Knowledge acquisition and training are both ingredients for education
They are not one and the same, but they are not mutually exclusive
Sewing is an art. Those who do it well can visualize the final product, draw a mock up, and sew the various pieces of fabric together to create a gorgeous dress, crisp tuxedo, or enduring bathing suit. Crucially, they have background knowledge about how clothing is constructed and what draws appeal. They know how to make a neckline curve, the proper allotment for a hem, and how to fit the garment to the body, and they understand the interplay of color. They are knowledgeable about garment construction.
Someone who has simply been trained to sew, without acquiring the background knowledge of what makes a stunning, fitted garment, unquestioningly follow a pattern. They read the steps provided in a book or watch a YouTube video, but they don't quite know why they are doing what they do. They may not know why a circle skirt requires a shorter hem than a pencil skirt, or why they are cutting notches in the underside of a neckline. They just do it; they are following their training.
Knowledge acquisition and training are not one and the same. One can know everything there is to know about sewing, but not be able to create the simplest article of clothing. On the flip side, one can sew the perfect pair of pants by following a pattern and not quite grasp the importance of the sequential steps. The master of the craft knows the why and how.
Education, whether provided in a building or the home, should be thought of in the same way. The focus ought not be knowledge acquisition or practical skills. Both are pertinent to being educated and for prosperity in the world. And they don't necessarily need to be done in order—e.g., one does not need to gather all of the information about sewing clothing before doing the act. Knowing can emerge from doing, and vice versa.Â
A budding seamstress can start off by following a pattern, skipping steps, then when the dress doesn't look or fit quite right, come to understand the importance of the steps skipped. A child can ride a bike without any knowledge about the mechanics of the bike, then when the chain fails off, upon fixing the problem, they learn the function of the chain for making the bike go. A novice gardener can spend all spring planting crops, not knowing how far apart to space them, which need more or less sun, or how often to water. And when half of the plants don't produce, she will come to understand the specific needs of each. Had the gardener acquired knowledge about planting crops ahead of starting his garden, he would have saved precious resources (time, money, etc.), as well as the life of the plants, but trial and error is often crucial to learning.
Proponents of schooling as strictly a place for knowledge acquisition argue that students can put what they know into practice later in life or that knowing is simply enough. They contend that practice isn't necessary to really understand how something works. For example, I have heard the argument that in a government class, students don't need to perform mock legislative sessions or Supreme Court trials to understand how either work, they can just read about them and hear lectures, or that students don't need to make and sell a product to understand supply and demand. To be sure, students can understand how institutions functions without ever participating in them, but practice provides more concrete understanding and solidifies in the mind the complexities inherit in tasks like making political decisions and selling goods and services.
On the flip side, others have argued that students don't need to grasp why people are persuaded by a piece of writing, they just need to know the formula for writing a five-paragraph essay, or that students don't need to fundamentally understand why 2 x 2 = 4, they just need to memorize their multiplication tables. Certainly, memorizing multiplication tables is efficient and ensures ease when students are in situations where they need to quickly make a calculation, but part of an education is understanding why things operate in the way that they do. And if we want students to successfully perform more advanced mathematical equations, and solve other problems, they need to understand the why, in this instance why 2 x 2 = 4.
Aristotle argues that practice ought to come before theory, but both are necessary for an education. Individuals need knowledge and training to be good judges and to do something well. Inquiry-based learning and book learning, so to speak, are not mutually exclusive, and which comes first largely depends on the subject area and preferences of students. Some like to have a grasp of content before endeavoring to solve a problem and others prefer to delve into a task and acquire knowledge through successes and failures. Educators should challenge students to take the path they are least comfortable with, but either way, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to education, so long as both knowledge and practice are ingredients.
Upcoming content from the EduThirdSpace newsletter:
For paid subscribers: Education from the perspective of Anthony Bourdain, and Aristotle.
For paid and free subscribers: What the Millennial generation has to teach young girls.
Not a paying subscriber? Become one for $5/month or $35/year!