Learning by Doing
From Vincent Cheung, Preach the Word (PDF, 13-16):
Another favorite educational model is "learning by doing," or to learn by experience. To learn this way, one must interact with the object about which one seeks knowledge, be it an athletic endeavor, a scientific experiment, a social situation, or life in general. Through the challenges and feedbacks from such experiences, the student is supposed to derive principles suitable for retention, which he may then apply to other similar situations.
This learning method is impossible. One who does not know how to perform a given task at all cannot even begin unless someone through verbal instructions, be it in the form of lectures or textbooks (or other informal equivalents), tells him the elementary principles. When this is done, the person is no longer learning from experience, but through intellectual communication. He is merely applying what he has learned to the experience. And if he can be told the basics, he can perhaps also learn the more advanced materials in a similar manner.
However, some may object, even if one must first learn enough in order to begin, does he afterward not learn from his experience while applying his knowledge? The problem with this is that no one can, without having relevant prior knowledge or presuppositions, choose from the many singular events and factors within his experiences and derive objectively true propositions from them. An infinite number of propositions may be derived from each experience, and which one of these a person "learns" depends on his worldview, already presupposed. The same set of circumstances can instill patience in one, and cynicism in another.
Arthur Holmes points out: "…to suppose unanalyzed experience itself is an omnicompetent teacher presupposes an empiricist theory of knowledge that is nowadays highly suspect. The eighteenth century view that we can gather piecemeal data and come up with generalizations and causal explanations simply has not stood up under scrutiny. Empirical observation is not entirely objective but selective, guided by theoretical assumptions and personal interests. This has become evident in recent work on the history of science: and if experience is not enough for science, how can it be enough for education?"18
He is correct, with the qualification that empiricism is "highly suspect" only in certain academic circles, and remains popular among the less informed populace. It generally takes many years for ideas to trickle down from the despised "ivory tower" – which is in fact the command center of the world – to those uninterested in academic struggles, and who falsely imagine themselves to be relatively free from the influence of obscure scholars. It remains that no one ever learns from experience itself, but every observer brings his entire worldview to the situation, and evaluates it through his presuppositions, which in turn governs the way he processes any information encountered.
When this difficulty is pressed against secular education, it can only result in complete skepticism regarding reality. On the other hand, when the Christian is challenged with such issues, he answers with the verbal revelation given him by the omnipotent creator God. All propositions deducible from divine revelation are rightly considered knowledge. But if so, knowledge comes from revelation and deduction, not experience.
Holmes, under a section called, "Pragmatism In Experiential Education," describes the theory of learning by experience as follows: "Experience is an immersion in natural processes, our sense of security challenged by unforeseen problems which demand solution…All learning is therefore situational…Learning is learning to adjust. Even the classroom simulates life experience, rather than exploring a heritage of truth and values."19
To say something else about the ivory tower, most people are oblivious to how learning by experience is a secular philosophy promoted by John Dewey which, as Holmes then says, was "in [his] thinking, simply an application of the theory of natural selection"20 – that is, an evolutionary doctrine. It is based on anti-Christian philosophical assumptions.
The attitude rampant in today's churches that we should "experience God" rather than to talk about him, besides exhibiting a false sense of piety, is based on a philosophical system hostile to the Christian faith. We increase in the knowledge of God by reading Scripture, listening to preachers that respect biblical authority, engaging in theological reflections, and constantly discussing the things of God with care and reverence.
Another writer has this to say: "A popular liberal slogan has been, 'learning by doing.' So the ten-year-old smokes pot, tries out sex, and sticks a knife into another kid's ribs. He learns by doing. Apparently some educators never suspected that some things should not be done and not be learned. But the pupil is not competent to decide such matters."21 Conversely, "The Christian educator…is convinced that the popular shibboleth, learning by doing, is unmasked when we see that evil learned in such a manner does irreparable harm."22
The current study mainly concerns itself with preaching, and while to discuss the theories of education is not too much of a detour, a thorough philosophy of education must be reserved for another setting. For now, let it suffice to say that learning by doing is an anti-Christian theory, and even sports and carpentry can be taught in a way consistent with the biblical model. We first provide the theoretical basis, and then if there is time, application. Further development occurs through additional theoretical reflections. This model invariably implies that a properly educated person will possess much more knowledge than his life and vocation require from him.
For the reason that one's knowledge should not be limited by pragmatic concerns, I find Jay Adams' "learning for doing,"23 inadequate as well. It fails to produce a superior student because how certain knowledge may be applicable is not always obvious; this is true even of biblical doctrines. If we were to limit our learning only to knowledge that may be applied, our narrow lives would imply an equally restricted scope for knowledge and skill acquisition.
Adams writes, "Learning takes place when one knows that what he must study is essential to accomplishing what he wants to achieve."24 That is what the product will be – one who knows only the essentials. How many accounting majors would then be interested in cosmology? Doubtless very few would find the need to read Homer or Milton. Only so much knowledge is required for any given field, and under the learning for doing scheme, one finds no justification to continue his studies after he has reached the necessary level of proficiency, and still less reason to study materials unrelated to his needs.
The correct model that maximizes learning and competence is to perceive knowledge, especially theological knowledge, as inherently valuable, whether one finds occasion to apply it or not. American pragmatists are horrified at the suggestion that knowledge should be acquired for its own sake, but I have no respect for American pragmatism. It produces shallow thinkers and incompetent workers.
However, certain theological knowledge demands obedience and drastic alterations in the ways we think and live; if so, we must comply, and this is application. This allows for an unending pursuit of knowledge, especially as relating to the things of God, as well as ready application where knowledge and actual needs coincide. But it also means that in knowledge acquisition, application never deserves the main focus.
This model of education is heavy on theory, and light on application; it emphasizes thinking more than doing – much more. Although I am wary of empirical endorsements, research in sports psychology suggests that mental rehearsal, with a minimum of actual practice, can be just as effective in improving performance as regular physical training. The point is that, with or without the support of such studies, this learning strategy applies even to areas that seem to be more physical than intellectual. We teach to the mind, and learn by the mind.
In the end, this manner of education produces the most brilliant thinkers who find their daily tasks easy to handle, since their knowledge and capability far exceed the actual requirements. In church, let us be more like Mary than Martha. The latter "was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made" (Luke 10:40), but Jesus says that "Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her" (v. 42), because she "sat at the Lord's feet listening to what he said" (v. 39). Incidentally, this passage in Luke shows that it is more important for women to study theology than to do chores.
Still, many insist that lectures and textbooks are no substitute for life experience, but that is because they have never read a textbook where the author has recorded his life experience for others to read. Who is to prevent us from reading about the experiences of hundreds of people instead of only having our own? Yet, principles derived from life experience, whether others or ours, are unreliable and often plain false. In theology, our life experience will never produce knowledge that approaches the status of divine revelation, so we might as well abandon such a method of learning.
Notes
18 Arthur F. Holmes, The Idea of a Christian College; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999 (revised: 1987; original: 1975); p. 89.
19 Ibid., p. 88-89.
20 Ibid., p. 89.
21 Gordon H. Clark, A Christian Philosophy of Education; The Trinity Foundation, 2000 (original: 1946); p. 52.
22 Ibid., p. 134.
23 Jay E. Adams, Back to the Blackboard: Design for a Biblical Christian School; Woodruff, South Carolina: Timeless Texts, 1998 (original: 1982); p. 126.
24 Ibid., p. 127.