway), now their college program is extended and more expensive. I suspect this could also be playing a role in reduced graduation rates to boot.

    As to your point about contemporary expertise with regard to professors, I completely agree. This is another area where I think a focus on high performance skills (over rote memorization of existing material) would provide a much more rewarding education. Consider programming, for example. I believe a webDev course (if only 100-level) would be immensely more valuable – and contemporary – if there was a mix of projects/labs and conversations around the following:

    * Search – What knowledge bases are used by today’s web developers?
    * Critical Thinking – How to we know these resources are valid/reputable?
    * Creative Thinking – How might web-based applications serve the greater good?
    * Analytical – What obstacles prevent us from achieving the desired outcomes?
    * Networking – How can we build professional relationships with other web developers?
    * Logic – Tying it all together, to produce products with the greatest chances of success.

    Of course, these conversations would need to be tied to relevant coursework, but can you see how in-class discussions and research presentations aligned with these skills might set up new web designers for future courses where more design and coding were required? Where can we find the most up-to-date information on HTML5? How is HMTL5 different from HTML3? How might this impact the way we code a new project? What problems might we run into building a new site which needs to comply with HTML3, but would be easy to update to HTML5 in the future? How can we work together to develop this website? And, logically, what’s the best way to proceed?

    I really, REALLY like the idea of these skills. They seem to be the foundation of any craft mastery.

    Thanks for the discussion, Dusten.