John Tagg's article "Why Learn" explains why students must approach learning with the qualitative method. The article suggests few students still aim for an in depth understanding, and these students learn in ways that are, "inherently reductionistic" (4). After noticing students test scores plumet when asked to critically assess information, Tagg proceeded to further analyze why some students get more out of their education than others.
Tagg compares two students, Jack and Jill, to display problems with adult education, and while Jack represents a quantitative surface learner, Jill represents the qualitative deep learner. "Why Learn" points out that learners like Jack who don't take the time to comprehend classroom material will eventually face real world consequences because of their lack of understanding, and ability to problem-solve. These "performance learners" (4) who have difficulty grasping basic concepts will not be able to adapt on-the-spot.
Students, though, are "grubbing for grades" (2). What's most devastating: students are programmed to learn in a manner similar to Jack, and are "...merely responding to incentives in their environment" (9). How ironic: the same educational institutions who preach perfectionism, and who demand students to be well-rounded also leave them feeling unable to progress.
So how then, can this quantitative learning method be so harshly criticized when it’s inevitably learned? Tagg believes students must self-motivate; the quantitative learning method that produced long-lasting results decades ago no longer works, and I personally agree.Now students must combine passion and drive to progress towards goals and dreams. Perhaps the average student was, at one time, both a quantitative and qualitative learner, but this is certainly not the case for the contemporary student.
Overall, students seem aloof, and indifferent about gaining knowledge, this is not the case for me. Tagg’s article touched me in a personal way. I’ve yet to read an article similar to “Why Learn," but it’s motivated me to further pursue my dream of international schooling. Like Tagg, I feel knowledge cannot always be measured in a black and white way, at times it must be demonstrated through growth, and self perseverance.
Tagg compares two students, Jack and Jill, to display problems with adult education, and while Jack represents a quantitative surface learner, Jill represents the qualitative deep learner. "Why Learn" points out that learners like Jack who don't take the time to comprehend classroom material will eventually face real world consequences because of their lack of understanding, and ability to problem-solve. These "performance learners" (4) who have difficulty grasping basic concepts will not be able to adapt on-the-spot.
Students, though, are "grubbing for grades" (2). What's most devastating: students are programmed to learn in a manner similar to Jack, and are "...merely responding to incentives in their environment" (9). How ironic: the same educational institutions who preach perfectionism, and who demand students to be well-rounded also leave them feeling unable to progress.
So how then, can this quantitative learning method be so harshly criticized when it’s inevitably learned? Tagg believes students must self-motivate; the quantitative learning method that produced long-lasting results decades ago no longer works, and I personally agree.Now students must combine passion and drive to progress towards goals and dreams. Perhaps the average student was, at one time, both a quantitative and qualitative learner, but this is certainly not the case for the contemporary student.
Overall, students seem aloof, and indifferent about gaining knowledge, this is not the case for me. Tagg’s article touched me in a personal way. I’ve yet to read an article similar to “Why Learn," but it’s motivated me to further pursue my dream of international schooling. Like Tagg, I feel knowledge cannot always be measured in a black and white way, at times it must be demonstrated through growth, and self perseverance.