Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Chui  Hm... I wouldn't think so. The ability to use knowledge feels like it crosses a line the others don't. First, knowledge isn't necessarily useful; the point of learning isn't application. It's so that you know things. Second, the desire to use seems to underpin the desire to know... that's interesting.
Certainly, in specific cases, it'd be a really good idea to teach how and why something's useful, but how universal is that? |
True, in many cases the pursuit of knowledge is all that is needed, however in the context of school-based education, I believe being taught how to apply knowledge is incredibly important. I think that the issue many people have with what they're taught in school, is that there doesn't seem to be any use for the knowledge they were given. The replies of Qilfish and Akashic_Librarian provide examples of what I'm referring to.
Secondly, if the desire to use truly underpins the desire to know, then it's even more important that the desire to use be taught explicitly.
Thirdly, what is the point of knowing if nothing is done with that knowledge? Communicating the same knowledge then also becomes pointless. However I do consider analysing knowledge to be one use of knowledge, and in some cases, such as philosophy, the only obvious use. But ultimately, even the analysis of knowledge is pointless if that knowledge has no use. We don't grow through possession of knowledge, but rather through the benefits that knowledge provides (for all).
How universal is the how and why of the use of a particular area of knowledge? It's applicable to
any field of knowledge which can be used. We have an
entire sector of our educational system which is designed to teach areas of knowledge which are
intended to be applied.
Perhaps that particular need (the ability to use knowledge) would be satisfied if, when passing on knowledge that
could be used, the ability to put that knowledge to use is also passed on, and the ability to communicate knowledge is taught for knowledge which isn't put to any material use.
Doku:
The following quotes, from the document you pointed me towards, indicates that while deliberate design was the driver, mindless automatons were
not the intended outcome.
"What is essential is that we create a seamless web of opportunities, to develop one's skills that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone--young and old, poor and rich, worker and full-time student. It needs to be a system driven by client needs (not agency regulations or the needs of the organization providing the services), guided by clear standards that define the stages of the system for the people who progress through it, and regulated on the basis of outcomes that providers produce for their clients, not inputs into the system." "Throughout, the object is to have a per- formance-and-client-oriented system to encourage local creativity and responsibility by getting local people to commit to high goals and organize to achieve them, sweeping away as much of the rules, regulations and bureaucracy that are in their way as possible, provided that they are making real progress against their goals."