Knowledge may be power, but without understanding knowledge is useless. The two are intrinsically tied together and the distinction between them is one that could easily be missed. The very concept of understanding is slightly elusive. To understand is to be able to take knowledge and to be able to analyze and synthesize it into a deeper level of comprehension that allows one to grasp the situation on a larger level. Wiggins and McTighe, in Understanding by Design, claim that "to understand is to be able to wisely and effectively use--transfer--what we know, in context; to apply knowledge and skill effectively, in realistic tasks and settings" (p.7). This implies a deeper connection to information than simply knowing it. For example, a farmer can sit and tell me how to grow the perfect crop of corn. We could sit for hours, pouring over infinite lessons he has learned throughout his life. However, until I have actually grown the perfect crop of corn, it is difficult for me to truly understand how to do it. Thus, there is an element of experience that leads people from knowledge to understanding. In that regard, knowledge is a prerequisite for understanding. However, true understanding will not exist without the practical application of experience combined with the background knowledge required for the task at hand. The irony is that humanity tends to idealize knowledge, yet understanding will lead us much further towards our successes. It is common for knowledge to exist without understanding--especially in the school system. As our educational system is obsessed with standardized testing, students who memorize information are considered smart. While the ability to memorize is useful, it will not help a student to grasp complex concepts that require a synthesis of knowledge to create understanding.
Renowned Egyptologist Isha Schwaller de Lubicz explained that "science is not the same as Understanding. To know means to record in one’s memory; but to understand means to blend with the thing and to assimilate it oneself, as the bread you eat is assimilated by your body". After extensive studies of the Egyptian temples, Isha Schwaller de Lubicz came to realize that understanding was consciousness, which developed through knowledge coupled with experience that led towards the path of enlightenment. This path is the extension of the journey that leads from knowledge to understanding. As teachers, it is important to realize that the types of lessons we create help determine whether successful students will simply be gaining knowledge or actually understanding concepts on a deeper level. We must ask ourselves if we are providing our students with the tools to eventually reach beyond knowledge, beyond understanding, into the deeper consciousness de Lubicz describes.
McTighe, J. & Wiggins, G. (2005). Understanding by design. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Proverbs from the Ancient Egyptian Temples. (n.d.). In D.W.E. Dubois learning center. Retrieved from: http://www.duboislc.org/html/Proverbs.html
"After extensive studies of the Egyptian temples, Isha Schwaller de Lubicz came to realize that understanding was consciousness, which developed through knowledge coupled with experience that led towards the path of enlightenment".
ReplyDeleteIsha Scwaller de Lubicz's belief in the nexus between consciousness and understanding is a powerful one. Beyond our initial discussion of knowing and understanding, it is introducing the two concepts of consciousness and experience.
Does this mean that understanding (which is equated with consciousness) is predicated on the existence of both knowledge and experience? And more importantly, can you only understand something through an experiential act?
I also mentioned intuition in my post, but in a very different way. The reference to our innate human instincts in social situations as discrete forms of knowledge that are not, at least formally, taught, or even necessarily “learned(?)” is a powerful illustration of the value of human knowledge beyond the realm of the classroom. You are right to point out the “life-saving” value of these instincts.
ReplyDeleteI found your connection between our world-view and our capacity for understanding to be particularly interesting. We translate the knowledge we accumulate through our subjective location in the world. Thus, all learning is individualized. But it also made me think of learning groups, and, specifically, Berger and Luckmann’s notion of the social construction of reality (1966): the shift from the individual to the social.
The farming metaphor is an excellent way to demonstrate the need for experience or application of knowledge to take it to the next level of truly understanding it. I appreciate your mention of assessment in education. Standardized tests are such different measurements than what we end up experiencing in real life. The training for proving we understood information in the K-12 system is very different than what we are asked to do in work or life experiences. This leads me to wonder if students are gaining the skills that they need to understand what they have learned at the level we have been discussing.
ReplyDelete