Learning How to Learn

Model answer: Few claims about education sound more persuasive than the assertion that schools should teach children how to learn rather than what to know. In a world where information is endlessly available and professions are reinvented within a decade, it is tempting to conclude that facts are obsolete. I agree with this view only to a limited extent, since independent learning, however valuable, cannot flourish in the absence of knowledge. The strength of the argument is considerable. Technology has changed so quickly that no curriculum can predict what its pupils will need in thirty years. A graduate who has been taught to question sources, to plan her own study and to persevere through confusion is far better equipped than one who has simply memorised dates and formulae that a search engine can supply in seconds. The ability to learn is, in this sense, a skill that renews itself, and it allows people to change career or to master a new tool without being dependent on others. Nevertheless, the argument overlooks a crucial point. Learning how to learn is not an abstract exercise; it requires material to work upon. A student cannot evaluate a historical claim without some understanding of the period, nor can she judge a statistic without a grasp of basic mathematics. What allows an expert to learn quickly is precisely the stock of knowledge already in her head, which provides a framework onto which new information can be attached. Those who lack this framework are often unable even to formulate useful questions. Ideally, then, the two aims should reinforce one another. Schools should insist on a solid core of knowledge while deliberately training pupils to explore, to test their own understanding and to teach themselves. To treat them as rivals is to misunderstand both. In short, independence of mind is the goal, but knowledge is the soil from which it grows.