Monkey Speak, Monkey Learn
The Employee Factory Part I: The Importance of Conversational Learning
Most would describe Alexander the Great as a conqueror, and while this is true, he was so much more.
Would you expect that he had an affinity for zoology and botany? Even going as far as taking a legion of botanists and zoologists on his conquests. How does “Alexander the Doctor” roll off the tongue? Well, it could have been accurate in only a marginally different life, as Alexander was said to have prescribed medical treatments for many of his friends. A multitude of other subjects also drew Alexander's interest, such as poetry, astronomy, rhetoric, and geometry. So, in theory, he could have been “Alexander the Poet”, “Alexander the Astronomist”, or “Alexander the Geometer”, had he chosen a different path.
But above all else, Alexander was a great learner.
A young Alexander and his friends were taught all of these subjects by Aristotle. The two developed a very strong relationship over their three years together, with Alexander even going so far as to carry a copy of The Iliad annotated by Aristotle on all of his conquests. Most of Aristotle’s teachings occurred through long conversations with Alexander and his friends, a learning method that has produced numerous great minds.
Einstein’s early education was driven by his tutor, Max Talmud. The two had a close relationship and Talmud would regularly dine with the Einsteins and discuss Albert’s learnings.
Leonardo Da Vinci received a formal education for a time, but at age 15 he was apprenticed under sculptor and painter Andrea del Verrocchio. Imagine the exchanges between the two.
Plato was educated by Socrates solely through dialogue. Plato would then share his learnings with Aristotle.
Socrates is the strongest advocate for conversational learning, as he famously refused to write. But Socrates’ method was not just simple transmission of information with the goal of memorization, he taught individuals how to think through conversation. Plato had different ideas than Socrates, Aristotle had different ideas than Plato, and Alexander had very different ideas than Aristotle. But what exactly was Socrates’ method?
Most of those who studied humanities have likely participated in a Socratic seminar. The term refers to a formal discussion led by the teacher, where the primary objective is to allow students to create fluid answers to questions in real time. The group then engages in a discussion of the group sharing their ideas, kickstarting real-time critical thinking and ideally, the conversation ending with a synthesis of multiple answers into a more complete one.
This was Socrates’ main method of teaching, and this comprises the bulk of The Dialogues of Socrates. The book, written by Plato, recounts Socrates’ life through a series of discussions. There are one-on-one and group discussions present in the book, both utilizing the same method.
Socrates’s goal was not to simply transmit information to his students as efficiently as possible. This is the style we see most present today in our schools, where our learning is a brief transaction of information by a teacher or professor. From here, the student is expected to memorize through numbing repetition. Instead, he placed extreme emphasis on their teaching the students how to find answers on their own. Socrates would carefully prod his pupils, avoiding directly answering their questions, acting primarily as a guide along the learning process.
“Charmides” is a conversation between Charmides and Socrates, after Socrates is consulted to help solve Charmides’ headaches. There is a brief exchange in which Socrates explains the link between the mind and the physical body. Then he engages Charmides in a discussion of the meaning of temperance. Instead of immediately telling him the meaning, Socrates asks Charmides what he thinks the meaning is. Charmides’ response:
Charmides: I should answer that, in my opinion, temperance is quietness.
Socrates disagrees but does not explicitly say so. He opts to push Charmides to a different definition by posing another question:
Socrates: First tell me whether you would not acknowledge temperance to be of the class of the noble and good?
Charmides: Yes.
Socrates: But in many actions quickness is found to be better than quietness: for example, writing, reading, running, and so on.
In this exchange, Socrates briefly denies Charmides’ definition by allowing him to recognize why it is wrong, rather than just telling him it is wrong. The pair’s exchange continues by using questions that add context to further prove why Charmides’ definition is incorrect:
Socrates: But which is best when you are writing at the writing-master’s, to write the same letters quickly or quietly?
Charmides: Quickly.
Socrates: And to read quickly or slowly?
Charmides: Quickly again.
Socrates uses this same probing technique for a few more examples until he ties the underlying associates between temperance and quickness together:
Socrates: Then, I said, in all bodily actions, not quietness, but the greatest agility and quickness is noblest and best?
Charmides: Yes, certainly.
Socrates: And is temperance a good?
Charmides: Yes.
Socrates: Then, in reference to the body, not quietness, but quickness will be the higher degree of temperance, if temperance is a good?
Charmides: Yes.
