Contents
Levels of text comprehension
The text can be understood at different levels. The three main levels of understanding are the ability to present (I don’t know to know, but I’ll tell you, I’ll tell you), the level of working understanding (I understand everything basic, but in general terms) and deep understanding (I understand in the smallest details).
Understanding at presentation level.
Unfortunately, the system of education in universities is not aimed at a deep understanding of texts and not at their meaningful analysis, but rather at checking «read — did not read.» In such a situation, smart students, having 2 days ahead and the need to hand over 50 sheets of educational text, read according to the “preparing a presentation” method, namely, I find key words and formulations that, if learned, will testify to the teacher that you have read the text. I memorize the main names, several main dates, what the main thing was said by such and such and what the other answered him. The main thing here is to create the impression that you have worked with the text. Studying the text using this method, you may not even really understand the meaning of the text being studied, but the teacher will give you a “test”. This is an effective method, but it seems that the real training should still not be in this.
Explained — understood
We remember information best when we actively explain it in our own words. As one student wrote, he only realized his beliefs when he tried to formulate them. And this means that the teacher and writer must constantly remind themselves: it is not always necessary to “put on the table” the final results. It is much better to stimulate students’ own thinking, encourage them to delve into the essence of theories and turn them into active listeners and readers. Even the notes made during the lecture enhance the impression of it. It was about this that the philosopher-psychologist William James wrote more than 100 years ago: “There is no perception without a reaction, no impression without an expression associated with it — this is the greatest maxim that a teacher should never forget” (from the book by D. Myers “Social Psychology «).
Knowing information and understanding meaning are two different things.
Information and understanding (excerpt from Mortimer Adler’s How to Read Books.) are in a sense related to knowledge. Getting information is learning, as is making sense of something new. What is the difference?
To have information is to know a fact. To understand means to be aware of additional nuances: why it happens, what is the connection with other facts, how they differ, how they coincide, and so on. Many of us are familiar with such differences: in much the same way, the ability to remember differs from the ability to explain. By memorizing what the author said, you learned something in the process of reading. If his words are true, you have learned something new about the world. This knowledge can concern either this book, or the whole world as a whole. Regardless of this, if you have used only your own memory, you will not be able to get anything but information, because you have not made any discovery. The discovery occurs when, in addition to the words of the author, you find out what exactly he had in mind and why he said this and not otherwise.
I will give a simple example. The story I’m about to tell happened in one of my classes. We have read Thomas Aquinas’ treatise on the passions, but this has happened many times with a wide variety of material. I asked one of the students what St. Thomas said about the passions. He quite correctly answered that St. Thomas considered love to be the primary passion, and the other feelings — listed by the student quite correctly — followed it in a certain order. I asked what that meant. The student was dismayed. Did he answer my question incorrectly? Of course, right, I said, but it is necessary to explain the meaning. It’s not enough to just faithfully retell the words of Thomas Aquinas – I needed to know what exactly the author had in mind. The student tried to answer again, but nothing came of it — he repeated the same thing, slightly changing the word order. It soon became apparent that he did not understand what he was talking about, although his answer would have earned a good mark on any exam that did not involve tricky questions about meaning.
I tried to help him and asked in what sense love is primary — is it that all other feelings flow from it? How do hate and anger, hope and fear depend on love? How are joy and sorrow related to love? What is love? Is hunger or thirst love? Or is love just that beautiful feeling that rules the world? Craving for money and fame, knowledge and happiness — is it love?
In the event that a student could answer these questions in the words of Thomas Aquinas, he did so. If his retelling was inaccurate, his classmates came to the rescue.
I tried to enter from the other side. Apologizing, I asked them to recall their own emotional experiences. Judging by their age, they could well have experienced some kind of passion. Did they have to hate, was hatred connected with love for this person? Or was it provoked by someone else? Have they ever experienced that unique range of feelings, when one feeling invisibly flows into another? The students were very vague in their responses, not out of embarrassment or displeasure, but because they were completely unaccustomed to examining their emotional experience in this way. They clearly did not draw any parallels between the passions of St. Thomas and their own experience. For them, they were completely different things.
It was then that it became clear why they absolutely did not understand the text they read. They perceived it solely at the level of words that they remembered and were able to repeat in response to my questions. They did the same with other items, and I just wanted too much from them.
Nevertheless, I continued to insist. If they find it difficult to understand Aquinas in the light of their own experience, wouldn’t the experience borrowed from the novels help? They read fiction. Some of them even read great novels. Were there any mentions of certain passions there? Were they different? How were they related? The students were still swimming. Their answers consisted of a superficial retelling of the plots. Alas, they understood the novels they read no better than Thomas Aquinas.