What is Education?- A thread on learning and teaching, the creative process, practice

[MikeF]

Hard lesson learned at NTC: don't put all the tank ammo on the same HEMMT in the emergency resupply at the CTCP. I know how to plan for tactical resupply and I know how to pre-plan ammo packages that meet weight/cube standards for trucks - I wasn't "learning" how to plan tactical resupply; I was training it. Part of that training was refining the skill to the point that you don't put all the tank ammo on one HEMMT, even if it fits.

As a former tank company XO, I'm laughing, but as a cadet, I'd would of had no clue about what you're talking about. That's part of common-sense that comes with experience. I once had a commander that explained the we learn through one of two ways: 1. Mindless repitition, 2. Blunt Trauma. I think there's some truth to his thoughts.

The same thing goes for intuition. I think it first really hit me on my third tour. Instead of answer questions with "I think x,y, or z," I would just say that "something doesn't feel right." At the time, I couldn't understand or explain why I felt a certain way, but I seemed to have premonitions at certain times that an attack was coming or a tribal leader that seemed very friendly was playing me like a mark in a poker game. Later, back in school, I started researching more into psychology and the study of intution so now I'm better able to articulate those feelings and how they translate into my thoughts and analysis of a situation at times. At the same time, these "feelings" can be a conceptual block that distorts your reality if left unchecked or untrained.

So, here's where I'm going with this. Some would argue that common-sense and intution are gained through experience (i.e. wisdom) and trial and error. I disagree to a extent. I think it's possible to minimize the gap between the theory and practice. I think it's possible to teach our cadets and new LT's some of these intangible traits without them having to learn them the hard way in combat. That was the whole thought process behind developing ranger school back in the early 1960's- tough, realistic training of sleep and food deprivation to simulate combat.

But, how do we do this with the softer side of small wars? Gen Charailli started it back at Fort Hood in 2004. He had his officers work with city officials in Killeen (I think) so that they could get a grasp of what it takes to do nation-building.

I'll give one example of something that I'm considering and it involves anthropology. How do we give a crash course in anthropology so that our boys start gaining a way of understanding the complexities of different cultures? How do I impart what Anna Simons taught me on the anthropology of conflict and that of the combat advisor? How do I get them to read and process what MarcT writes and discusses in SWJ? Most likely, I can't do that. I'm not going to have the opportunity to send them to NPS prior to deployment or take a six-month sabatical to go study Mayan tribes in Guatemala. I gotta work this within my budget and time constraints.

I tried this technique as a commander back in early 2006, and it worked. I couldn't get my guys to read a lot. After The Sling and the Stone, they got burned out and didn't want to tackle the SF FID manuals or FM 3-24. At first, I was frustrated. They wouldn't read the books that might save there lives in combat, but they were obsessed with some book on dating (I think it was called the Little Black Blook). Anyways, some dude wrote a book on how to pick up any girl at any time. After a while, I realized this guy was on to something, and I could use his book as a way to train my boys. So, our informal training became comparing dating to small wars. Finally, I got their attention.

So, long post I know, as I got back and thought all of this through, I realized that despite all of our differences, people are people. We don't need to obtain cultural awareness; we simply have to spend time and get to know people. We don't do leadership engagements; we go and talk to people. In reality, the sunni sheiks that colluded with al Qaeda that I met had a lot in common with my southern-baptist country uncle in North Carolina. I just had to adapt my social skills to talk to them. A lot of this is learning how to actively listen. Other, more subtle tactics include sitting the way they do, holding the cigarette in the same manner, and mimicking their gestures.

I'm going to explore if this works. I tried it back in Cali by just getting out and talking to people- homeless guys, Salinas gang members, lawyers, and doctors. Just talking and trying to better my own skill sets. I'd like to take the complex issues of certain specialities in social science and see if I can convert them in to simple concepts for training. A "Good Enough" solution if you will.

Thoughts?

Mike

[marct]

Hi Mike,

Still processing most of this, but a few thoughts....

The same thing goes for intuition. I think it first really hit me on my third tour. Instead of answer questions with "I think x,y, or z," I would just say that "something doesn't feel right." At the time, I couldn't understand or explain why I felt a certain way, but I seemed to have premonitions at certain times that an attack was coming or a tribal leader that seemed very friendly was playing me like a mark in a poker game. Later, back in school, I started researching more into psychology and the study of intution so now I'm better able to articulate those feelings and how they translate into my thoughts and analysis of a situation at times. At the same time, these "feelings" can be a conceptual block that distorts your reality if left unchecked or untrained.

