Learning vs. Understanding
Barry Marshall (along with J Robbin Warren) won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for proving that stomach ulcers (or what are also called as peptic ulcers) are caused by bacteria (Heliobacter Pylori). Prior to that the general belief was that these ulcers were caused by release of excess gastric acid. As it always happens, new ideas invariably meet resistance from people. Unfortunately, many times such resistance exists despite evidence to contrary. Whether its church opposing Galileo or Einstein not accepting quantum theory (despite playing an important role in laying its foundation), history of science is full of such examples where progress of science was hampered by such unwanted opposition. Such was the situation that confronted Marshall also w.r.t this hypothesis. So, to prove his point he took a dramatic path. He actually drank a bacterial culture of Heliobacter Pylori, gave himself the gastric issues and then went on to cure himself with antibiotics, thereby effectively proving his hypothesis.
Coming back to above quote from Marshall.
So, what’s the different between “learning” and “understanding”?
To explain that let us imagine a situation where a child asks the following question to some adult (teacher/parent),
Why does a ball thrown up comes down?
Now what do you think will happen?
In all probability the answer to this question, at least at the basic level, is known to most adults. So, the most expected response will be that the adult (parent/teacher) will explain to the child that this is because of force of gravity that comes from the Earth. Post this depending of the knowledge of the adult they may explain gravity in some more detail, give examples of how gravitational force works… some may even go a step further and do an experiment to demonstrate or show the child some experiment/animation available online. Finally, if the child is slightly old and the adult is more equipped, then some Maths (formula/calculations) may also get thrown into this explanation. This entire process, depending of the explanatory ability of adult, leads to a certain level of “learning” of the concept of gravity for the child.
This brings us to the main point — so the child has “learnt” about gravity but the question is, has the child “understood” gravity?
So, what do you think is the difference between “learning” and “understanding”?
To explain the difference between “learning” and “understanding” let me share the following anecdote,
The physicist Leo Szilard once announced to his friend Hans Bethe that he was thinking of keeping a diary: “I don’t intend to publish. I am merely going to record the facts for the information of God.”
“Don’t you think God knows the facts?” Bethe asked.
“Yes,” said Szilard. “He knows the facts, but He does not know this version of the facts.”
- Hans Christian von Baeyer, Taming the Atom
(Source: A Short History of Nearly Everything By Bill Bryson)
In very simple words, “learning” is all about knowing the so called “facts” … “understanding” is knowing that these are mankind’s version of “facts” and thus open to being challenged/questioned.
So, when the adult explains the fact called as “gravity” (with full confidence and complete clarity) the child “learns” it and this will be reflected in the fact that the child may/will ask questions related to getting a deeper clarity w.r.t gravity. However, you will also come across that rare child who will ask questions that challenges the entire notion of gravity, while wondering as to why there cannot be any other alternate explanation. In fact, I had once faced a child who gave me an alternate explanation that made me realize (albeit in a very vague way at that time) that I have “learnt” gravity but all along I never “understood” it completely. That led to a search which made me stumble across another alternate explanation that explained the reason as to why a ball thrown up always falls down, without resorting to gravity, and it was a generally accepted answer for almost 1,800–2,000 years. Think this way, if we were born in that period in the past we would have explained, with the same confidence and clarity, to our child this fact, which for today’s world would be a baseless imagination. This thing went more deeply inside me when I came across the following thought of Issac Newton who explained and for the first time used the word ‘gravity’,
“You sometimes speak of gravity as essential and inherent to matter. Pray do not ascribe that notion to me, for the cause of gravity is what I do not pretend to know, and therefore would take more time to consider of it.”
- Issac Newton
Those who “learn” well are full of confidence and (at best) become exam ready… those who “understand” well are full of questions and become exploration ready.
Does this mean one should not learn well?
To answer this let me quote Barry Marshall again,
“You need to learn enough to recognize the importance of the phenomenon but not learn so much that you are totally committed to the existing paradigm.”
- Barry Richards
And this quote of Marshall encapsulates one of the biggest challenges with our modern education system. We are constantly seeking those amazing teachers who have a flair for holding the attention of audience with their explanation of existing knowledge. The challenge with these teachers is that they explain so well that they literally brainwash the minds of learners, without leaving enough room for scepticism/doubt/etc. In words of Marshall, they make students learn so well that they are totally committed to the existing paradigm. I call such students’ knowledge fundamentalists.
To give an example, in the 18th century lived a geologist Abraham G Werner who gave the famous theory of Earth called as Universal Ocean Theory. He was brilliant teacher, popular throughout Europe. He influenced a no. of young minds to take up geology and these people took the words of Werner as gospels and spread it throughout Europe. Now Werner’s theory was based on some logic/data but as history has shown us again and again that theories are not cast in stone. However, Werner’s oratory ensured that his theory got cast in stone in the minds of his students. So, when James Hutton, whom we today call as the father of geology, gave his theory of Earth, which was at loggerheads with Hutton’s theory, it received widespread criticism and complete rejection for many decades. Can you see the similarity with what happened with Barry Richards?
This is the challenge with teaching too well. Unfortunately, our education/parenting systems do not seem to recognize and address this challenge. On the contrary we are trying too hard to continue to propagate this challenge imagining it to be a good thing to do. Our education landscape is literally littered with teachers (and videos and products and what not), whose singular aim is to ensure that children learn well. We have topped it up with assessment frameworks that promote learning and if that is not enough, we have also ensured that those who learn well are only celebrated.
I so many times come across parents who are worried because they do not know enough Science to handle the questions of their child and I always tell them that they are lucky, for now they are safe from harming their child by trying to teach too well. Children are born with a pristine brain that is designed to understand things and that is why they are amazing in picking up new stuff… in words of Barry Richards, children implicitly know what a fabulous shortcut it is. Unfortunately, sooner or later adults’ step in to replace this fabulous understanding brain with an ordinary learning brain. A bigger harm than this, done with absolute confidence, is unimaginable.
Before I finish let me stress one point here… I am not trying to say that teachers/parents should not be able to explain well. What I am trying to say is just the following two points:
- Do not overdo it.
- Leave enough room for doubts.
When teachers/parents, while explaining well, can also simultaneously leave doors of confusion open, some points to ponder, some thoughts that are intriguing, etc., the job of teaching is well done. To be a good teacher, one must always remember that when a learner leaves the class somewhat dissatisfied, a teacher should be satisfied for a job well done.
“Teaching is not an act of success in explaining well, rather an act of probably failing somewhat. When learning ends in doubts/questions, the portals of understanding open. Let’s not forget that the purpose of good education/parenting is understanding and not learning”
May we all learn this truth and open the portals of understanding for our children.
About DreamNobel
DreamNobel is an education initiative with a simple motto, “We want to drop that apple on every child’s head so that they can discover their gravity”. We have developed a unique science course whereby a kid can be broadly “taught” all the major theories of all the Science subjects (Physics, Chemistry, Biology & Geology) in an integrated manner. This is done following a problem-solving methodology, using the last 2,500 yrs history of sciences as the underlying foundation. In doing so we want to ensure that “independent thinking” and “empathy” become an integral part of student’s personality.
The following are our social media handles: Medium, LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram. If the thoughts posted here resonate with you, then please follow us so that we can reach out to a wider audience.
