Learning and Meaning

We humans, like to think we are doing something important. If what we do is important to us, we get emotionally involved, we put effort into it, we see the goal (our goal) beyond the difficulties, so we overcome them. If we consider what we do as unimportant, or meaningless, we may just do it perfunctorily to avoid nagging or punishment. We wouldn't consider it an achievement if we succeeded; We wouldn't mind failing. In this respect, studying is no different than any other occupation: If what we study is meaningful for us, we learn it well, and we know it; If it's meaningless, we will try to do well enough on the test, and forget about it.

Teaching needs to speak to those taught, otherwise learning doesn't occur. This is not my idea - Roland Tharp and others are speaking of it in the 21st century as "Making Meaning." John Dewey spoke about it at the 1890s. King Solomon spoke about it in the book of Proverbs, saying "Teach the boy according to his own way" (22:6) almost 3000 years ago. And if I had meaningful classic history lessons, I would probably know about what Confucius and Aristotle may have said about it.
In the first grade, children learn to read, write and make simple calculations. They find immediate use for these skills, they practice them. It's meaningful. The readers are welcome to ask themselves if they retained that knowledge - can you read, write, add, subtract...? Probably.

In high-school, students learn history, chemistry, trigonometry, etc. They do not have immediate use for this knowledge - apart from the need to pass a test. Usually, they have no idea why they should be studying this issues. It's meaningless. The readers are welcome to ask themselves if they retained that knowledge - can you extract the sine of an angle? Recall the dates of the plague in Europe? Explain why Water is H2O and not H3O? Probably not.

It is not that history, chemistry and trigonometry are inherently more difficult – look at how long it takes a child to master multiplication. It is not that they are inherently unimportant – some aspects of chemistry, such as CO2 emission from burning fossil fuel may be of fatal importance. It is not that they are inherently uninteresting – ask any historian, chemist or mathematician. There is something in the way we teach and learn many subject matters that makes them seem unimportant, uninteresting and difficult.

What is it that we do, that causes this apparent meaninglessness? As usual, the answer - even just the proposed answer - is complex:

• One problem is poor salesmanship - We don't do a very good job selling what we are going to teach; making sure the students want it. This is an issue worthy of its own discussion
  
• Another problem is chopped attention - School students normally skip among several unrelated types of lessons during any given school day: Poetry, History, Math, Gym, Civics, etc. There is no continuity of thought. This issue also deserves its own discussion
  
• A third problem is the lack of emotional involvement: Commitment when beginning to learn something new, and a sense of accomplishment when finishing. A first grader learns to read, and does get a great sense of accomplishment and empowerment - they can read on their own. What does an eight-grader feel they accomplished? Passing a test and knowing they don't need to worry about the Renaissance ever again is a relief, but it's a poor substitute for a sense of empowerment. Yet another discussion looming in the horizon


• There are more interrelated reasons, but this is a good start

If we set out to make every lesson meaningful to the learners, there are many ways open to us: asking them what's interesting to them, showing them the relevance of what they are learning, encouraging them to do something with their new knowledge and skills, and more.
Making every lesson meaningful is possible. But to do that, we have to set this "making meaning" as a primary guideline for the education activity.
.