Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.



Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view




whats new at ieet

Bitcoin and Science: DNA is the Original Decentralized System

Summa Technologiae, Or Why The Trouble With Science Is Religion

Technoprogressive Declaration - Transvision 2014

Transhumanism: A Glimpse into the Future of Humanity

Brain, Mind, and the Structure of Reality

How America’s Obsession With Bad Birth Control Hurts and Even Kills Women


ieet books

Virtually Human: The Promise—-and the Peril—-of Digital Immortality
Author
Martine Rothblatt


comments

Leah Carr on 'Technoprogressive Declaration - Transvision 2014' (Nov 23, 2014)

David Wood on 'Technoprogressive Declaration - Transvision 2014' (Nov 23, 2014)

Rick Searle on 'Summa Technologiae, Or Why The Trouble With Science Is Religion' (Nov 23, 2014)

Omar Immortalist Gatti on 'Technoprogressive Declaration - Transvision 2014' (Nov 23, 2014)

CygnusX1 on 'Summa Technologiae, Or Why The Trouble With Science Is Religion' (Nov 23, 2014)

hume on 'Technoprogressive Declaration - Transvision 2014' (Nov 23, 2014)

jhughes on 'Technoprogressive Declaration - Transvision 2014' (Nov 23, 2014)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



JET

Enframing the Flesh: Heidegger, Transhumanism, and the Body as “Standing Reserve”

Moral Enhancement and Political Realism

Intelligent Technologies and Lost Life

Hottest Articles of the Last Month


Why Running Simulations May Mean the End is Near
Nov 3, 2014
(20722) Hits
(15) Comments

Does Religion Cause More Harm than Good? Brits Say Yes. Here’s Why They May be Right.
Nov 18, 2014
(19236) Hits
(1) Comments

2040’s America will be like 1840’s Britain, with robots?
Oct 26, 2014
(14541) Hits
(33) Comments

Decentralized Money: Bitcoin 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0
Nov 10, 2014
(8618) Hits
(1) Comments



IEET

Print Email permalink (2) Comments (3490) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


Education and Learning: Still in the Middle Ages


Marcelo Rinesi
By Marcelo Rinesi
Frontier Economy

Posted: Jul 27, 2009

We invest money, time, and effort in procuring the best possible hardware and software for our projects. In the same manner, we want the people in our teams to have the necessary knowledge and skills. We can be quite vocal in our beliefs that people are the most important asset, and ongoing education a necessity of the modern economy. Except that when it comes to learning, we are really, really bad.

To be fair, we aren’t worse at it than previous generations. Our lecture halls are better than those of the Middle Ages, our textbooks friendlier than those of early 20th century, and the Internet often a good replacement for an afternoon in a library. We even use, if we are good or lucky in our choice of educational system, exercises, simulations, and concrete projects. It could even be said that, with all these resources and technology at our disposal, we are somewhat better learners, in average, than we used to be. Quite a bit better, probably, than when the Middle Ages finished and Western civilization rediscovered the scientific method.

Therein lies the problem. Because in almost every other economically important activity, our performance isn’t somewhat better or quite a bit better, but much better, if not astoundingly so. Except, arguably, for art — which is something of a subjective matter — we could easily astonish anyone from a few centuries ago. They waged war, but nothing at all like we do. They built (and beautifully, it must be said), but their engineering was nowhere close to ours. They would consider our doctors wizards, and would shake their heads when we told them about our telescopes orbiting Earth, peering into the residual radiation from literally the first microsecond of time.

But they would understand our schools and universities. They would be surprised at their size and the abundance of books, but they would nod at the teacher lecturing, the students at the library, the concept, if not the precise form, of the exam. It would be to them an inspiring sight, perhaps, but not an astounding one.

This suggests that science has yet to be applied, or at least successfully applied, to learning. Everywhere we have applied the scientific method, the last few centuries have brought radical changes… And learning stays comparatively still. There have been changes, that’s for sure, and even in the contemporary world there are schools that are much better than others, learners that have been taught or have figured out how to learn better. Yet how good are our best schools, compared with the average, compared with history? Twice as good? Three times? Five? We have gone from Leonardo’s drawings of leather wings to routine flights between Rome and Tokyo, and from the faithful students with their books, their teachers, and their notes… to the same place. Quite a bit better, perhaps. But ‘quite a bit’ is not enough.

We live, to repeat a cliche, in a Knowledge Economy. A practical implication of this is that one of the bottlenecks, perhaps the biggest one, to our productivity and the productivity of our teams, is how fast and how well we are able to learn, something that we are still mostly doing exactly as it was done centuries ago.

Whatever form research in learning has taken so far, it hasn’t worked. It is clearly not a simple problem, and centuries, if not millennia, of traditions, guesses, and anecdotal observations don’t make a particularly fruitful corpus of knowledge. But whoever figures out a way to apply science to learning will have an almost boundless impact on the world.


Marcelo Rinesi is the Assistant Director of the IEET. He is also a Data Analyst at Zauber.
Print Email permalink (2) Comments (3491) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


COMMENTS


I think the answer lies more in desire than in science. Unless you can figure out a way for science to increase one’s desire…





Scientists in the 20th Century certainly thought about this problem. Psychologist B.F. Skinner tried to apply principles from his research into operant conditioning towards making education more efficient, even inventing a “teaching machine.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXR9Ft8rzhk

I also have to wonder what the Soviet Union did along these lines, considering that it tried to seek out and cultivate its most gifted children regardless of social class, and it lacked Western inhibitions about conducting envelope-pushing experiments.





YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Cheating Darwin: The Genetic and Ethical Implications of Vanity and Cosmetic Plastic Surgery

Previous entry: Planetary Praxis

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
56 Daleville School Rd., Willington CT 06279 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376