How do you study? Simple. You are given the answers to a set of questions and you review those questions until you know the answers. The key is that you are given the answers.
And that’s the problem. True learning doesn’t come from being given the answers, it comes from discovering solutions, connections, principles and ideas on your own.
So why do we give answers? Because it’s easy to measure. Checking whether or not you remember the answer is easy. Checking whether or not you truly understand is very hard.
If all you need are answers, then study. But if you want understanding, you must discover.
Said another way, study is work and discovery is play. What is your path to excellence, to fluency? Work or Play? Study or Discovery?
Two examples outside language learning to illustrate the difference:
Do as Avogadro did
An article from Oct. 2006 by Lisa VanDamme on teaching Physics by Induction.
You know how learning physics goes. You are given the principles, the equations, the relationships, the “laws”, i.e. the answers. Regurgitate them on your exam and you can go to MIT.
In Lisa’s words:
Scientific knowledge is presented as a series of commandments rather than as conclusions that have been reached by a laborious process of observation, experiment, and induction. If taught physics this way, a student’s grasp of the principles is necessarily detached from reality.
And what happens when you stop giving answers and encourage students to play with these concepts as the original great minds did?
As a result of Mr. Harriman’s approach to teaching physics, my students have not just memorized the principles of physics, they understand them clearly and concretely. Let me tell you a story that conclusively makes the case for this method of instruction. One day, Mr. Harriman was teaching the kids about the first evidence for the existence of atoms. He had spent several hours explaining many of the discoveries made by chemists, and he reached the Law of Combining Volumes, which states that the volumes of gases involved in a chemical reaction can always be expressed as a ratio of small integers. (For example, 2 L of H will combine with 1 L of O to make 2 L of steam.) Francisco, as focused and intent as always, thought about this for a minute, and then raised his hand and asked, “Does that mean that equal volumes of gases contain equal numbers of molecules?” If you don’t see the connection, don’t worry–I didn’t either at the time, and I had the benefit of Mr. Harriman’s class behind me. As it turns out, Francisco was anticipating the next development in science. Avogadro’s Hypothesis states exactly what Francisco said–that equal volumes of gases contain equal numbers of molecules.
When you learned physics did you ever anticipate the next discovery? No? Join the club.
Never Saw It Coming
For round two, we’ll go to Carnegie Mellon University and Building Virtual Worlds, a multidisciplinary course founded by Randy Pausch - You may know this name from his recent “Last Lecture”.
This is a class where small teams of engineers and artists collaborate to create virtual worlds. Your grade then is no doubt based on your programming skill, your artistic prowess, your creativity, your boldness is trying new things…not so much.
Your grade in this course is based on your ability to work with a team. Why, oh, Why would you do that?!? Simple. If you work well as a team, and you aren’t complete muppets, you’ll be surprised at what you can create. And every so often, you’ll create something really great.
Pausch calls this a head fake. You learn without knowing you’re learning. The Alice Educational Software that came out of his Stage 3 Research lab teaches computer programming in a 3D environment. Students think they’re playing and telling stories, their actually learning the logical basis for computer software. Head Fake.
Inevitable
While playing with 3D software you learn programming.
By building virtual worlds, you learn teamwork.
By learning physics by induction, in historical order, you can make the same discoveries the original scientists did.
What is most powerful about these examples is not what was learned or even how it was learned. What’s important is that you cannot help but learn.
You cannot play with the Alice program and not learn programming.
You cannot take BVW and not learn teamwork.
You cannot learn physics by induction and not build a fundamental understanding of the world around you.
I call these inevitable processes. Simple processes that are easily followed and cannot help but produce some benefit. Put apple seeds in the ground and provide light, water and air and you can’t help but produce Apples. It’s inevitable.
And this is what’s missing from the resources for learning Japanese out there. It’s all about studying, answers and work. It’s rarely about play, discovery, induction, and head fakes.
So, what is the inevitable process for learning Japanese? One where you cannot help but attain fluency? One where you cannot burnout? One where you discover Japanese?
2008 seems like a good year to find answers to these questions.
