The text “Teach Knowledge, Not ‘Mental Skills’” by E. D. Hirsch originally appeared in the New York Times on the opinion page, which may explain my first reaction as I was reading it: I found it very unconventional for a newspaper text in terms of format and style. Throughout the text there are a lot of paragraphs that are actually no paragraphs (i.e. connected units of meaning indicated through indention) but only single sentences. It further appeared stylistically odd to me to begin two consecutive paragraphs with the word ‘because.’ While the repetition may have been a deliberate rhetoric decision in order to amplify the argument, I was taught in my English classes that causally subordinate clauses in sentence-initial position can begin with ‘since’ – but never with ‘because.’
Furthermore, while reading the text I found myself being quite irresolute about the actual difference between the notion of knowledge as opposed to mental skills, and why you should draw a distinction at all when it comes to teaching. I understand mental skills as something that human beings are genetically endowed with already, and which has the potential to be cultivated to highly complex degrees. Knowledge in contrast seems to be an infinitely variable amount of data that we are capable of both learning and self-creating through our constant interaction with the world. The mental skills are needed to process that data, as the acquisition of knowledge involves a set of complex cognitive processes, such as perception, association, learning, communication, and reasoning. However, knowledge and mental skills continuously also affect each other mutually, i.e. we develop our mental skills through the processing of knowledge, which enables us to learn and create new knowledge at an ever-increasing rate (of course only given if we sustain interacting with the world).
Hirsch argues that in the US, “typically, school guidelines are couched in terms of learning skills, rather than the content of learning.” His arguments are in favor of a education reform that focuses on an equalized “core of knowledge” among all schools, which is said to contribute to academic “excellence” and “fairness for all.” However, I cannot really see how one could focus on mental skills in the classroom without implementing any learning contents. The author’s argument does not seem to be about school guidelines lacking content learning, but rather about the wrong contents being cultivated – contents that are, contrary to the standardized core-knowledge, not useful enough for both the individual and collective learning experience. But who is to decide what knowledge should be general knowledge, significant enough for all students to be taught? Especially as we face an ever-increasing globalization of the world? In this sense, I find Hirsch’s position very problematic since any notions of one core of knowledge always entail rigid and normative truths that are implemented by the dominant culture’s institutions.
Furthermore, while reading the text I found myself being quite irresolute about the actual difference between the notion of knowledge as opposed to mental skills, and why you should draw a distinction at all when it comes to teaching. I understand mental skills as something that human beings are genetically endowed with already, and which has the potential to be cultivated to highly complex degrees. Knowledge in contrast seems to be an infinitely variable amount of data that we are capable of both learning and self-creating through our constant interaction with the world. The mental skills are needed to process that data, as the acquisition of knowledge involves a set of complex cognitive processes, such as perception, association, learning, communication, and reasoning. However, knowledge and mental skills continuously also affect each other mutually, i.e. we develop our mental skills through the processing of knowledge, which enables us to learn and create new knowledge at an ever-increasing rate (of course only given if we sustain interacting with the world).
Hirsch argues that in the US, “typically, school guidelines are couched in terms of learning skills, rather than the content of learning.” His arguments are in favor of a education reform that focuses on an equalized “core of knowledge” among all schools, which is said to contribute to academic “excellence” and “fairness for all.” However, I cannot really see how one could focus on mental skills in the classroom without implementing any learning contents. The author’s argument does not seem to be about school guidelines lacking content learning, but rather about the wrong contents being cultivated – contents that are, contrary to the standardized core-knowledge, not useful enough for both the individual and collective learning experience. But who is to decide what knowledge should be general knowledge, significant enough for all students to be taught? Especially as we face an ever-increasing globalization of the world? In this sense, I find Hirsch’s position very problematic since any notions of one core of knowledge always entail rigid and normative truths that are implemented by the dominant culture’s institutions.
Iman,
AntwortenLöschenI like your rhetorical analysis of Hirsch's text in the first paragraph. It's helpful to be aware of what styles we prefer as readers while also recognizing the reasons why writers might have made the choices that they did in light of thier intending audience. I think that Harris would completely agree with your statement that mental skills are "something that human beings are genetically endowed with already". And I like how you've identified the real issue not as a debate between the instruction of knowledge versus mental skills, but as a question of which "core knowledge" to actually teach.
Take another look at these phrases: "that are actually no paragraphs", "continuously also affect each other mutually", and "of course only given if we sustain interacting with the world". What do you notice?