The mind and learning

The mind is that part of our being which allows us to perceive sense stimuli and to make sense of them. It is the centre of our intellect. It allows us to think. It allows us to learn. It is the essence of our being. It has been the subject of intellectual studies throughout the ages, yet not fully comprehended.

I am going to proffer my commonsensical notion of the mind and learning in this article. This notion has come out of my observations of human behaviour in the classroom and in other settings.

When it comes to learning I believe that there are two types of minds. There is one which is quietly receptive of whatever to which it is introduced. It is suited to the traditional conceptualisation of education. The teacher is the possessor of all knowledge relevant to a particular subject. The teacher imparts this knowledge via the traditional lecture method. The mind absorbs the knowledge and later reproduces it as given. That is, the minds which care about the information which the teacher imparts.

This uncritical mind welcomes the "banking concept of education" which was so heartily criticised by well-known Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire. His view, like many who are proponents of a critical pedagogy in education, is that education should prepare one to think critically, that is, to challenge any facet of life which is deemed to be oppressive in order to bring about change. However, the mind I am talking about here does not want to challenge anything. It wants to be told what to do. It is content with the status quo.

Some students who possess this mind do very well on tests. Others who possess this mind do very poorly. They want to be told everything but they cannot be bothered to act on anything they are told.

The second kind of mind is one which thrives on curiosity. Whatever captures its interest is subject to prolonged, profound questioning. This mind wants to know. Like a dog with a bone, this mind will not stop gnawing at an idea, a procedure, a task in which it is interested until it conquers it. That is, it fully understands the object of its interest. Then it moves on to another source of interest. This mind is constantly working. This mind will welcome the critical pedagogical approach to instruction.

The uncritical mind applies itself in the same manner to every facet of life, with acceptance, feigned interest. The critical mind, on the other hand, may bring criticality to every aspect of life or it may be selective. It may bring criticality only to that aspect of life in which it has an interest.  This criticality may be on display in the classroom, if criticality is welcomed there. Those who possess this critical mind will question received wisdom and provide their own alternative, even though the knowledge base on which they draw may, sometimes, be quite limited. But, most times these persons who possess this critical mind are willing to explore further any issue by doing the necessary research and are willing to revise their position after acquiring new knowledge.

This mind may not necessarily perform well on tests because it only produces what it understands. It does not memorise facts for the sake of memorising them.

This critical mind may not be motivated by the subjects which are taught in school. Instead, it brings its critical focus to that which it is truly interested. For example, in schools, many students who are interested in sports, and may be termed sporting prodigies, do poorly at the academics.

Let us examine this critical mind in relation to the team sport, “soccer”. This mind understands the purpose of the game – winning. It has developed an understanding of strategy in this sport – strategy of passing the ball, strategy of dribbling the ball, strategy of controlling the ball, strategy of defending the goal, strategy of scoring goals, strategy of working as a team. This mind understands its role on the team and it tries to help the team to be successful.

I am sure that we know many persons who have had great success, some by orthodox means, and some by unorthodox means but had performed poorly in school, this poor performance measured in terms of success in tests, which is the standard measuring device of performance in many educational contexts. However, through their own ingenuity they have achieved success by performing well in their chosen fields.

Now, if this mind can perform well in many aspects of life, why cannot it excel in the academic realm?

Should we stream students, putting them in classes with students of like interest and infuse all subjects which they are required to take with illustrations drawn from their interests? That is, should we have classes, for example, which are peopled with only students who are interested in sports?

This may be a desirable strategy to enhance performance in school. The leaders of the education enterprise often say that to improve performance of students teachers must meet them where they are at. This usually means that teachers should provide instruction to students according to their academic level when they come to them. This idea could be extended to incorporate another idea, that of instructing students according to their interests and/or their experience when they come to them. Doing this may help to develop students' interests in the lessons, and their general performance in school as they begin to see the relevance of the lessons to their real life interests and situations.

The above is just the ramblings of a mind which is always looking for answers to the “why” questions. For example, why do some students perform satisfactorily in school and some do not? No doubt, the answer is multi-faceted. I have provided one possible facet of the answer for consideration.