Writing a summary of a chapter from the book deculturalization and the struggle for equality

Critical Summary

In The Book of Learning and Forgetting, Smith presents the official theory of learning in an overall negative perspective. Smith (1998) claims that by accepting the classic view of learning, we should recognize that “…the official theory is unsound and dangerous…” (p. 5). The concept that the official theory of learning, which involves deliberate memorization and overt effort, is something he completely discredits as an effective way for students to learn. Smith (1998) writes that the official theory “should be forgotten”, however, it has not been forgotten because it is so heavily built into the way we go about formal education (p. 5). The official theory appears to have been the easiest way to “teach” students– by forcing them and making sure they remember certain things. Smith talks about the official theory of learning as though it is completely wrong and outdated. His belief is that things that are overtly memorized and tucked into our brains have no chance of lasting because it was not acquired through effortless growth and activity. While I can definitely see both in theory and through experience how the classic view of learning is a more effective and long-lasting learning experience, I do not really agree that all aspects of the official theory of learning should be completely ruled out. I believe that there is probably a reason why the official theory has been so hard to discredit and why it has been a part of formal learning for so long; it is because in certain areas of intentional learning, some characteristics such as hard work, testing, and memorization actually work to contribute to students’ competency even though they may not be the most creative methods of learning.

Smith also addresses the concept of how we learn who we are. He writes, “We become like the company we keep…” (Smith, 1998, p.11). Essentially we discover an important aspect of our identity through the people around us. Language, or the way we talk, is a form of identity and Smith says this concept is evident in children when they “start talking like the people with whom they most profoundly want to identify” (pp. 16, 20). Learning identity is acquired through the classic view of learning, meaning that this growth is effortless and long-lasting. This would explain why at a very young age, children first begin speaking like their parents. Children who have not yet started school catch on to the same jargon their parents use at home and the language is picked up effortlessly. When children start to spend time with friends at school they begin to speak the way their peers speak. In my experience, this is also evident in young students who learned to speak English at school. Children who are young enough to be unaware of consciously learning the language and the appropriate accents simply and quickly pick up how their fluent English-speaking friends talk. I think, however, when children become adolescents, building their identity by speaking like a particular social group they want to be a part of may become more of a conscious effort. Adolescents could be making the effort to “fit in” and one way to identify themselves as part of a particular is to speak the same way as those individuals.

Critical Reflection

Contrary to Smith’s negative perspective on the official theory of learning, I believe that certain characteristics of the official theory can be accredited with contributing to our long-term knowledge. Some personal examples that come to mind are spelling, learning vocabulary in a new language in school, learning people’s names, and historic facts and dates. Another personal non-academic example that I feel require some characteristics of official theory is learning an instrument, which requires memorization, intentional practice, and the willingness to work at it. While I do think the classic view of learning can and should also be applied creatively in these areas during instruction, I do not think that the official theory of learning was completely inaccurate or useless in my experiences. Some things we learn just might require an individual to put in intentional effort and memorization.

Reflecting on Smith’s perspective toward the official theory of learning made me think of the spelling and vocabulary tests I used to have in middle school. We had to intentionally memorize a list of words and their meanings and we were tested every week. After a certain number of weeks, we would have cumulative tests so forgetting the words we learned before was not an option. This method of memorizing vocabulary is similar to when I learned a second language in high school. I will admit that it could be difficult to recall all the words I have ever come across, but I would say the majority of the words were not doomed to be forgotten as Smith claims they would be because I made constant repeated efforts to memorize them. I will also admit that sometimes it felt tedious, however, it is not impossible to commit things to permanent memory by learning this way. I believe the official theory was quite effective in this particular case because as a result of being drilled through these exercises and frequent tests in middle school, I had a bigger vocabulary bank than many of my peers throughout high school. Having this strong spelling and vocabulary foundation that was intentionally learned and stored even helped me to read efficiently, which began to fuel a love for reading and in turn, strengthened my reading comprehension and writing skills. I do not believe that this was merely “stor[ing] away one thing after another” as Smith states (1998, p. 12). I feel that this type of gradual building, though it is constructed through overt memorization, can also be classified as a type of growth; it is more of an accumulation rather than evolution. Even though Smith portrays the concept of the official theory as completely negative an outdated, some things may still require a touch of those characteristics, such as deliberate effort, memorization, and self-testing, and it is not necessarily wrong to learn this way.

Having reflected on Smith’s points, it helps me to understand that characteristics of the official theory, though having been in our culture for so long, are not completely reliable as effective methods of learning. I do agree that in comparison, the characteristics of the classic view theory are more likely to be effective and accepted by students since it is easier to learn and remember things when learning does not feel obvious or like hard work. For example, learning vocabulary in the form of some type of game or competition or collaborative effort would have helped many students in my class to remember words. The classic view theory, I believe, should indeed be taken into account during instruction to foster growth in the formal classroom, but I think it is a little dramatic to rule out all of the characteristics of the official theory as completely “wrong” or “dangerous” (Smith, pp. 4, 5). This official method of instruction has existed and worked in many instances, but it certainly does not mean it will consistently be the best way. The methods of learning under the official theory are certainly not one-size-fits-all and should definitely not be applied to how every single subject is taught in formal schooling. In fact, I think it would be lazy for a teacher to teach with regard only to the official theory of learning.

Smith’s argument that students are capable of learning a vast amount without deliberate instruction through observation and through their peers also helps me understand the more effective ways to promote students’ ability and willingness to learn. At the same time, I do think it is important to encourage students to put in effort because some aspects of learning require a sense of responsibility. For instance, Smith (1998) writes that learning words is not intentional when students are encouraged to read, yet it is highly effective; however, for this to be effective, the student needs to have an interest in reading and I believe that part may require a different level of effort depending on the student (p.23). Smith’s arguments encourage me, as a future educator, to incorporate social activity, collaboration, and vicarious learning inside the classroom. I agree that by keeping the classic view theory in mind, using creative ways to instruct and balancing out the negatives of the official theory, my future students would be more productive and happily exposed to learning.

Lastly, reflection on Smith’s concept of finding identity through language made me think of how I learned English. Even though I grew up in an English-speaking country, before I began formal schooling, I did not speak English because it is not the language we speak at home. Realizing that I would have to catch up, my mother would read stories to me in broken English with an accent. Even though this was how I was exposed to English for a long time, I did not end up speaking English the way my mother still does; I speak and pronounce words the way my friends did at school and did not need to formally learn how to speak the language. I believe Smith’s concept would explain how many children of immigrants, such as myself, end up speaking English more fluently than their parents despite the fact that in most cases parents are the ones who taught their children first as best as they could. This main point implies that as educators, we should be mindful of how students can learn subconsciously with the help of their peers or through observation and exposure. In some cases, collaboration and other types of group work can be more effective than formal teaching in helping students to be more productive, especially in learning language.