The readings this week echo concerns of creativity and the lack of skills from current models of education. In some ways I agree, in others I am not as convinced. The Langer section on learning has merit in terms of methods of learning and teaching creatively, yet there is something to knowing the basics of a discipline that help a student in the long run. I agree that being able to interpret and apply knowledge is the most important outcome of education, but if certain traits are not developed early on it may be hard for a student to find a discipline worth pursuing or that they can pursue. For instance, if one wants to work in philosophy they probably need to know Aristotle, Nietzsche, Foucault, and so on. Memorization is a valuable tool that cannot be discounted in any discipline, different tools are needed for different disciplines.
I agree with the need to diversify, and create new paths to the same knowledge, but I still believe having a set base for a discipline is not a bad thing in its formation. Changing up how we learn that set base is up in the air for me, I think it is better to know how to apply it rather than blindly picking the theorist it belongs to. For instance, I teach global econ and world politics, and I provide my students with the proper background information on how the economy has developed the way it has, and historically that narrative can change with new discoveries but it is a narrative. The terminology and economic policies implemented by the countries in question is where students can get creative, and I encourage it. How we look at economic growth and public policy can change day by day due to our current state of information. The question then becomes what do we do we economically, and how do we account for the political actors with the power to make such decisions?
Many times the answers are not simple, but rather convoluted and at time esoteric, thus having a background of historical facts and terminology helps the students apply their knowledge. I agree methods should be flexible and open for change with an emphasis on application. However, I also think that older methods of education are extremely effective for both memorization and application. Overall, I do not disagree with the points Langer, and Thomas and Brown, but I am hesitant in embracing their arguments.