In any discussion, or symposium on education one is certain to hear the word ‘understanding’ used in a statement of its goals. The word is an important one, for the educational endeavour, indeed the whole school process seems to have as its primary purpose the understanding of the pupils.
There is a sense in which ‘knowledge,’ ‘comprehension’ and ‘understanding’ are synonyms: one knows what one understands – if not, then one does not know it. Here one may see the traditional cleft between rote learning and real learning. The comment that is missing from the former is understanding that is why there is a widespread condemnation of ‘meaningless parrotting’ for, to use the human mind for such purpose is to manifestly go against its grain, its inherent potential.
It is important therefore to focus for special analysis on this element that makes such a difference: What is understanding? Who do we mean by it? A good answer is provided by I.J. Lee (1942), a follower of Alfred Korzybski, the founder of the Science of General Semantic, and ‘one of the greatest crap-detectors of our age’ (Postman, 1971).
Lee argues that the word understanding has as many as seven meanings – that is to say, one can expect as many as seven different things of another as a consequence of his understanding. He does not claim to be exhaustive either, so that strikes one is that if the word, so central in education, is the main goal in an already crowded and complex classroom world, mustn’t the teacher be aware of this range of meanings? Mustn’t the teacher be fair in his expectations regarding the students’ comprehension? Thus it was that this exciting tool of clarity in thinking was seized upon, and presented in this form.
Teachers have a right to be challenging, and spur their students to the next degree of achievement, but that does not mean being unfair. The purpose of this delineation is to show that an undue insistence on any one meaning of understanding – provided it is not crucial to the very subject at hand (provided, also, that one is right about its centrality!) – is unjust.
To proceed. The first meaning of understanding is the following of directions. This is obviously of direct relevance to the classroom, the laboratory, the library and most other school contexts. The classroom ‘meta-talk’ is mostly instructions: from ‘open your books, and turn to page 54’ to ‘clean the BB’ and ‘where’s your homework?’ All the commands are in the language of instruction. The cheeky student who replied to the last order with ‘its right here, on this page in my book’ will be snapped at with ‘Bring it here at once!’
The second meaning of understanding is the giving of verbal equivalents. This is the most often used sense of the word, in the language teaching context, the central one. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that each time the student is asked the definition of a word, this ability (or lack of it) is seen as a measure of his understanding. But let us note the difficulties this involves.
If one is asked the meaning of ‘red’, one might reply ‘it’s a colour’. When asked ‘what is colour?’ one may have the language resources to muster ‘it’s a quality that things have’. But asking ‘What is a quality?’ is pushing one up in the clouds. There is a range of silence on which all language rests: Korzybski never tired of emphasizing. Let us emerge from this airy discussion and turn to the mundane classroom.
One can ask something to be said ‘in his own words’ only to an extent. There is no way abstract nouns can be defined – in words, in anybody’s words: they can be demonstrated in lie contexts or merely ‘hinted’ at best. To expect an eleven year old to come up with ‘his own words’ on ‘shape’, ‘tone’ and ‘texture’ as the geography teacher in Barnes (1976: 118) did is impossible: and to infer from this that they do not understand such ‘simple’ words is unjust.
The third meaning of understanding is the solving of problems. One can be said to understand a problem if one can correctly recognize of the steps that must be taken to solve it – whether one can take those steps or not. An arithmetical example will make this easier. In any sum, if the student does not grasp first of all whether the answer allows for a large number or a fraction, he cannot be said to understand it. The fact that he does arrive at the (almost) correct answer is beside the point. One might say this meaning of understanding as being connected with logical thinking, with seeing the relationship between cause and effect.
The above three may be seen as a group of meanings directly related to the educational endeavour. To create habits of sound behaviour, to build up a language and to correct with cause and effect may be said to be necessary for a rational being. The following are abstract: dealing with more complex realities, and consequently depending on a much wider spectrum of experience.
The fourth meaning of understanding is the agreeing on programs. This can take the form of a signal of commitment to perform an action with another, whether verbally or non-verbally. This ‘non-verbal signal’ must be stressed as a possibility, indicating the implicit nature of the agreement. Often between friends or close colleagues such understanding exists and the occasional misunderstanding soon show the implicit stratum beneath.
The fifth meaning is logically connected to the fourth: the making of predictions. This is particularly so in the human realm between friends who have shared a series of experiences, such predictive understanding does not surprise. It is like knowing how another ‘ticks’: knowing how the particular word or image will strike and how he will respond it.
The sixth meaning is the making of the appropriate responses. If one thinks that Cordelia deserved what Lear did to her, one does not understand either her or Lear. The realm of art, culture, values and worldview of another demands understanding in this meaning.
Seventhly, understanding means the making of proper evaluations. This is intellectually the most demanding of all. It means the readiness – and the clarity – to make explicit one’s criteria of evaluation of anything – be it a situation, an event, a book or a person. And this sense is perhaps the one meant in the saying ‘to understand all is to forgive all.’
The delineation of these seven meanings is not claimed to be exhaustive (an eighth comes to mind already, but that is for another occasion) but one change has been made. Lee did not put them in the above order. This has been done to make the movement from the concrete to the abstract clearer. This enables one to understand better (i.e. in the second meaning).
References:
Barnes, D (1976) From Communication to Curriculum
Harmonsdworth, Penguins
Lee, Irwin J. (1942) The Language of Wisdom and Folly
Boston, Harcourt Brace
Postman and Weingartner Teaching as a Subversive Activity
(1971) Harmonsdworth, Penguins