One of the secrets to utilizing human mental potential is routine.
People may dislike routine, as they understand it as repetition, and
that is the worst problem.
A routine is a basic plan for executing
one or more tasks. A computer program that executes multiple tasks in
multiple situations frequently uses the same routines repeatedly across
all these multiple situations.
The human brain is, among other
things, an engine for pattern recognition and the standardization of
chaos. Our brain triggers a sensation of pleasure or blocks discomfort
based on, among other things, the recognition of familiar patterns.
Music, images, voices, smells, tastes. The basis of our preferences is
the recognition of familiar patterns, which are built upon routines.
There
is pleasure in the new, in discovery, in adrenaline, but even this is
based on pattern recognition and the security of a known routine that is
employed to face new challenges.
Leaving aside particularities and
moral dilemmas, certain political regimes, certain forms of family
education, certain forms of teaching, and institutional methods are
associated with routines and patterns that favor memorization and
cognition by adhering to patterns and routines.
When I was studying, I
went through different schools, different teachers, and different
methodologies. I was able to notice a great difference in my capacity to
learn based on the type of educational institution, type of teachers,
and type of environment. Contrary to common sense, I studied in public
schools and private schools, at different times, under different
educational policies. The way this influenced my learning was clear.
In
some schools, the class was called by a sound signal, and it was up to
the students to find their seats. In some schools, teachers were strict
in their adherence to a general study plan that sought not to antagonize
the students' comfort. In some schools, teachers were compelled by a
study plan that aimed at the student more than the subject. I say "some
schools," but I mean the four different institutions I studied in,
noting that even the same institutions had different methods at
different times.
But the contrast comes from comparison. There was a
time we students were directed to celebrate the national anthem twice a
week. There was a time we students were directed to line up in advance
where the first-period teachers would guide the students to their
classrooms, every day. There was a time we students were directed to
make an introduction to the classes with respect for the school and the
teachers.
Teachers, at a certain time and institution, owned the
classroom as if it were their domain. There was a time teachers were
responsible for the order and content of their classes. There was a time
it was not the current politics or goals that dictated the type of
education the students received. There was a time education was not the
object of a political plan, but rather a government policy directed at
the country and the people as a whole.
It is clear in my mind which
period yielded the best possible educational achievement, and I was
among the top-performing students. This does not mean that overall, my
performance was always excellent regarding the acquisition of knowledge,
but rather that it was always the best it could be in the institution
and era I was in.
The point is that taking physics classes with a
teacher who holds a degree in physics and education generates better
results than taking a physics class with a teacher who is a graduate
chemist, worked in a hospital laboratory, and was directed to be a
physics teacher because policy dictated there should be X teachers for
every Y students.
Efficiency and effectiveness in education are
rarely directly linked to the investment made by direct correlation.
Often, material and financial resources are used as compensation for the
lack of technical and intellectual capacity to promote teaching. This,
coupled with the idea that education and social cohesion compete, is a
serious problem in modern education.
Learning requires the learner to
be in the position of learning. There is no concept where learning will
be efficient and effective when starting from the premise that the one
who does not know can determine the learning process. It is a notion
that escapes even the natural laws of biology. A bird does not learn to
fly by waiting in the nest until it has understood how to fly because it
is its nature. Science has discovered many processes in the animal
world that were believed to be instinct but are revealed to be learned,
driven by the actions of adults. It is well-known that group animals,
and those that care for their young after birth, possess a much broader
range of skills than those left to be raised by nature.
That said,
there is still the question of routine. Even a routine unrelated to
learning, but the simple ritual that precedes or follows the moment of
learning, has the power to create a firm anchor in the mind for what is
being studied. Religious, military, and even professional institutions,
like the ancient Guilds and modern Councils, all adhere, or should
adhere, to ritual routines that celebrate moments of learning and
recognition, and this process favors the brain's retention of what is
learned.
Today we face a global crisis in education, and it can
largely be traced back to a type of consideration of education that is
entirely unrelated to studies directed at education, but rather to
political studies that focus on how the student views society and the
State that wishes to teach them, and not on the knowledge that must be
acquired.
Alarming is the fact that in several countries around
the world, instead of the capacity for reading, writing, and
comprehension increasing in volume, or advancing in early education, on
the contrary, it has regressed in volume and also been delayed in age.
Technology that can demonstrably be used to increase the capacity and
fluidity of teaching is instead used as a crutch to put education in the
background. If an AI is capable of reading, writing, and understanding,
and could be used as a tool for discussions and learning, it is instead
used to supplant the inability to read, write, and discuss.
The
schools that implemented technology largely had many problems adapting
teaching to this reality precisely because teachers think of technology
as a facilitator of their work, transferring to students the impression
that technology exists to diminish the need for learning topics that are
specifically relevant and human.
But the truth is that, on the
contrary, technology should be used to challenge the notion of learning
responsibility, and favor an increase in the demands regarding what is
taught, and how it is taught.
And routines, the foundation of the
human brain's formation, when seen as a clear delegation to technology,
disarm the human brain of its primary structure for cognitive retention.
And
for thousands of years, the human beings who preserve their pre- and
post-study routines, especially those involving physical movements and
vocalizations, continue to be the ones who achieve high efficiency and
effectiveness in learning, even when employing technology, as they know
that technology is there to raise intellectual demands, not lower them.