Speedlearn Update

After having the time to watch the “Speedlearn” videos and read the sources, I’ve come to the conclusion regarding these videos that to me “WHY” is not so much as the point as to the definition of “learn.” The videos address an interesting issue as to whether someone can recite some facts (dates, names, and events), have they then become taught? I suppose to some extent this is true (this is supported in the same assignment where it discusses a “good student” being able to parrot back information when asked). But I would take it a step further and say memorizing facts is albeit “impressive,” it is very worthless unless there is a purpose for these facts.

We were assigned to read a “source” explaining “The Prisoner,” but I liked the readings prior to this where David W. Deley writes “Why American History is Boring” and also the preface by James W. Loewen of “Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong.” These readings got me thinking about my High School days and would agree; I hated History. In this preface, Loewen explains (and I would argue correctly so) that history books are compiled with so much factual data, it becomes worthless. He continues by adding that the books are so boring with facts, they leave out the learning aspects of history itself, which explained by Loewen is the controversial stuff mixed in with history. This is where one gets to absorb, identify, and analyze these facts and controversies to learn whether history has proven to be worthy of repetition or not. And it is here, I argue “learning” takes place. One learns from mistakes, one learns by trial and error/success, but one does not learn by repeating datum. This is memorization and I argue this is different than “learning.” Perhaps somewhere intertwined in this is the delineation between “facts” and “knowledge.” Facts are just that, undisputed entities. Knowledge is something that is cognitive (well, I suppose this by definition is knowledge, but I use it to explain something factual is not cognitive) and a useful tool in the formulation of thought.

In the Speedlearn program, one identifies a computer as a tool to move factual information between an inanimate object into a human. Although very successful (according to the movie clips), not very practical, which is where I think the “hero” was going with his “WHY” question. Another issue I think is that of the people all having the same facts inserted into their heads. What purpose does this serve I ask? And wouldn’t this just then create a mass of individuals who have or need little to no interaction amongst one another? Another question I ask is to what extent can an individual argue with the computer? How does one check the validity of the computer? Is it the professor? If so, doesn’t he now (providing everyone believes the computer) control an entire population?

The videos are interesting in that it addresses the issues of whether such “learning” could exist. I don’t believe it could and even if Socrates was correct and the mind is a blank slate, I think this is a metaphor as to what people can learn rather than what people can be taught.