Very good point, Mike. Just to add to the mess of Greek terms WM tossed in, they (the Greeks) called this type of knowledge "thumos", what we used to call "gut knowledge", although most of the similar connotations disappeared in the early 20th century.

Training intuition, however, is tricky. I know quite a few systems that do it, but they are all fairly time intense. That said, I think they're worth it.

But, how do we do this with the softer side of small wars? ....

Anyways, some dude wrote a book on how to pick up any girl at any time. After a while, I realized this guy was on to something, and I could use his book as a way to train my boys. So, our informal training became comparing dating to small wars. Finally, I got their attention.

No reason it shouldn't work, Mike ! That stuff I was writing earlier about how learning by/with analogy operates fits this example perfectly.

How do we give a crash course in anthropology so that our boys start gaining a way of understanding the complexities of different cultures? How do I impart what Anna Simons taught me on the anthropology of conflict and that of the combat advisor? How do I get them to read and process what MarcT writes and discusses in SWJ?

The short answer, Mike, is that you cheat. A lot of "teaching" is about shifting the perceptions of those you are trying to teach. So, don't start with "complexity", start with simplicity. I used to give my students, back before the PC crowd vetoed it, a really simple exercise - surprisingly similar to your COIN as dating . First, I'd give them a "field exercise": go out to a bar that you would normally go to and just watch people. Since I was generally dealing with 19-21 year olds, that meant that almost all their bars were "meat markets". Now, while you are watching, start looking for patterns of behaviour and how people "identify by display" (what do they wear, how do they handle body language, etc.). Pretty soon, anyone can pick up on the general patterns and develop stereotypes. Then I'd get them to draw a map of the layout of the bar they were looking at and see if they could track the flow of people and how the physical environment encouraged / discouraged certain types of action and interaction. I'd then get them to write up their observations and we would talk about them at the next class.

Now, that next class was crucial, because I wouldn't give them any "facts", I would give them the "names" / terms that we (Anthropologists) used to describe the interactions they (the students) had actually seen. Those terms became the basis for a lot of future discussions about things like gender roles, display, ritual, etc. Even worked for archaeology, too . So, really all you need is a couple of exercises that will give your folks experiences that are analogous to the skills they need in the field, and then name those experiences for them such that all the boring books (and my posts!) now have an experiential base for them.

Cheers,

Marc

[selil]

Interesting quote I just read.

Training gives education its practical significance; the two are opposite ends of the same continuum of learning. Both demand creativity, rigor, and insight. Training tends to be repetitive, rote, and methodical. Its purpose is to provide swift, responsive, and reflexive action in a deadly environment. Education, on the other hand, is reflective, integrative, and pattern-seeking. Just as training deals with the lethality of warfare, education confronts the ambiguity.

James J. Schneider - Professor of Military Theory
The School of Advanced Military Studies
Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas

In the foreword.

Leonhard, R. R. (1998). The principles of war for the information age. New York: Presidio Press.

[MikeF]

Great discussion so far. I'm still sorting through some of the comments. Each one is pretty deep.

Selil- thanks for posting those articles. They seem to flow with some of my thoughts, and you just articulated them better. The more I look, the more similarities that I see between the professor and the military officer. I really liked reading the article that your wife wrote. It is always pretty interesting to learn about the different ways that chidlren learn.

Mike

[marct]

Great discussion so far. I'm still sorting through some of the comments. Each one is pretty deep.

So am I ! I'll admit, this discussion would be, hmm, not necessarily "better" but, possibly, have more of a "flow" if we were doing it around a table, face to face. i guess it's just one of those frustrations I'm having to learn to live with .

[selil]

I really liked reading the article that your wife wrote. It is always pretty interesting to learn about the different ways that children learn.

My professorial spousal accessory unit is one of scariest intellectuals a person might meet. Her bachelors degree is in anthropology. She has, a masters in history (women's anti-slavery movement), a masters in computer science (software systems component engineering), soon to have a PhD in technology (computer forensics implications of science and technology), and will likely be getting her Jurist Doctorate. She is a beginning ultra-marathoner. Worse though...<sly look> a Canadian called her a liberal.

