Learning in 2007: Adding Naming and Noises to the Three "R's"

This is another occasional essay on learning. Others, relating to "bite-sized" learning or the "line-by-line" life or the importance of an IEP for everyone or learning in general are here and here and here and here. In fact, it might be best to read this essay in the context of my earlier pieces. I write so much on how people learn because I spend all my time learning and trying to figure out how I learn, and because I think that the way we learn and will learn in the future will be crucial to our continued leadership in the world. I think, also, that my educational insights are useful not only for the United States but for any other nation seeking to play a significant role in the world of the 21st century.

My Thesis

My thesis here is that every one not only needs their own Individualized Educational Program, so that they can learn things that "fit" their learning mode, but that some subjects are so basic and generative of learning that they ought to be part of the basic curriculum. This, in itself, is hardly breaking news. Yet the purpose of this essay is both to expand the three "r's" by adding "naming" and "noises" to our basic subjects but also to think for a moment how the three "r's" might be redefined in our day.

Let's me begin with the idea of expanding basic categories of learning by telling a brief story. When I was a child, I learned the rudiments of the Linnaean Classification system. In my day we had seven categories into which living things were supposed to be divided: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. I learned a few Latin "double terms" in those days, but I basically accepted this classification, because that was the way I was taught. It turns out that this seven-fold classification was a development on Linnaeus (who spoke of five categories). When I returned to studying the natural world in earnest earlier this year, I realized that instead of seven categories, there are now as many as 15 or 20 for some types of living things. We even have "Domains," which are more inclusive than the "Kingdoms" of Linnaeus. But the expansion and naming of new categories, as well as the proper placement of living things in categories, is an ongoing problem for taxonomists. So, our system of classifying living things is constantly undergoing its own change, even in our day.

Thus, even though I support the "three r's" in learning, I think that we need to expand the list to include two other things (naming and language) as well as redefine some of the three "r's." Let me take a tentative step on "naming" and "noises" here.

Naming

One of the most underestimated skills in life is learning to call things by their names. Ever since the Lord God brought every living creature to Adam in the garden so that Adam would give it a name, humankind has been obsessed with naming things. We have different styles, modes, features, characteristics of almost everything. Linnaeus is useful because he decided on a binomial classification system for all living things. But each discipline and human activity has its own vocabulary and terminology. We know, for example, that we are in strange territory if we don't recognized the acronymns..

Learning how to name things precisely ought to be one of the foundational tools of learning. Most people in early years are visual learners (many people retain this characteristic), and care needs to be taken to present all kinds of objects, literally thousands of them, to students as they are in school. Maybe at times there will be "taste" tests, as when one day's lesson might be the introduction of 15 types of juices that people drink, or 15 types of rice dish that people around the world eat. But one day's lesson might be on 15 different shapes of leaves or kinds of rocks. If little Johnny is angry on a particular day, perhaps he ought to be encouraged to learn five synonymns for anger.

Noises/Languages

Young people are fascinated by the words and sounds that other cultures use to describe things. They are also fascinated by the variety of noises that come from their (and others') mouths, as well as other parts of the body. Noises, along with body language, are very interesting and often ignored/suppressed things in education. But all our languages are just disciplined ways of making noises to each other. All our music is simply noises directed in a certain way. Thus, care should be taken to listen to, describe, interpret and encourage students to learn to make all kinds of noises. Rather than training them simply to "be still" or "be quiet," a lot of thought should go into trying to develop a person's ability to express a range of noises. Some of it will come from imitation--perhaps students who are interested will want to try to imitate the "click" languages of Southern Africa or actually try to learn a particular language, such as French or German or Latin. At least as much time ought to be spent on developing "noise" learning as "quiet" learning (math, writing, silent reading).

Conclusion

The educational system of the future, then, will be committed to each student's individual path of learning as well as aware of the five basic subjects/skills that a person needs to develop in order to function well in society and go further on one's individual path. But here is where careful attention to the student is necessary. If s/he is learning to read, find out what interests them. When I was in third grade, for example, I didn't want to read Robert Louis Stevenson--all I wanted to do was to read the numbers and names of the players for the New York Giants. Well, a good teacher would have taken that desire, and tried to find material that would deepen my knowledge of the players. I ran into the name "Andy Robustelli," for example. I could just have learned his number, but I know I would also have been interested to learn a lot more about him. Since information is so easily accesible today, why not turn the student loose on Andy Robustelli for a while, to see what s/he can come up with?

Of course, in order to do this well, you need a lot more teachers, whose goal it would be actually to be educational resources for the children rather than security guards or social workers. Rather than having one teacher to 30 kids, we might just need one teacher per five children. That might even mean cutting the bureaucracy. Well, once you adopt this curricular theory of mine, you won't really need a curriculum department. You will need curious and ever-learning teachers, but most of all you will need adults who are attuned to the ways that each student wants to learn--and then able to supply them with the information which will take them deeper into their subject.

3045