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?

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!

Just wanted to post some alternative views about education from an intellectual I admire. I find it important to hear different sounds. Having said that, I really like your vision on education. For sure, things will change dramatically in the near future. Especially due to the democratization of information, i.e. 100 dollar laptops and free access to libraries and books for the disadvantaged. Just imagine who many talent could be put to good use from the 5 billion inhabitants, currently without proper materials to learn from/educated themselves.

Coming back to your comment about education vs class warfare;
what’s your opinion on ‘The Disadvantages of an Elite Education’,
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/the-disadvantages-of-an-elite-education/

Regards
René

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.

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