School districts (corporations where we live) don't like us. She prepared an extensive literature review on twinning and education policy nationwide. She then got the leading experts on ISTEM (Indiana science, technology, engineering and math) who work for the Governor to evaluate the local teaching strategies. We make teachers nuts but our children test higher than their peers (2 to 3 grade levels). It is not talent, or genetics (unless the milkman was a mensan).

The strategy of education in our house is that the world is our school house. We offer options (that we can live with) that have to do with learning. We have over 4K books in the house and ANY of them can be read. Right now one of my ten year olds is reading a college text on computer security. It seemed interesting to him. The other is reading the HALO (game) series of books. Next week? Who knows. Museums are where history lives. Lessons in engineering are learned while clearing brush out of the back yard. We've been having a bunch of discussions about the kinetic impact and how the body is engineered regarding their activities in Tae Kwon Do. Math is the language the describes the world. We evaluate the statistics given on the news. I think marct was alluding to a similar experience when he was growing up.

When talking about educational philosophy I have a basic criteria (agility, endurance, strength, and wisdom). This is applied to walking, running, school, martial arts, reasoning, basically living. In my laboratory there is a sign hanging that says "cognitive endurance required". A philosophy is different than principles of living as suggested by Benjamin Franklin (he had 13, I have 5, honor, honesty, courage, courtesy, and respect). Words have power. Reflect on the meaning of them as verbs and visualize what it means to embody them and changes occur.

When looking at professional military education I don't see the flexibility I would like but then again the product is supposed to be specific. I don't think the military wants to see a bunch of fully self actualized dream heads walking around talking about the meaning of existence. The military as an organization wants the smartest life takers and heart breakers they can find or create. Then they argue about the definitions of heart breakers and life takers.

[marct]

Hi Sam,

Worse though...<sly look> a Canadian called her a liberal.

Well, at least it's with a small "l" .

The strategy of education in our house is that the world is our school house. We offer options (that we can live with) that have to do with learning. We have over 4K books in the house and ANY of them can be read. Right now one of my ten year olds is reading a college text on computer security. It seemed interesting to him. The other is reading the HALO (game) series of books. Next week? Who knows. Museums are where history lives. Lessons in engineering are learned while clearing brush out of the back yard. We've been having a bunch of discussions about the kinetic impact and how the body is engineered regarding their activities in Tae Kwon Do. Math is the language the describes the world. We evaluate the statistics given on the news. I think marct was alluding to a similar experience when he was growing up.

Yup. We didn't have quite as many books when I was growing up; maybe 3k or so, but I was encouraged to read anything that caught my attention. At the same time, a lot of the dinner discussions would cut off with something like "ah, okay, go read Machiavelli's The Prince and we'll take this up again tomorrow". Because both my mother and grandmother had worked at the Royal Ontario Museum, I used to go there all the time, and I knew a lot of the curators and got to look at the stuff in storage.

I think that I probably had more exposure to the Arts than your kids are getting, Sam, but that's probably because my father had been a professional musician (before becoming a systems analyst and consultant), my mother taught acting, and my grandmother was a professional portrait painter who lived in a weird, inner-city Artists Colony .

When talking about educational philosophy I have a basic criteria (agility, endurance, strength, and wisdom). This is applied to walking, running, school, martial arts, reasoning, basically living. In my laboratory there is a sign hanging that says "cognitive endurance required". A philosophy is different than principles of living as suggested by Benjamin Franklin (he had 13, I have 5, honor, honesty, courage, courtesy, and respect). Words have power. Reflect on the meaning of them as verbs and visualize what it means to embody them and changes occur.

Sounds pretty similar, although mine is a touch more metaphysical.

When looking at professional military education I don't see the flexibility I would like but then again the product is supposed to be specific. I don't think the military wants to see a bunch of fully self actualized dream heads walking around talking about the meaning of existence. The military as an organization wants the smartest life takers and heart breakers they can find or create. Then they argue about the definitions of heart breakers and life takers.

While the "product" may be supposed to be more specific, there does seem to be a concern that it may be the wrong specificity or, if not "wrong", then a less than optimal one . I suspect that's why documents such as the ALDS have glomed on to the word "adaptability"; they don't really know what it means, but they will know it when they see it.

