Grace Jackson: I get where you’re coming from, but I think we have to remember our starting point. I want students to be able to apply their knowledge, but that’s just something that comes with practice. Maybe the lessons we’ve been talking about weren’t the best examples, but as a department we do loads of modelling and practice to ensure students can do the kinds of things you’re talking about. I appreciate that what we’ve seen in these lessons on graphs has been a bit of a lethal mutation, but I guess you’re always going to get those when people are trying to adapt their practice. It will take time for teachers to get this stuff right.
Henry Welwyn: Of course it will, but my point is that the reason we’re getting lethal mutations is because the model we’re working from is flawed, deeply flawed. By imposing a hard division between facts and values and adopting a model of learning couched exclusively in terms of memory, our SLT has unwittingly encouraged your team to overlook the fact that all learning has a purpose.
GJ: That purpose being what?
HW: I would argue that the purpose of all learning is to allow human beings to overcome what is often called ‘the self’, the biological part of us that causes problems when we go out into the world and try to live with others.
GJ: I feel as though this conversation has suddenly turned into a philosophy seminar.
HW: Perhaps I should try to explain it in terms of my limited understanding of cognitive science instead.
Angela Oakley: Henry: don’t tell me you’ve gone to the dark side as well!
HW: Not quite, Angela, don’t worry! But I have come round to thinking that any account of knowledge that’s going to appeal to everyone in the school is going to have to acknowledge the findings of the scientists. I guess I just have a different emphasis.
GJ: That sounds more palatable. Let’s hear it, then.
HW: Well, my understanding of how scientists think about thinking is that it is done by two systems: System 1 and System 2. System 1 is the fast, instinctive, emotional brain, whereas System 2 is the slow, rational, deliberative one.
AO: Is this the chimp brain – human brain thing?
HW: Something like that, yes, although I prefer to call them hot cognition and cold cognition. System 1 is hot – it responds immediately without too much thought. System 2 is cold – it takes its time and goes through all the options more carefully. I think there’s a pretty good agreement amongst psychologists over this model for understanding the brain. Is that right, Grace?
GJ: As far as I’m aware, yes. You’re basically summarising what Kahneman wrote about in Thinking Fast and Slow, aren’t you?
HW: Pretty much, yes. Kahneman says we have these two systems for thinking, and his point is that even though we think most of our lives are governed by the rational system, in actual fact it’s the instinctive system that’s driving a lot of our behaviour. This is not necessarily a bad thing: having the instinctive system is of enormous evolutionary benefit. Our lives would be impossible if we had to think carefully about everything we do.
GJ: You see it with young children, don’t you. All of these things we take for granted, they have to really think about what they’re doing.
AO: Yes! I remember going crazy about how long it took my daughter to learn to put gloves on. I was thinking, how can you not just do it? But I guess it’s something I had to learn too at some point.
HW: Precisely. The goal is to move all this stuff out of System 2 and into System 1, which allows you to get stuff done a lot faster.
GJ: And escape predators, I guess.
HW: That too. You don’t want to be deliberating whether or not to run away from a lion or a grizzly bear. You just need to run. Anyway, the point is that System 1 is what we often describe as ‘the self’. It’s the part of us that seems to just do stuff without us even wanting to.
GJ: That must be the part of me that always eats the biscuits people leave out in the science office.
AO: Yes! I wish they wouldn’t bring them in: I always feel terrible afterwards!
HW: But we’re hard-wired to eat them! The problem is that technology has moved on faster than evolution. Once upon a time, finding food rich in sugar and fat would be a rare treat, so, whenever you saw those biscuits, your System 1 would tell you to fill your boots. Our problem is that foods filled with sugar and fat are now everywhere, because of farming and the development of technology for refining sugar. Unfortunately, our System 1 hasn’t got the memo, so we’re still gorging ourselves as if the next time we’ll see a biscuit is twelve months away.
GJ: Hence we need to override it with System 2.
HW: We do, but it’s hard. Overcoming System 1 – ‘the self’ – takes an awful lot of focus and concentration over many years. And it’s something that’s difficult to do in isolation, unless you’re some sort of saint.
AO: What do you mean?
HW: I mean that it’s much easier to reshape System 1 as part of a social group than it is when you’re doing it on your own. We all know that we shouldn’t eat too many biscuits in the staff room -
AO: Or have that weeknight glass of wine.
HW: Or that – but if we’re relying solely on our System 2 then there’s a good chance we’ll crack and do it anyway. It’s much easier when you’re doing it as part of a group: if the whole science team made a pledge not to snack on biscuits, then you’d be much less likely to eat them. Likewise, you’re much more likely to give up alcohol by doing Dry January than by trying to do it on your own. There’s something about doing it as part of a group that makes it easier to change your System 1.
GJ: So what does all this have to do with knowledge and the curriculum?
HW: It’s related because the disciplines function in exactly the same way. They are made up of groups of people all intent on overcoming the prejudices, assumptions and intuitions of System 1 by regulating their thinking, speech and behaviour according to a set of shared rules. This is a tough process: it requires years of effort on the part of each participant’s System 2, along with the broader sense that this is not a project being partaken in alone. But, ultimately, if a student is successful in overcoming their System 1 and has trained it to follow the rules of a discipline without thinking, then at that point, I would argue, they can be said to have acquired knowledge.