Socrates walks Charmides into arguing that temperance is quickness by verbalizing his logical thought process. The same format of using examples to see if the definition can be proven continues to hold up for some time. The pair conclude that temperance is no more quietness than quickness, but that quickness cannot be the sole definition. Once again, Socrates asks Charmides what he thinks the definition of temperance is:
Socrates: Think over all this, and, like a brave youth, tell me — what is temperance?
Charmides: My opinion is, Socrates, that temperance makes a man ashamed or modest, and that temperance is the same as modesty.
Note that after disproving his initial definition, Socrates does not give Charmides his definition of temperance. He takes the time to disprove it, giving Charmides a look into how to find the answer himself. By pushing Charmides to discover the true meaning himself, he acts more as a facilitator than a teacher.
Socrates uses the same approach of asking Charmides questions that affirm his definition, as he did with quickness and quietness. Until, once again, he changes the angle of the conversation:
Socrates: But Homer says that modesty is not always good.
Charmides: Yes, I agree.
Socrates: Then I suppose that modesty is and is not good?
Charmides: Clearly.
Socrates: But temperance, whose presence makes men only good, and not bad, is always good?
Charmides: That appears to me to be as you say.
Socrates: And the inference is that temperance cannot be modesty — if temperance is a good, and if modesty is as much an evil a good?
Once again, Socrates guides Charmides into recognizing that his definition is incorrect. This pattern of teaching continues for the rest of the story through a couple more definitions (read here).
Socrates’ method frames learning as a dual endeavor, where the transmission of information is formulated similarly to a double helix. Socrates represents one strand of the helix, and who he is speaking with represents the other strand. The involvement of both parties in conversation represents the AT & CG pairings, gently pushing back against each other and creating a bridge for knowledge to cross over. The result is a memorable experience for the receiver as they have discovered the answer for themself.
Socrates taught individuals how to learn by giving them access to his stream of consciousness and thought process. The end result is an individual who is now more knowledgeable, and more capable of attaining knowledge on their own.
Would it be hard to believe that Aristotle taught Alexander in a similar fashion? Could we infer that Da Vinci and Verrocchio engaged in similar dialogue during their painting of The Baptism of Christ?
In a similar vein, to those who earned a degree in the last decade or two, can you honestly say you felt a strong connection to your teacher/professor? Was the learning through conversation? Did they teach you how to learn? Probably not.
It’s worth acknowledging that our example individuals had the luxury of learning without the same pressures put on our students today. But certainly, being able to learn effectively on your own would serve to boost learning efficiency and test scores, wouldn’t it?
Consider insight from Trena Wilkinson, the president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. When discussing the importance of learning mathematics through conversation, Wilkinson attests that:
When teachers are able to talk to students and have them make their thinking visible, they can then support that student to engage more deeply in mathematics, support their making connections, and help them build on their learning.
In the same way that a mathematics teacher may add context to a question and allow a student to make their own connections is similar to how Socrates added context when he challenged Charmides to describe temperance.
It’s completely irrelevant whether Socrates is teaching philosophy, math teachers are teaching math, or Talmud is teaching Einstein physics. What matters is that these examples all share the common ground of actively involving learners through conversation, lifting the topic from the pages of a textbook, and making it real.
Proof of the importance of conversational learning does not exist only in the classroom.
A study by MIT cognitive scientists found similar results when examining how parent-child conversations impact cognitive growth. MIT looked to determine if the “word gap” (children of high-income households hear more unique words from their parents than children from low-income households) gave an automatic advantage in cognitive ability.
The study analyzed parent-child conversations and how these would affect their cognitive development. Their main point of measurement was the number of conversational turns — a back-and-forth exchange. Their findings were strong, but would be no surprise to Socrates:
The researchers found that the number of conversational turns correlated strongly with the children’s scores on standardized tests of language skills, including vocabulary, grammar, and verbal reasoning.
Further, these correlations devalued the “word gap” theory:
These correlations were much stronger than those between the number of words heard and language scores.
Rachel Romeo, lead author of the paper concludes that the method of learning language is more vital than simply using a volume scale:
There’s still a popular notion that there’s this 30-million-word gap, and we need to dump words into these kids — just talk to them all day long, or maybe sit them in front of a TV that will talk to them. However, the brain data show that it really seems to be this interactive dialogue that is more strongly related to neural processing.
This study does not only prove the benefit of engaged conversation in relation to learning. It also successfully devalues the “word gap” theory. The thesis behind the “word gap” theory argues that exposure to a greater volume of information (in this case, words) will automatically yield higher cognitive results. The theory does not consider the quality of the exchange of information.
