In a conversation with a friend, I developed the hypothesis that the diversity of subjects we are being taught at school serves us in our ability to learn to think. All the subjects being taught treat knowledge. However, what I saw was that integrating the respective types of knowledge would also require different ways of thinking. Experiencing the diversity of different approaches, I assumed, would give us more flexibility and help us discover our preferred style.
Consider the following ideas. Learning geography can assist in learning how to read a variety of maps and observe the world based on things that rarely change. Learning biology can contribute to our learning through the change it describes. For example, how animals adapted to the varying circumstances and needs. Building on these examples, mathematics could contribute to understanding geography and how maps are being drawn. Whereas philosophy might have served to develop an idea of how one wants to relate to nature.
Whatever is being learned can assist us in our relationship with life, the world around us, and other people. That one or several topics may also lead into a profession is almost irrelevant. That is if we miss that it is the consequence of how interest and curiosity were sparked by that subject. Noticing that there is a theme that enables curiosity opens the door to something one can become passionate about.
Looking back at my childhood and the time spent at school, I don’t remember a lot of teachers. Those I remember most often are the ones I started appreciating a lot. They seemed to create space for the learning I needed and looked for. Later, for some reason, the relationship often changed when I found myself shamed for one reason or the other.
It didn’t seem relevant at the time to connect the learning with other subjects or to look for the picture as a whole. What seemed to be more relevant were the results of the tests. While studying IT my family even wondered how what I was learning would remain relevant a few years later. They couldn’t imagine that the learning went beyond content.
I don’t want to generalize my experience beyond those having had a similar experience. Nevertheless, I wonder if the learning done in school and at university doesn’t consider how subjects may be interdependent. Or how appreciating such interdependence is a practical use of the facts learned. Has it deteriorated into facts and methods to be learned? Has measurable performance become important as it makes results comparable? Or is it because it seemingly displays performance?
The intangible aspects of students being supported in developing their capacity to think and do so critically may then be an assumed result that slowly fades away. Whenever those learning don’t experience their thinking as a relevant part of their learning they won’t have any motivation to focus on it. Even less so, when they are being criticized for being different.
Where our attention is directed to is what we’ll practice and how we’ll learn to think.
