In Amusing Ourselves to Death, Postman says that "'Sesame Street' does not encourage children to love school or anything about school. It encourages them to love television"(144). I don't think school is necessarily the thing that children should be taught to love. The thing that children should be taught to love is learning because school should not be the only thing that anyone learns from. When one loves learning, then one will enjoy school because the content of school is learning. That being said, I don't think that learning to love television is a great thing either if that is the sole thing that your attention is focused on.
With that in mind, how do we encourage our children to learn? Postman thinks that television is incapable of teaching our children effectively because it requires "no prerequisites" and "no perplexity"(147). I don't think that this is completely the case. In terms of prerequisites, I think that television does require some prerequisites. If you watch something, you will not see or understand everything that that program has to offer in one sitting. However, if you watch that same thing at a different time, you are bound to notice something new every time that you rewatch it. An initial understanding doesn't require prerequisites, but a fuller, more comprehensive understanding does.
For example, I think that we have all had an experience where we have watched a movie or show as a kid that we loved and got something from that program. However, if you watch that same show when you are older, you may be surprised to notice a hint of a dirty joke that a child wouldn't have had the prerequisite knowledge to understand. In this same sense, prerequisites are not required to take at least something away from the program, but prerequisites are typically required to have a full understanding of it. In this way, we all have the capability to learn something new from television every time we watch it.
In perplexity's case, you don't want any topic that you want to learn to be completely perplexing because you wouldn't be able to comprehend the topic, and you would become bored with it easily. For example, if I were to be taught nuclear physics at my age without the prerequisite knowledge needed to understand it, I wouldn't learn a thing. In the opposite sense, if something was not perplexing at all, it wouldn't seem too interesting either. Learning something that is already a part of your foundational knowledge won't pique your curiosity, and that which perplexes you, you will not be able to understand. However, there is a middle ground between your foundation and perplexity in which your knowledge is stretchable and expandable. This requires some prerequisite foundation, but also some perplexity as well, which is what is able to capture your curiosity and make you interested in learning. This is where true learning occurs because you don't fully understand it, but it doesn't fully perplex you. For this reason, television not perplexing you is beneficial because perplexity bores and prohibits learning, although television doesn't completely lack perplexity, which causes interest.
-Isaiah Yoder
I suppose perplexity does encourage learning, but I will only speak from my own experiences since everyone is different. Whenever I come across a concept that is just outright confusing, I sometimes become disappointed at the fact that I was not able to grasp it. Then, I get this feeling where I have this obligation to successfully comprehend the material. Perhaps it's my own fear of failure that fuels this obligation. As a result, I would reread the material to the point where I actually learn something and I no longer feel confused. So, in some ways, perplexity can encourage learning, at least for me.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say tv, does that include documentaries, if so I think that it falls into the zone of more perplexing but for me it is extremely interesting to learn something I don’t know about. Although you make an extremely good and interesting point when you say you don’t need very many prerequisites to watch and learn from tv which I agree with completely. I do however bring up the question of perplexity in tv and how it requires a different kind of knowledge of famous people like reality shows or whatnot which I get confused on because of the actors I do not know, now the question is do you need any prior knowledge to benifrt from watching tv or can you gain knowledge without having it?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rosecka that perplexity does encourage learning for some people. I also agree with Isaiah that it is harder to learn about a topic without the prerequisite knowledge as a background for it; however, I think that if one truly wants to learn about a complex topic and doesn't have the knowledge needed as a background, that he/she will strive to gain the knowledge needed to comprehend the topic.
ReplyDeleteI personally try harder to comprehend something that regards two things: school or subjects that interest me. For example, if I am having a harder time understanding a concept at school, I will ask the teacher for help, do extra practice, whatever it takes to maintain a good grade; on the other hand, if I am having a hard time comprehending the way football works (with the touchdowns, rebounds, and stuff... if those are even a thing), I wouldn't work as hard to try to understand a topic that doesn't interest me. I guess it all depends on what topic one wants to learn about and the desire that he/she may have to learn about it to decide whether it is worth the time to try to understand it.