Featured Education: Knowledge, Understanding, Wisdom

agedman, precisely what piece of education or knowledge are you trying to convey brother ?
Your clarity seems a bit fuzzy.

Yes it may be me.

HankD

 

John said:

"In my theology, knowledge consists of facts and their inter-relation, understanding is the ability to discern what those facts and their relationships mean, and wisdom is the ability to make the right choices in regards to those facts."
​

He then said:

"I teach knowledge every day of my teaching ministry. You cannot acquire an education without acquiring knowledge. Please look back at my definition of knowledge if you are going to disagree with this. You have to define knowledge before talking about how it is obtained."
​

I dared to disagree with his thinking that he teaches "knowledge."

He can certainly impart what he knows.
He can certainly teach lessons from what he knows.

BUT, unless the student actually puts into practice and experiences the lessons, then they remain mere lessons. Knowing carries the understanding of application from personal experience.


I agree with John on the placement of wisdom. But not on knowledge.

Wisdom, is both the understanding of how and when to apply the understanding. It is more often coupled with discernment of what method, what manner, what action, is needed more than the action itself in the Scriptures.


Think of a person who has understanding of all that goes into sailing a great vessel called "Mayflower."

Perhaps that person has read and learned the intricate parts and need of every rope on the vessel. That is commendable. They may hold all manner of skills in the design, the application of the how of the design, even the wisdom gathered from all who went before in the design of "Mayflower." They learn and understand the wind and waves and all other forces that impact the sailing of "Mayflower."

But until they "know the ropes" and have contended in the seas working the rigging, feeling the movement of the deck, the response of the steerage, and have actual experience as a sailor, that person remains merely educated. They remain unknowing. See Proverbs 1:5.

The person of "wise counsel" is one who is practiced at knowing the ropes of the vessel. Not just educated, not just wise, not just a learner or one learned.

Such is my contention with John.

He is an educator, and a very good educator, and a valuable resource to the students, and many will no doubt seek his advice and as one who "knows the ropes."

BUT he did not give the students knowledge, he can only impart truths that they must take and develop into their own experience and knowledge. Students take that which they learned, the education, and then practice the use discretion in application. Doing so they become truly knowledgeable in the subject.

For example, no doubt John must spend some class time teaching the students how to discern what is acceptable work and what is not. The students (hopefully) will take the instruction, actually practice discerning what is acceptable, and gain experience in knowing how to present what is acceptable. Knowing what is acceptable does not come from the professor, it comes by that student not meeting the standard or meeting the standard. It is called knowledge - practical experience.



Trust this helps.

 

JoJ's life - according to your definition of education/knowledge ("feeling the ropes") is testimony to his ability.

A life devoted to the Great Commission, not only that but passing it on to others in an OJT fashion and way of life.

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.


HankD

 

John what you teach is your knowledge, but the ears receiving it take it as learning (instruction). One day (hopefully) they will impart their own knowledge to ears receiving it as learning (instruction).

Remember how Paul addressed Timothy in this matter (as a student).

10Now you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance, 11persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium and at Lystra; what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me!
...
14You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,​

What you teach as knowledge must be learned and more often experienced by the learners for it to become their own personal knowledge. Just as Paul stated that the learners continue "in the things learned" ..."knowing" who taught them by example (conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love... all that a good teacher does examples). The knowing was not just the presentation, but the student response to the presentation.

noun: knowledge; plural noun: knowledges

1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
   ... (cut out all the "application stuff")
   
2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

​

See, ultimately you and I would agree that education is necessary, admirable, and should be acknowledged. But your teaching knowledge is not imparting knowledge but instruction to the learners.

We may be seeing this issue more from vantage point then from difference.
Perhaps it is that you present the issue as the instructor, I present it from the perspective as the learner.

Perhaps for the casual reader, I may present the following so that I can do a bit of rabbit trailing, too. But, hey, that comes with ... I forgot....

Within the classroom, there are unbelievable levels of knowledge that is readily available to the students. Just their social and cultural background alone does not present them as "tabula rasa" in their seats, no matter what level they may enter schooling, from Kindergarten to post graduate.

It is well understood that learning rarely if ever occurs in success, but, more often then not, by failure.

As a teacher, I often would praise the students who did not succeed, because it allowed me the opportunity to help them gain understanding in how to study and what was needed to be more targeted in learning that achievement could be attained.

Students who are completely successful have no indication of having learned anything, yet, when a student fails, it is an indication that more must be learned and to what extent that learning must extend to achieve success. That is knowledge, experiential understanding, that the student can actually use as one wisely instructs others.

