Learning How to Learn

In my early years at Kimberly-Clark Corporation we had an excellent statistics expert on staff by the name of Jim Gander. Jim had taught a number of years at the Institute of Paper Chemistry before coming to K-C and had a much better approach for helping students understand the idea of statistical concepts than many statistics classes that simply focus on how to do the calculations with a very minimal effort on the concept. Jim taught both a 'think version' and a 'do version', where the 'think version' was about the concept and the 'do version' focused on the calculation. The 'think version' struck me as key to learning how to learn.

His approach to teaching about the standard deviation in statistics is a great example of this. When asked 'what is the standard deviation?', a common mathematical definition of that is the root mean square deviation of a sample of data. That is a definition that describes how it is calculated. This is a useful number that finds application in many areas of engineering, physics, predictive models in such places as economic models, and other things. You might sometimes get a more descriptive answer such as it being a measure of how variable a data set is, or it is a measure of how wide the distribution of a data set is, or how much actual values (the data set) departs from a predicted model (the assumed mean).  Those are all correct but were not as helpful to me as how Jim described it: it is the average distance from the mean. This takes some explaining, as to why you have to take the differences (X-bar minus X), then square them, then divide by n-1 (versus n for a typical average), and then take the square root. But when you walk through all of that, it becomes clear that the underlying concept is an average distance from the mean. I just did some online searches for 'standard deviation' and 'root mean square' and did not find this 'think version', and I have not seen it in text books that I have used on statistics. However, I think it is a good and clear way to think about the concept and understand it. It is a good way to actually learn the concept that is behind the calculation.

Much technical professional work in fields like engineering, medicine and physics is 'rules based'. Many practitioners use calculations like this correctly in their work without necessarily having fully thought through the concept. They can build things that work and make working predictive models or other things by following the rules and doing the calculations correctly. This is one form of learning but seems to be a less than ideal way to learn to me. Some of this kind of work is subject to automation as the rules based decisions are converted into mathematical algorithms to deal with the vast amounts of data being generated in our modern society. But thinking about the outputs still requires understanding the concept and whether it is being applied in a reasonable way.

 This kind of 'do version' approach allows covering more material in classes, as you have to spend less time on the underlying concept. But it does not build a habit of thinking through concepts, or learning how to learn. It focuses on the doing. In that way it is much like 'rote memory'. You learn the formula and do it, but may not really understand it. Rote learning still has its place, especially early in life, as my son pointed out to me. They are not yet ready for abstract reasoning, but still need to learn the alphabet, numbers, words, and many other things before they are ready for abstract reasoning. They also learn these things very readily, soaking it up like a sponge. Even throughout life, some things just have to be learned more or less by rote. At some point, however, especially in regard to  more complex ideas in math and science, having both the 'think' and the 'do' versions becomes very important.

Many of the engineers I have known through the years have been totally focused on the doing; they want to go do something, go build something. They are not always that interested in the conceptual underpinnings. 'Just tell me what you want and I will figure out how to build it' was a common lament. On the other hand, many scientists I have known have been totally focused on the concepts and figuring out what should be built, but they were not that interested in the translation to doing it in a practical, profitable way. One key part of my work in R&D management was pushing the engineers toward understanding the underlying concepts and pushing the scientists toward making it work commercially. Both are really necessary in applied development. This has been a classic area of conflict between engineers and research scientists.

Many people go through all of their educational years using a rote approach to learning. They work to remember by rote the formulas or data they need for the test and then do it. The concept doesn't 'stick', though, and so they lose the knowledge quickly unless they are using it regularly. But I do not think I will forget Jim's teaching of statistics even though I haven't used it very much in years. The concept stuck.

Now it may be clear why this matters for statistics or other mathematical concepts, but does this approach apply to other kinds of learning? As mentioned above, I think there are some things that we may need to learn by rote, at least up to a point. When learning some basic geographical facts like states and their capitals, this may be the obvious place to start. Yet if you can visit states and get a real understanding of the geography that is certainly more memorable. That kind of reverses which of  the 'think' versus 'do' approaches is more memorable compared to the statistics example, where here the 'think' is learning it on a map and 'do' is the more memorable visit, but this combination of both a 'think version' and a 'do version' does seem transferable to me and helps me to learn. This is one reason I enjoy traveling so much: it is a great way to learn.

I think it is transferable to other kinds of learning as well. I am thinking of theology at the moment. Much of what is taught in churches, like catechism classes or creeds, along with many sermons and teaching of doctrines, are essentially 'do versions'.  The Old Testament Law, at least in the way it is often presented, is a 'do version' (though in reality it is more than that). These are largely 'rules based' approaches to morality and life. Yet the actual teachings of Christ in the gospels are much more like
'think versions' where He went about challenging the thinking of the experts in the Law (the Pharisees) and challenging everyone including His disciples to actually know and understand God. The rules based approach can be useful in not having to think everything through in detail in every instance that comes up every day in life, but the 'think version' is necessary to actually be committed to a Christian life and to be able to explain it to our children or to those outside the faith.

This is a matter of life-long learning, just as in our professional lives we continue to learn throughout life. But learning how to learn is critical to actually understanding what we are doing. I have found that considering both a 'think version' and a 'do version' has been a big help in learning how to learn across many areas of learning.