Knowing and understanding are often seen as synonymous terms: Merriam Webster even defines knowing as having a (practical) understanding of something. However, from the perspective of learning (either as a student or a teacher), one can see these as two different concepts. Thus framed, knowing is about ability to recite and recognize facts, concepts, and processes whereas understanding becomes something more vague, less measurable - the ability to apply that knowledge to other, new situations. Understanding implies a depth that knowledge does not. You can certainly know without understanding (as we do with much of the world, be it technological or natural), but one could understand without knowing (I'm thinking of those who possess easy and quick insight into the workings of things without any education about them).
For an example of how one can know but not really understand, take what I learned about in my database management class: I know the basic components of a relational database, but without having worked with one, I really wouldn't say I understand relational databases. That said, my instructor did the best he could do to get us close to understanding, by having us define and explain in our own, conversational words and apply the concepts to imaginary situations. Both helped bring me a little into the realm of understanding. There's nothing like having to explain something to someone else that makes you really know it - and if you do a good job of explaining it (and hence applying your knowing of it to a new situation), that seems a decent indication that you're at least somewhat understanding it.
Because knowledge and understanding are abstract concepts, and because there is arguably a certain amount of overlap between the two, a firm definition is difficult to pin down. However, they are about the best terms to apply to the various hues of gray that mark our comprehension (argh, another one!) of the world.
I enjoyed your posting - there are some things I want to highlight
ReplyDelete1. I've been waiting for someone to pull out the dictionary definition.
2. I like that you considered the possibility people can understand without knowing (really). My example would be star athletes who make terrible coaches.
3. In the age of assessment it is interesting that you mention understanding is more difficult to pin down.
4. They are difficult to pin down, and comprehension does muddy the waters - where does that fit?
It's interesting to think how understanding something becomes more vague and less measurable. I like how you express knowing in more quantitative terms. Is understanding more of an art than the science of knowing something?
ReplyDeleteI really like your statement about having to explain something to someone else and how that makes you really 'know it'. I have always felt that the ability to teach someone something is a good indication that you understand that thing. I have come across many situations where someone claims to know how to do something but when asked to teach it they have difficulties, which indicated to me that they didn't really understand it. They knew enough just to get by. My example is very much related to Mary Ann's point that people can know but not understand and her example of star athletes who make terrible coaches. That is a very good example. Coaching requires a different set of skills from playing. You can know the game but you have to understand coaching (working with people, motivating,leading,etc.) and I think that star players know and understand the game but don't always understand coaching. This is something I have witnessed personally within the youth sports arena.
ReplyDelete@ Mary Ann, re: "3. In the age of assessment it is interesting that you mention understanding is more difficult to pin down."
ReplyDeleteI think this issue is maybe more obvious in my teaching subject, the often subjective reading and composition. While I have specific and quite measurable learning outcomes handed to me from my department (the assessment age combined with the forces of college accreditation), any honest evaluation of effective writing and reading has to go at least a little beyond the "knowing" how to structure an essay or where the thesis should be.
Sometimes I wish I could teach a subject that easily measures "knowing," like with a scantron test. (This desire pulls strongest whenever I am facing a stack of essays!) I can see why teachers do it.
Students, I find, do not like the lack of a one correct answer. (Maybe because that's what they are used to in school.) Plus, they too often want the easy button.
After re-reading your post to write our synthesis, I caught an error that I made. In reference to Mary Ann's comment about star athletes and coaches, I said they 'know' but don't 'understand' coaching. I realized that your point and her point was the other way around. Mary Ann's point was that they 'understand' I'm guessing the sport, but don't 'know' how to coach. I guess you could say that when I read your post the first time I 'knew' what you and Mary Ann were saying but didn't 'understand' it. Haha!
ReplyDelete