If the “word gap” theory were to be true, it would be impossible for individuals such as Aristotle, Da Vinci, or any other polymath to ever exist. In order to achieve their level of excellence in any of their fields, they would have needed to be exposed to more information on each specific field than anybody else in the world. This would likely eat up their time to a point where mastery of more than one topic would be impossible.
Instead, as Alexander was, they were great learners.
So, how are universities and schools holding up? Are students engaging in meaningful conversations with their teachers? Unfortunately, no.
Students are less engaged in the classroom than ever before, even when factoring out the massive drop in engagement post-pandemic.
Consider a 2018 survey by Gallup which reported that a minority (47%) of survey respondents indicated that they were “engaged”. The survey also reported that 29% were “not engaged” and 24% were “actively disengaged”.
The study also found results that affirm Socrates’ philosophy:
Students who were able to "strongly agree" with the statements "My school is committed to building the strengths of each student" and "I have at least one teacher who makes me excited about the future" were 30 times as likely to be engaged at school when compared with students who strongly disagreed with the same items.
This should be no surprise. How does a student know that a school is committed to building their strengths? How would they have a teacher that excites them about the future?
Through conversation and building relationships.
Engaged students get to become better learners, and this shows up in their grades. The same Gallup survey suggested that “engaged students are 2.5 times more likely to say they get excellent grades, and 4.5 times more likely to be hopeful about their future”.
Surely, once students move to higher learning institutions this will all change. They’ll get to learn in state-of-the-art facilities and have access to more information than at any other time in history. They’ll have conversations with and learn from their professors, becoming the learners they were always meant to be.
Yeah, not the case. You can’t teach a domesticated dog to hunt alone.
Take this poll by ADF International (UK):
44% of university students self-censor in front of lecturers for fear that they would be ‘treated differently’ if they expressed their real opinions.
This phenomenon isn’t unique to the UK. This study shows that 10% of liberals, 25% of moderates, and 43% of conservative students were concerned that their peers would post their remarks on social media. Another report indicated that roughly 31% of students were reluctant to speak for fear of criticism on social media.
This is a very common theme, and a concerning one too. What does this say about our classrooms? It immediately discredits any possibility of classrooms being a breeding ground for healthy discourse. Student-professor relations are now a prisoner’s dilemma of them trying to figure out if they agree politically, then maybe they can build a relationship. Students are unlikely to benefit from new viewpoints because everybody is too damn scared to share them.
But the worst part is that it shows that schools have fallen flat and completely failed at creating learners.
Polarization being as prevalent as it is suggests that students likely aren’t even formulating their own opinions, simply regurgitating them. If they were forming their own opinions, at least one of two things would be happening. First, they would be comfortable hearing new viewpoints as this would entice them to engage in debate and prove why they feel the way they do. Second, they would be interested in hearing others’ opinions in order to help them refine their own.
There are infinite possibilities as to why engagement is so low. It could be professors/teachers who weren’t taught to engage their students. It could be that they are criminally unpaid. Students may be underconfident in their ability to learn. Political tensions could be alienating students from their communities.
Most of all, students see school as solely a means to an end and are taught to emphasize short-term results over long-term results. I honestly can’t blame them, the employment pipeline is becoming more competitive each year, with a college degree as an expectation. But, learning how to learn can only help to ease this burden.
Regardless of academics, as shown by Gallup, students actually learning and enjoying it is a clear predictor of future happiness. Socrates was a facilitator because he bred great learners.
If trends continue to trudge down this dark road, education will become a memorization exercise in which students are robbed of critical thinking skills. This is radically different from Einstein’s definition of education:
Education is not the learning of facts, but the training of the mind to think.
If we continue to breed poor learners, the future won’t be too bright for the average citizen. How can somebody who isn’t trained to think, be able to solve their own problems? If they can’t form their own opinions, how easy will it be for politicians to command herds who won’t talk back?
Unfortunately, they may have their potential diminished and packaged into just another output of The Employee Factory.
You can have conversational learning only when students have a factual basis to draw on. The concept works for people who have learned the basics of their subject, but most students, even on a college level, are decidedly lacking in basic knowledge and basic skills. K-12 is simply not preparing many, many students properly, for a variety of reasons. Reading levels are considered "adequate" if they reach 6th grade level. Ditto writing capabilities. Yes, many students exceed those levels, but many do not. Without a knowledge base, conversational learning is simply not viable.