This is also (imo) the evidence of why alpha/numerical grades are given rather than pass/fail marks. Grades are not to puff up those who are completely successful and no indication of having learned anything in the classroom, but to show all what more is necessary to succeed. The successful then have the opportunity to display the character in seeking out the needy and giving aid.

You and I both seem to thrive at seeing the unsuccessful attain success, admiring the struggle, and even the heartache such experiences, understanding that the character on display is a reflective indicator of both the desire to learn and the determination to be successful.

 

I agree, and one to be held as esteemed.

 

John, I neglected one of your posts, in my response, above.

You ask:

"So according to you, when I lecture about how Catholicism began, who Constantine was and what he did, who Gregory the Great was and what he did, I am not teaching knowledge? Really??? By any dictionary definition I am teaching knowledge when I give facts, which are the building blocks of understanding."​

Knowledge is more than presenting facts, and even understanding of the facts. The definition of knowledge also determines that one incorporate the skills associated with those facts, and even to apply the facts to unrelated events.

For example:
The typical fifth grader may be able to do basic math. However, does not have the "knowledge" to balance a checkbook. Some may consider this learning a skill. Not true. Learning a skill is limited to the expression of that specific skill. Knowledge is taking the basic skill and being able to correctly apply it to various unrelated events and scenarios.

One may be a skillful editor, but a lousy writer of mystery.

The learner must receive that taught, acknowledge that it is worthy to imprint into their scheme of rational, that the teaching is useful as a paradigm, and then exercise that teaching before it becomes their own knowledge.

So here is an illustration to help perhaps the casual reader:

A mechanical engineer is schooled in all matters concerning the mechanical aspects of large chilled water systems. He stands before this huge machine looking at a system that is failing. There is a problem and yet in all the learning he has no experiential knowledge from which to grasp the processes necessary. He may know but does not know. All that the instructors presented have not translated into that student as knowledge useful to resolve the issue.

Enter another mechanical engineer, also schooled in all matters concerning the mechanical aspects of large chilled water systems, stands before the same equipment. Because he under the same instruction as the first also acquired experiential knowledge gained by application, he quickly moves to correct the problem. (The problem was the basket strainer was clogged as a result of a broken underground pipe Basket Strainers from Stayflow Strainers )

You teach Constantine and Gregory. This is commendable.

Not to challenge your teaching but to give you a glimpse into a class question that I would present.

Constantine, Gregory and you meet in the park to discuss treatment of enemies to the church (or some other contention). Give a short statement of a perspective that each would bring to the discussion, and how might that person respond to what others are saying. ​

What I would look for in the answer is to see if the student can take what is taught, draw conclusions as to character and then express their own thoughts in comparison and contrast to the other two present in the conversation.

This would give me a slight insight into how "knowledgeable" the student has become in actual learning of the facts, and the ability to place themselves into understanding (knowing) the perspectives. They would be able to experientially relate their knowledge.

 

You perhaps missed this from above:

noun: knowledge; plural noun: knowledges

1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
   ... (cut out all the "application stuff")
   
2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

​

I am interacting with the thinking that you teach knowledge. Knowledge can certainly be presented. It can be presented as "facts, information and skills." But you do not TEACH knowledge.

Knowledge is acquired by a person and it is gained by that person. The focus of knowledge is upon the learner not the instructor.

They were taught the "facts, information and skills."

They practiced such until it became personal knowledge.

I am attempting to show how you need a slight alignment in your thinking as it relates to the word knowledge, and that you present what YOU know (knowledge) as "facts, information, skills" that the student acquire knowledge (personal understanding and application ability).

The instructor instructs. It is the student responsibility to acquire the instruction and turn it into knowledge.

You are teaching facts.

Until that student processes the information, internalizes that information into the parameters consistent with their own views, can adapt that information to be useful, it remains mere information of "facts, skills, and understanding."

The results YOU seek to realize in the student is the ability of that student not to merely regurgitate that which you taught, but to apply that which you taught in multiple scenarios.

For example:
Psy 101 students learn the people who formulated the major approaches to understanding. The instructor is expecting a certain level of retaining of facts and basic understanding associated to be able to associate who had what method and the results of that method.

The same with the k-3rd grade teachers. They are laying the foundation work, and the skill practice necessary for later grades. (Shown in the example of fifth graders in the previous post)

When you instruct the first year Greek, you are expecting the learning of facts, understanding, and skills related to the beginner.

By the time that student graduates, there is far more then mere expression of facts (hopefully) but actual knowledge acquired by practice of the skills, the facts, the understanding.

That student is able to draw from the skills, the facts, the understanding, selecting the tools and methods necessary to resolve even untaught issues. That ability is acquired, it is gained by the student. It is not taught and by some osmosis absorbed by the student.

Your presentation of knowledge (facts, skills, understanding) is not knowledge to the student until they are capable of utilizing the "facts, skills, understanding" within their own life events.

