The norm is obedience, adoption of uncritical attitudes, taking the easy path of self-deception. I think there’s also a selective process in the academic professions and journalism. That is, people who are independent minded and cannot be trusted to be obedient don’t make it, by and large.

There are huge efforts that do go into making people, as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. A lot of the educational system is designed for that, if you think about it, it’s designed for obedience and passivity.
-Noam Chomsky from Chomsky.info

John took the words right out of my mouth. I organse the Creative Company Conference on May 26th in Amsterdam with a special theme on creativity, entrepreneurship and education.
I immediately contacted John and he is coming to speak at the conference. So if you like to meet John come to the CCC. Check out http://www.creativecompanyconference.com
Any suggestions for Dutch speakers with a passion for this topic?
rudolf

I have to admit, I am intrigued by your education 3.0 John. I just finished watching the episode and scouring the ‘net for background information.
Although your vision could work, I do think the best result is the combination of both perspectives that were shown in the episode. While it’s fun and all to have a gadget that helps you, the foundation has to be laid in order to actively use the knowledge or information.
Ive got to keep it short as school work is waiting for me as I type this

Thanks for giving some delicious food for thought and pondering about.

As an assistent prof at a Dutch university I’m constantly looking for ways to make my courses interesting and relevant for students and for myself. I find the Tegenlicht episode on Education 3.0 very inspiring.
I share the idea that students need to have an inventory of knowledge from which they can explore, experiment and explain. Indeed, the ‘So What?’ question regarding knowledge acquisition is the litmus test here.

One of my main challenges is to convince students that education is about knowledge *sharing* (teacher student; student student) not about knowledge *transfer* (teacher -> student). My freshman students expect the teacher/professor to be ‘all knowing’ and the text book to contain absolute information. Together with a reluctance of self-expression in class (due to fear to fail in front of peers), this translates in a passive audience. I’m trying to find ways to deal with this; the Tegenlicht episode definitely has given me inspiration to continue this quest.

I’ve memorised 172 out of 190 capitals, so what?

This information on it’s own isn’t very usefull. But as I watch news, background stories, documenteries and so on, I can place these capitals in what is happening. An extreme example: what if I thought Bagdad was in Mexico? Just this simple mistake would put alot of information that comes through the news in a wrong context and my view of the world. The effect of having the world around you in a wrong context is that you might not understand someone else’s ideas and opinions. I don’t hope I’ve to explain what history teaches us about these situations.

Then, why memorise it all when there are computers hooked up to all of human knowladge?

This is simply because I don’t sit with my hand held computer typing in every little basic thing I don’t know. It’s simply to slow, even if it gives information the right information in less then a second. I’ve still have to input what I want to know, read the information and process it. It’s simply impractical. The only computer that is practical and fast enough is the one everybody is born with! (you can find it right between your ears). The only time people use these computers to look something up is when they are realy intrested and are willing to spend time focussing on gathering information.

A question: who is more effective: the one who says: three times ten is thrity (1 second) or the one who lookes for his calculator (1st second), inputs the equiation (2nd second), reads and gives the output (3rd second)? The same goes for language, in wich the speed of information needs to go much faster then that single second.

My opinion is that there should be a balance. You need basic information in order to put the world around you in context and have essential informtion quickly accesible. On the other hand are problem solving skills and finding systematic aproaches in a chaotic world. There is no sense in having only one of the two.

Perhaps I believe in schools being places where factory workers are being created. But then again: I am a factory worker!

@Frank Of course there should be balance! However, consider these questions when striking a balance:

We won’t stop learning facts. We’ll just start to learn different facts –and different facts for different contexts. Studies show that the amount of information available to us in the world is doubling at an ever accelerating rate. How do we sort all of that? What facts or bits of information are more important?

Moreover, facts change depending on context. You and I might agree that 1+1 always equals 2, but an electrical engineer might disagree on the basis that the rules of complex mathematics come into play and 1+1 doesn’t always add up to two.

Now, in a world that’s full of information and facts, I have a hunch that the most creative and innovative among us will leverage these to become successful. While it’s important to know facts, it’s more important to know how to contextually apply them in new contexts (innovation!).

In regard to your questioning of technologies, don’t forget that the same technologies that can help us find the right answers can also teach us. This is particularly important with language technologies, which can have an instructive value.

If we can package the “sage on the stage” in a handheld device, what new things can schools can focus on? What new knowledge can we seek and create?