One of the reasons why I truly appreciate the pre-Dewey educational system is that it has an inherent metaphysics built into it that is opposed to the mass market, consumerism of the Fordist model. Basically, it requires people to be the best that they can be. The downside, of course, is that it can be "elitist" in the worst sense of the term. All the same, you can get away with being a "dream head[s] walking around talking about the meaning of existence" as long as, when the crunch came, you can act decisively. Remember, this is the same system that gave rise to the phenomenon of the "professional amateur"; someone with all the skills and aptitude to perform a role who does it for love or honour .

So, what type of a metaphysical model should PME develop over the next, say, 20 years?

[selil]

So, what type of a metaphysical model should PME develop over the next, say, 20 years?

When you use the word metaphysical a circuit breaker in the back of my head goes "pop". I've been wrangling with different curricula models for quite awhile. Integrative, distributed, etc.. etc... They all seem to role the basic principles of industrial era education in new ways. I've got a couple things on my website about it, but basically any new model should have.

1) A new delivery mechanism has to be based on reasoning.
2) A new delivery mechanism has to be investigative (discovery) based.
3) .... has to be truly interdisciplinary (e.g. learn science through history).
4) .... has to have physical as well as mental aspects for real holistic views (we don't want muscle bound idiots, or floating brain pans).
5) .... has to include a merit based promotion system for knowledge, skills, and abilities attainment (evaluation and assessment is still needed).
6) .... has to adapt internally to environmental and societal changes without breaking (doesn't happen currently).
7) .... has to give up determinism for ... something?

Mortimer Adler in the 1980s suggested The Paideia Proposal, but that just took current education of the time and re-prioritized it. With TRADOC and most education systems they say "don't fix what works". Well, it sort of works sometimes, but it isn't nearly uncorking the potential of the students. If mediocre to sub-par is the goal we're there. If vastly superior capability is the goal we've a long way to go. Learner centered education systems currently appear to be narcissistic and elitist to a fault. They also require large amounts of resources. Neil Stephenson wrote a book about how learner centered education could effect society. I don't agree with several of his premises but it does beg the question of if not that, then what.

[MikeF]

So, what type of a metaphysical model should PME develop over the next, say, 20 years?

Marc, let me take a step back before we jump into that question. I want to consolidate some of your thoughts along with Selil and WM using the example of Mrs. Liles (I hope that she doesn't mind us bragging on her a bit.) Then, I want to elaborate on some of the ideas suggested by Steve the Planner, John T, BB, and Steve Blair. If I can put all this together, we may find how to do this and not have to ask the question of what should we be doing.

My professorial spousal accessory unit is one of scariest intellectuals a person might meet. Her bachelors degree is in anthropology. She has, a masters in history (women's anti-slavery movement), a masters in computer science (software systems component engineering), soon to have a PhD in technology (computer forensics implications of science and technology), and will likely be getting her Jurist Doctorate.

Some of the most brilliant minds that I've met and studied are generalists with exposure to a broad range of study. I've often wondered if the forced specialization in social sciences is hampering our learning, creativity, and progress. Same thing holds in branches. I've served in some elite armor and infantry units and worked with some great SF guys. But, sometimes, the same thinking and mentality that made us great in some wars (i.e. tanks during the Thunder Runs) hampered our ability to think critically in others (um, death before dismount).

School districts (corporations where we live) don't like us. She prepared an extensive literature review on twinning and education policy nationwide. She then got the leading experts on ISTEM (Indiana science, technology, engineering and math) who work for the Governor to evaluate the local teaching strategies. We make teachers nuts but our children test higher than their peers (2 to 3 grade levels). It is not talent, or genetics (unless the milkman was a mensan).

Welcome to the world of wicked problems. Almost any social reform is a wicked problem, and they quickly get political as stakeholders cling to the status quo processes, emotions and egos spark and clash, and money is involved. Tell her to drive on with the understanding sometimes just putting together the facts is not good enough. One has to learn how to mobilize, recruit, advertise, and influence. Wow, that's sounding very familiar. Oh yeah, it's phase one of Mao's guide to social revolution. Please don't make it an armed rebellion and start flying planes into public education offices .

The strategy of education in our house is that the world is our school house.

Well done. Your children will thank you one day.