You have no ability to manipulate the heart and mind of the students. You may only present and attempt to convince. Same as Paul presentation of facts to Felix.

Therefore, you must rely upon what God has given you to teach (facts, skills, understanding) and trust (to some level) that God will grant that student the ability to "acquire" and "gain" that they personalize what you present as knowledge.

Again, you teach (as YOU stated) facts. The student takes the facts and internalizes them into knowledge.

That is also the presentation of Scripture, except when God specifically and purposefully endows a person or people for His desire. Does not the opening of Proverbs 1 present the acquisition of facts and gain experience results in knowledge reflected in ability not just in regurgitation?

Paul knew many facts, had many skills, had all understanding that was hard even for Peter to comprehend, but did not Paul state that the goal was to know and to fellowship? (Philippians 3)

He was willing to count the cost of all that he experienced in life any loss that came that he might know and fellowship.

Is not "that I may know Him" a single word in the Greek that expresses personal experiential knowledge gained only through first hand or on the hand training?

Is that what ultimately your desire for your students as you present your own knowledge of the facts, skills, and understanding?

 

My apologies. I am most neglectful.

I grabbed it in my haste from here: knowledge - Google Search

But it is consistent with most dictionaries.

Imparting instruction.

You are using your knowledge, but imparting instruction based upon your knowledge.

Mentoring was a requirement back in the day. Each upper classman was assigned a freshman to mentor.

Trouble was that if sin infested the mentor, great damage could be done before the notice was taken.

The unscheduled (yet purposed) meeting with beginning students was critical in ferreting out proactively the problems, and responding rather than reacting.

I know.

I am very grateful that your heart is touched.

I have encountered so many (even department chairs) who, because of the ability to write journal articles and had letters behind their names, where esteemed by authorities but had little character and even less gift in teaching.

 

Don't they make lint rollers for that problem?

 

I've been following this back and forth with interest. When I came to this sentence, I decided to interject and ask for clarification.

Because, to me, it seems the opposite. Take me this semester, for example. I took linear algebra. I didn't know linear algebra before the semester. However, I discovered a love for it, worked ahead, commonly had discussions with the professor, and got an A in the subject. How is this an indication that I haven't learned anything?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

Perhaps you would better agree with the statement in this context.

The statement you quoted was concerning that student who from the beginning would darken the door already successful in learning, in this instance, linear algebra. The tests and evidence only showed that they could reproduce what was expected, but not evidence of having learned or acquired something that was not previously known. Assuming the tests and classroom presentations were typical for the vast number of campuses, they relied on providing the correct answer based upon the ability to produce the facts and skills necessary.

What was not proved was if the student actually learned anything.

Often such a student might pass the typical classroom with an "A," because it is part of the syllabus standard and so granting of the grade is appropriate.

In your situation, you were granted the "A" and held as proven product of the educational learning. By interacting with the professor demonstrating not merely ability of regurgitation of facts and skill but "applicable knowledge", and that hunger for further understanding manifested by working ahead, abundantly displayed you were showing consistent improvement.

Your character was also reflected within the learning environment.

 

Let me start by saying that education is a Good Thing, and the acquisition of knowledge is to be recommended. I don't want to go to hospital and be treated by someone who has no medical education, or have my house re-wired by someone who is not a qualified electrician.

However, in Britain thousands of churches, including many Baptist ones , are led by people who are seminary trained, have a fine knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, but are liberals in their theology and do not know the Lord. IMO, there is no Baptist Union seminary in the UK that is truly Bible-believing, and that includes Spurgeon's-- the Great Man would not recognize his own college today. Those Baptist churches that desire a true, Bible-believing Pastor are well-advised to look outside the B.U. I would far rather hear a sermon from someone who has no seminary training but knows the Lord, than one with a PhD in theology who doesn't. [Best of course is the guy with the PhD who does know the Lord!]

There is also such a thing as the Tyranny of Experts. We have all heard evolutionary biologists spouting off, and when someone challenges them, they air their doctorates and place themselves above contradiction. The same thing happens over here concerning theology. You get some Bishop in the Church of England on the television speaking the most awful heresy, but he is believed by folk precisely because he is a Bishop and has a whole string of theological degrees to his name!

So those on this board who have theological qualifications have my admiration, but they will not automatically have my agreement simply because of their degrees.

In answer to your 'trilogy of the mind,' I would say that knowledge is the ingestion of facts, understanding is knowing what those facts mean and wisdom is knowing how to apply those facts to one's life. In other words, I might learn Psalm 119 off by heart; that would be knowledge. I might know what it means; that would be understanding. But the most important thing would be to obey it; that is wisdom (Proverbs 1:7).