Reply
Fri 9 Dec, 2005 05:32 am
Knowing & Understanding
It appears to me that knowing and understanding are entirely different kinds of mental happenings. Knowledge is what is measured when we take an exam or a test. We take such exams constantly throughout our schooling. How well we do on these exams determines, many feel, our potential for job success in life.
Our schools generally do not give essay exams. I think writing is the only metric for determining a person's understanding. Personally I find that essay writing is a very important component of understanding. Our schools and colleges place little emphasis on understanding, probably because it is too time consuming and too difficult to teach and to quantify for grading purposes.
I think that ?'paint-by-number' and canvas painting might be a useful analogy for comparing knowing and understanding.
One can buy a paint-by-number kit that will contain bottles of different colored paints, some brushes, and a board upon which an image is displayed in outline. Each section of the image is numbered just as the bottles of paint so that the painter dabs on the numbered section of the image the appropriate color of paint.
Comparing paint-by-number work with a canvas painting I think will give an idea of the difference between knowing and understanding. The paint-by-number product is somewhat mechanical while the canvas painting is much more of a work of art in that it is a creative act.
I think that learning how to learn and how to understand is something that comes with the experience of trying to learn. I think that our standard schooling does a marvelous job preparing us to become good producers and voracious consumers. It teaches us what to know and what questions to expect on the next exam. To learn how to learn and how to understand is up to each of us to accomplish after our schooling is finished.
My learning circle goes like this: Reading skills are dependent upon thinking skills, thinking skills are dependent upon writing skills, and writing skills are dependent upon reading skills. We are introduced to all of these skills by our schooling system but the mature development and application of these skills wait our adult years.
I read that Van Gogh commented that a painter must first learn his craft before he can paint well. I think we must learn the craft of learning before we can understand well.
To "know" is to "successfully predict".
To "understand" is to have "a rationale" to support the prediction.
E.g.
I "know" this switch operates the light.
I "understand" that the switch completes an electrical circuit.
I "know" that Henry VIII had six wives (I predict reading this in a history book).
I "understand" how Henry managed to usurp the Popes authority in order to "annul marriages".
All understanding is limited by assumption of at least one axiom (Godel Theorem).
All "knowledge" is subject to context.
Fresco
Is a multiple choice exam an accurate way to determine understanding? How did you decide which fact was knowledge and which was understanding? Please don't answer with Godel's Theorem I hardly know the woman.
coberst wrote:Fresco
Is a multiple choice exam an accurate way to determine understanding? How did you decide which fact was knowledge and which was understanding? Please don't answer with Godel's Theorem I hardly know the woman.
Nope. It can be measured by an essay. An explaination of the answer and the reasoning behind why you came to the answer you did. The understanding of an answer, versus memorization of an answer. Math tests where you have to work the problem are ways to determine understanding because you must show that you know how you got to the answer.
coberst,
I agree with Bella Dea regarding "understanding", and I would say "facts" are publically agreed "knowledge".
The difference between knowledge and understanding is that the latter is a network of "knowledge" from which other "knowledge/predictions" can be infered.
The segmentation of such a network into discrete "facts" tends to be arbitrary and the network tends to resist "counter examples" by virtue of its interdependent weblike structure.. Thomas Kuhn outlined this resistance prior to a potential paradigm shift in "Structure of Scientific Revolutions". New paradigms such as Relativistic Physics tend to delimit earlier ones such as Newtonian Physics rather than dismiss them out of hand. Hence in the teaching and learning of a subject there are various levels of understanding according to the breadth of the paradigm adopted and the observations embraced. There is no ultimate paradigm (Godel :wink: ).
Bella
I s addition knowledge or understanding? Is calculus knowing or understanding?