When looking at professional military education I don't see the flexibility I would like but then again the product is supposed to be specific. I don't think the military wants to see a bunch of fully self actualized dream heads walking around talking about the meaning of existence. The military as an organization wants the smartest life takers and heart breakers they can find or create. Then they argue about the definitions of heart breakers and life takers.

emphasis mine, MikeF

Sam, I disagree with the last two sentences. IMO, that's our problem, and it leads us to 1. Rush to failure. We forget the 5 P's (Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance), and we don't do proper planning, reconnaissance, and intel-gathering to define the problem sets that we hope to change. 2. Leads to micro-management. For instance, we have a problem with too many civilians getting killed in A'stan. Solution- Place restrictions on the ground commander. That's a weak solution. There are better ways which I'm going to attempt to explain in my next article.

Ok, so the next step is discussing collaboration, aka "The Huddle," as a process of discovery, learning, and a pathway to better ideas. It's also very Socratic and akin to King Author's Round Table discussions.

Thoughts?

v/r

Mike

[marct]

Hi Mike,

Just some initial thoughts before I get in to more detail in my next post....

Marc, let me take a step back before we jump into that question. I want to consolidate some of your thoughts along with Selil and WM using the example of Mrs. Liles (I hope that she doesn't mind us bragging on her a bit.) Then, I want to elaborate on some of the ideas suggested by Steve the Planner, John T, BB, and Steve Blair. If I can put all this together, we may find how to do this and not have to ask the question of what should we be doing.

Mike, if the purpose of stepping back a bit is to reflect on the stuff already in play, I certainly have no problems with it. As I mentioned early, the "M" word tends to send people into a tizzy, as do the "E" (Epistemology) and "O" (Ontology) words . I raised it for a couple of reasons that, I believe, are actually quite pertinent.

First, you are absolutely correct about the 5 P's. The problem, though, is that to plan effectively, you have to know where you want to end up at a certain point in time, how much you are willing to spend to get there and how to get there; you need a map. Strangely enough, that gets you right smack into philosophy. What we consider to be the basic units of analysis, our nouns and verbs or map symbols if you want a cartographic analogy, are defined by our ontologies. These, in turn, are tested in the real world by how effective they are at achieving certain ends, and our test protocols are our epistemology. Underlying both of these is our basic assumptions about how "reality", where we live and operate, is constructed, and that is our metaphysics.

I'm not saying that we should dwell on it, just that we need to a) be aware of it, and b) think about the effects (2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th order) of what we propose, as well as the current, socio-cultural limitations on metaphysical assumptions.

Some of the most brilliant minds that I've met and studied are generalists with exposure to a broad range of study. I've often wondered if the forced specialization in social sciences is hampering our learning, creativity, and progress.

I've always thought that it did, especially after watching how some colleagues reacted when I started talking about "taboo" knowledge areas - like neuro-biology. And, while I have a definite preference for generalists - Renaissance (Wo)Men - it is absolutely critical that we have "specialists", otherwise we generalists wouldn't have anything to generalize about !

[IMG]file:///C:/Users/Marc/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.png[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/Users/Marc/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.png[/IMG]

Ok, so the next step is discussing collaboration, aka "The Huddle," as a process of discovery, learning, and a pathway to better ideas. It's also very Socratic and akin to King Author's Round Table discussions.

Well, outside of the fact that I'm sitting at my dining room table on my laptop with a glass of Merlot instead of a beer, isn't that what we are doing ? (Slightly) more seriously, what would you suggest? Personally, I would all be in favour of a week-long group get-together / retreat (preferably in the Caribbean!), but I doubt that we could get funding for it.

Cheers,

Marc

[zenpundit]

Selil wrote:

School districts (corporations where we live) don't like us. She prepared an extensive literature review on twinning and education policy nationwide. She then got the leading experts on ISTEM (Indiana science, technology, engineering and math) who work for the Governor to evaluate the local teaching strategies. We make teachers nuts....

Actually, that would drive superintendents nuts, Sam.

Most university teacher training programs do not emphasize the epistemological methodology that has been demonstrated by research to work. Most teachers of science and nearly all elementary teachers are unqualified to teach science in any sense that resembles "science" as it is practiced in a lab. The conditions for teacher preparation in history or social studies border on the non-existent.