Bluobia
14-06-2005, 02:22
Note: you can tell I was really, really bored.
"Student" vs. "Learner"
What's the difference?
· Good students aim to please their teachers/schools/educational systems through scores, grades, etc.
· Good learners, on the other hand, attempt to satisfy their own curiosity, appreciation for knowledge, and how it applies to the world.
· Students complete assignments and tests only to fulfill the above-stated goal, then move on when "finished" with the material. Depending on long-term memory, they may remember information for respectably long times, but see little value in it except for future exams.
· Learners, however, make a strong effort to actually understand the relevance of what education crams into their minds; since knowledge is an important commodity, they continually use it during everyday life.
· Students try to "beat the system" for their own future benefit.
· Learners gradually come to understand the system and how it affects other people in beneficial ways.
· Oddly enough, both students and learners seek to reform the system, though for completely different reasons.
· Both students and learners are equally capable of "high achievement", but once again, their methods and motivations differ greatly.
· Indeed, they each have conflicting definitions of "high achievement."
· When asked about their lives, students tend to desire "success", usually material.
· Learners would rather be "accomplished", usually through prestige or contributions to society.
· Students are likely to be realists.
· Learners are likely to be idealists.
OK, I've rambled long enough. How does this apply to YOU?
People have always sought to achieve balance -- liberal vs. conservative, environment vs. business, freedom vs. control, social Darwinism vs. social welfare, etc. In the past, it seems that the most people were pleased, and the most progress made, when society reached a respectable compromise between the two extremes. Doesn't student vs. learner count here as well?
Unfortunately, in the issue presented, there is no middle ground. The majority of people in the academic world, or at least in the U.S., encourage the notion of "student", and cast off true "learners" as frivolous and impractical. Is this how we truly want to think?
Thus, today's world stands at an intellectual crossroads.
Note: Nobody completely takes either extreme. Just like the political spectrum, where people are part liberal and part conservative, the "learner vs. student" (perhaps better descriptions would be progress-oriented and object-oriented) issue has a complex range of possibilities. The problem is that most people tend to lean heavily toward the object-oriented or "student" side, therefore assimilating into a rather unimaginative status quo. In my personal opinion, the world needs more progress-oriented people.
What do you think?
*hears snoring and blasts foghorn to awaken audience*
"Student" vs. "Learner"
What's the difference?
· Good students aim to please their teachers/schools/educational systems through scores, grades, etc.
· Good learners, on the other hand, attempt to satisfy their own curiosity, appreciation for knowledge, and how it applies to the world.
· Students complete assignments and tests only to fulfill the above-stated goal, then move on when "finished" with the material. Depending on long-term memory, they may remember information for respectably long times, but see little value in it except for future exams.
· Learners, however, make a strong effort to actually understand the relevance of what education crams into their minds; since knowledge is an important commodity, they continually use it during everyday life.
· Students try to "beat the system" for their own future benefit.
· Learners gradually come to understand the system and how it affects other people in beneficial ways.
· Oddly enough, both students and learners seek to reform the system, though for completely different reasons.
· Both students and learners are equally capable of "high achievement", but once again, their methods and motivations differ greatly.
· Indeed, they each have conflicting definitions of "high achievement."
· When asked about their lives, students tend to desire "success", usually material.
· Learners would rather be "accomplished", usually through prestige or contributions to society.
· Students are likely to be realists.
· Learners are likely to be idealists.
OK, I've rambled long enough. How does this apply to YOU?
People have always sought to achieve balance -- liberal vs. conservative, environment vs. business, freedom vs. control, social Darwinism vs. social welfare, etc. In the past, it seems that the most people were pleased, and the most progress made, when society reached a respectable compromise between the two extremes. Doesn't student vs. learner count here as well?
Unfortunately, in the issue presented, there is no middle ground. The majority of people in the academic world, or at least in the U.S., encourage the notion of "student", and cast off true "learners" as frivolous and impractical. Is this how we truly want to think?
Thus, today's world stands at an intellectual crossroads.
Note: Nobody completely takes either extreme. Just like the political spectrum, where people are part liberal and part conservative, the "learner vs. student" (perhaps better descriptions would be progress-oriented and object-oriented) issue has a complex range of possibilities. The problem is that most people tend to lean heavily toward the object-oriented or "student" side, therefore assimilating into a rather unimaginative status quo. In my personal opinion, the world needs more progress-oriented people.
What do you think?
*hears snoring and blasts foghorn to awaken audience*