Response to Frank Smith, The Book of Learning and Forgetting Part I and II

I am going to reproduce Smith's chart here, so we can all remember the paradigm as he sees it:

The classic view says that learning is:
continual
effortless
inconspicuous
boundless
unpremeditated
independent of rewards and punishment
based on self-image
vicarious
never forgotten
inhibited by testing
a social activity
growth

The official view of learning is:
occasional
hard work
obvious
limited
intentional
dependent on rewards and punishment
based on effort
individualistic
easily forgotten
assured by testing
an intellectual activity
memorization

Again, as I felt with Gatto, there are some fundemental themes that I agree with here. The idea that you often learn while you are not really thinking about learning is one of them. This is a more traditional approach. Who has learned something from a grandparent, say, where just making pies a few times with your grandmother "taught" you how to do it? Would it have been a better way to learn by sitting down and reading through several cookbooks' sections on "How to Make Pies?" No. Especially at the age of 7. The experiential, the tactile, the emotional, the atmospheric, the edible, all roll into the best way to learn, in this example. Grandma's apron, her rolling pin, her dated kitchen that was a bit shabby but super clean, the berries from her own garden, the radio on all the while, the noise of uncles coming and going, and the end result eaten for dessert all become the lesson. (All that being the case, I still don't know how to make pies very well, and probably will need to do some more classic research if I ever want to make a proper pastry).

Another example from my childhood, where I prove Smith's point about offical learning. I moved in the May of my gr. 7 year. So I was brand new, and arrived on a day where the class had a history test. The teacher gave me her notes and I think a notebook from a decent student, I "studied" on my own, took the test a week later and got the highest grade in the class on it (I think I actually got perfect). Now clearly, this is a case of excellent memorization. I had no context for what I was studying. I remember even realizing at the time that I had sort of fooled my new teachers. I hadn't really learned the history. I had memorized and scored. I knew even then that it wasn't real learning. I was proud of myself for showing my sharpness, but even at that time I felt a sense of regret at not having truly learned the material. At the end of the year, we had a "graduation ceremony" because gr. 8 was at a new school in the fall. I was held up as a big success because of this test grade and it was a sign of my future success. Were they wrong to celebrate my achievement by focusing on my test score? It might have been more authentic to congratulate me on acclimating to my new school and social group.

The above examples would show me as on board with Smith's dichotomy of classic vs. official learning. And yet. And yet.

What about the contexts where memorization is really important? I am no scientist or doctor, but aren't there a ton of facts in those fields that simply just must be memorized and absorbed and just plain KNOWN? Of course these then need to be put into practical use, especially for the doctor. Smith addresses this on p. 37 and suggests that rather than empty memorization, we put such facts to music and mneumoics. As a musician, I find this interesting and true some of the time but not always appropriate. Do we really want our doctor singing through the list of symptoms for our illness? Do we really want our church leader to sing her way through the books of the bible to remember the order?

Here's a mneumonic I've never forgotten: "Kim plus Chris or Freddy goes steady." That involved my friend Kim and her crush Chris, in gr. 8 and applied to "Kingdom, Phylom, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species." I swear that is all I remember from gr. 8 science. Correct me if I am misremembering, but I think I've got it right.

What about the idea of "clubs" and that those you surround yourself with are those you will learn from, for better or for worse? Again, I agree to a certain extent. It's commone sense that your behavior and knowledge are rubbed off from those you are with and will rub off in turn. But I think it's important to recognize that one's learning capacities are not bound by the "clubs", that the capacity for learning is infinite and as open as an individual's desire to learn. I get uncomfortable with the thought that parents will only want to surround their children by other like-minded parents' like-minded children. For what happens to diversity in that context? I actually want my children to know children who are NOT like-minded. Children with different interests, learning styles, behaviors, and so forth. (As long as my children don't come home cursing and behaving like hooligans) :)

What are your thoughts...?

And what about "intellectual engagement" just for its own sake? I get a certain high from "hitting the books" so to speak and getting thoroughly ready for an exam. I don't believe I forget everything, not if it feels like what I am studying matters.