Communication: Its Link to Two Kinds of Education

One of my professors in college (who I never had a course with, but for whom I analyzed a project he was working on) had a brilliant mind, when it came to understanding schools and education.  He was a linguist (a studier of language), but he was also more than that, because he analyzed the effectiveness of schools and found them lacking.  I agree with him that most educational programs can be found lacking

One of the key differences in my approach to language is that of having a different approach to learning than many programs do.  My approach consists of a combination of two kinds of education.  The first is the knower-learner axis that is also more primary.  We begin doing this kind of education at the earliest age possible for communication.  The second is the teaacher-studier (student) axis that we begin in greater earnest the day we enter school and study communication there.   Dr. Larson said the ideal was a combination of both approaches.

My analogy for it is a vertical plumb line for the axis of knower-learner and a horizontal level line for the axis of teacher-studier (student).   Most people experience an excess of the second in terms of the way they have been educated.  This is unfortunate, since the best learning occurs when the knower-learner comes first and the teacher-studier comes second.  When they are working together in a balance and with the right prioritization, then people become the most educated and most successful at using their education effectively. 

This approach is not the same as the practical or pragmatic approach.  That view is simply replacing things with actions.  It is radical in its criticism of the school system.  It is short-sighted, because it takes one part of who we are as whole persons and focuses on another part of who we are rather than strengthening our smarts and minds about things and words.  The approach I take (and Dr. Larson took) strengthens education and makes people smarter rather than just making them more practiced. 

My educational approach does not change the goal nor the focus of education.  It rather strengthens education through a better balance and through the right prioritzation.   It makes people smarter. 

My best communication example for this comes out of my junior high years of learning French.  Our teacher, who was a zealot for the French language if ever there was one, was able to take a trip to France and use the skills she was teaching us in the classroom.  Unfortunatley for her, while she was a great teacher of French, she was not a great knower of French.  The French treated her badly for this and she was not at all happy about her experience.  It was a real disappointment for her, because she had such high expectations for this trip that today we would say was part of her "bucket list". 

If she had one native French speaker (a knower of French) she could speak with regularly before leaving the United States, her bad experience could have been avoided.   She could have been a learner learning from a knower.  In the model I suggesting, the point is not that she was a bad teacher (that she was not practical).  No, she was a great teaacher, but just not a great knower. 

So my approach to communication says to take this balanced approach seriously or you can easily end up unbalanced, embarassed, unhappy, and not just a little frustrated after all your study.  Make sure you learn first and study second together!  Then your communication skills or language skills will surpass those of many others. 

Sincerely,

Jon

P.S.  At some later time, if possible, I will try to add a Smart Art picture of what I am saying for greater clarity.