The interpretation of the story of the Tower of Babel, for me, has always missed the point. Although we hear in Genesis that the people of the world were building a tower to the heavens, and God disbursed them and effectively created the different languages of the world so that they could never coordinate in this manner again. (Esperanto be damned!) This focus on language has distracted from the larger issue of technology...that all the nations of the world could agree upon a technology, or have enough understanding of it to blend them all together seamlessly, stands as the greater accomplishment. (Just ask anyone who flew United Airlines after they merged with Continental and decided to use Continental's older, incompatible ticketing system.) The accomplishment in Babel was not just the information, or the ability to communicate it, but the real knowledge that manifested in the ability to apply thought into technology. For the thousands of years since the mythical Tower of Babel, we have pushed the boundaries again in terms of communication and information - even agreeing on a new universal language of mathematics - but have not even come close to such an accomplishment because of one simple fact. People know less about science and technology than they ever have.
With my children and I returning to school this week, I may have my antennae a little more tuned to all things school than normal, but I have seen much written lately about the opportunities available to increase access to math and science education for younger students. Recent posts in an excellent blog about computer science and technology written by Dr. Ray Klump from Lewis University discuss camps for kids as young as three in coding and engineering. I also recently came across a related piece in the LA Times discussing a course in entrepreneurship for high schoolers in LA. The existence of all these extra-curricular forms of experience-based education (which forms the core of science and technology learning) highlights the loss of real science education throughout our formal learning process. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say we have experienced the stagnation of science education in our formal learning process, and the increased specialization of real knowledge of science. Kids still learn about the hydrologic cycle and the parts of a plant, but has basic education included discussions of MRI technology and semiconductors at inspirational ages. Those "real science" problems we leave to the experts...the few who can survive high school geometry and chemistry without heavy doses of anxiety medication.
One need look no further than the declining number of students pursuing science and technology as a field of study (not just percentages of population and enrollees, but total number declining) over the past forty years, while overall college participation has increased steadily over this same time period. Meanwhile, the almost complete obliteration of shop courses in high schools has removed the natural science outlet for those that did not want the more "bookish" form of study. Fifty years ago, not only did we naturally do more science on our own through unscheduled play and exploration, but as we progressed in education, we had many alternatives to create an understanding of science and technology as it is applied to our lives. If I did not want to study physics or chemistry, I could still take an auto shop class, or carpentry shop to gain knowledge about how to apply science. I also had the option to take a cooking class, or pottery, some other hands-on class that would increase my understanding of the world in which I lived. It's no surprise that with the explosion of complexity in the applied sciences, we have seen a corresponding decrease in the overall knowledge of science and how it affects our lives.
This loss of true knowledge comes at a time when we all need so desperately to understand science. In an era when scientists and engineers hold places of esteem in our society nearing that of the military, understanding the greatest modern threat to human existence comes down to whether or not the science as explained makes sense to us all. Having abdicated our responsibility to understand nature, and the science behind her many processes, we are left to a question of trust instead of a question of knowledge. If someone began running around the streets yelling, "Gravity is failing! We will all be sucked out into space!", we have enough common understanding to know that is not true. However, do we have enough understanding to know whether 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is enough, or whether a growth study for corn yields in the Amazon applies to Iowa, or whether water flows causing eutrophication have man-made origins or natural ones? Given the tenor and substance of our global debate, my current assessment is we do not.
As a great piece by Jurgen Mittelstrass points out, we have an explosion of information, but not necessarily one of knowledge. Having all the information in the world in front of someone does not inherently make them more productive, or guarantee that they will come to the right solution. The knowledge to sift through the information and find the kernel that leads to an improved quality of life comes from a commitment to a lifetime of experiential learning. This makes it easier for those who do have the background and experience to build, maintain, and repair items, but it does not create a society of "do-it-yourself" computer, appliance, and home system repair technicians. We have created a cultural need for more and more of these specialists as we become less and less able to maintain our own houses and equipment. As Samuel Arbesman points out in his piece on "big data" in the Washington Post, even the new levels of data processing that are making analyses of large data sets easier will not provide answers if a learned population does not ask the right questions.
When my grandfather was going to school, and then into the navy, there was a premium on hands-on technology education (what we sometimes call vocational education) for both college-bound and non-college-bound students. Coming out, he became a stationary building engineer, and on the side he would work on houses. Even though my father did not pursue a similar path (he became a history/social studies teacher and principal), he still had the ability to frame walls, hunt down electrical problems, and service gas heaters. During both of their careers, there was a healthy level of respect among those who were college-educated or union-trained recognizing that they were two sides of the same technology. Contributing to the polarization of society - and the vilification of the union employee - is less and less appreciation for the scientific understanding they possess. When more of society understood - and frankly revered - science, it was easier to appreciate the hard work and skills of another.
We have reached a critical point in our understanding of education and its role in society. Should we focus only on a bare-bones education, allowing those who can afford it to have access to a greater breadth of knowledge? Or should we, at even the earliest of ages, return to a more hands-on understanding of how our world works? Would doing so mean that we focus less on some of what remains in our educational system - reading comprehension and basic math - or can we find a way to use one to reinforce the other?
I have no firm answers right now, only a challenge. If those who can afford it are sending their children to camps to work on coding, and engineering, and entrepreneurship....then maybe we should be finding ways to give everybody the opportunity. Our life, quite frankly, depends on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment