What do you think?
Rate this book
The Book of Learning and Forgetting
The author eloquently contrasts a false and fabricated "official theory" that learning is work (used to justify the external control of teachers and students through excessive regulation and massive testing) with a correct but officially suppressed "classic view" that learning is a social process that can occur naturally and continually through collaborative activities. This book will be crucial reading in a time when national authorities continue to blame teachers and students for failures in education. It will help educators and parents to combat sterile attitudes toward teaching and prevent current practices from doing further harm.
144 pages, Paperback
First published April 2, 1998
11 people are currently reading
707 people want to read
About the author
Frank Smith
26 books21 followersFrank Smith was a psycholinguist recognized for his contributions in linguistics and cognitive psychology. He was contributor to research on the nature of the reading process together with researchers such as George Armitage Miller, Kenneth S. Goodman (see Ken Goodman), Paul A. Kolers, Jane W. Torrey, Jane Mackworth, Richard Venezky, Robert Calfee, and Julian Hochberg. Smith and Goodman were singled out as originators of the modern psycholinguistic approach to reading instruction.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews
June 14, 2010
I was looking for something for an assignment, looking for something on motivating students who were clearly uninterested in learning, when I found this book. Frank Smith’s book Reading: Second Edition, a book I read about 15 years ago and I have always considered one of the more remarkable books I’ve ever read, has always been a touchstone for me. At the time I read it I was learning how to help adults learn to read. Before I read it I thought that what I needed to learn, if I was going to be any use to these people at all (these non-readers) was a knowledge of subjects like phonics or the rules of spelling and to then present these people with carefully selected texts that progressively became more difficult in predictably incremental steps. Then I read Reading and decided that all I needed was my own knowledge of how texts work – gained from my being a reader – and to find a way to help students discover what they wanted to know about enough, what they were interested enough in, so that showing them books on those subjects would help them become readers. That is, Smith believes that learning is a function of interest and learning is assisted in having someone with you who can do what it is you want to learn to do by providing you with advice along the way when you feel you are getting stuck. It was a revelation and proved quite effective with the students I helped learn to read.
By the way, this was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life – I can only highly recommend it.
Debate has raged over the years about the virtues of what is referred to as Whole Language learning and which gets compared with Phonic or Direct Instruction. There was a time when I would have been happy to say that those calling for more phonics were ‘rightwing’, but Australia’s current Labor Government’s obsession with educational measurement in its various guises proves how bi-partisan support has become for methods based on measurement. The simple ideological divisions of the past are fading and now everyone seems rightwing.
After reading Smith years ago I found myself a convert – the view explained in that book is developed and expanded here in his beautifully clear and simple prose. Frank Smith is someone dedicated to the idea that learning is only possible on the basis that the learner is not confused by what is being taught – as such his works are the living embodiment of clarity of exposition. They are exemplary and extraordinary in their clarity. It is a rare thing to read anyone who practices so consistently what they preach. If learning is at root a function of how well someone is being understood, then Frank Smith does everything in his power to ensure he is always understood. His clarity has nothing to do with the topics he covers being ‘easy’. He covers some remarkably difficult pedagogical theory – although, not that you would notice. His criticisms of Chomsky, Skinner and Cognitive Psychology are handled in a way that allows people familiar with these theories and theorists and those who have never heard of them insights well worth having. His criticisms are profound despite how easy they are to read.
Our society believes that learning is something that is remarkably hard. Learning doesn’t just happen, it is about swotting and about testing. Testing in particular needs to happen very soon after learning has occurred if it is to be ‘fair’ because it is clear that learning is also directly related to forgetting. It is best not to postpone any examination of learning too long after learning has taken place, as our ability to retain what we have learnt is all too often pitifully short-term. We have all studied for tests only to forget virtually everything within days of the exam. It is hard to know what the point of this kind of learning is. There appears to be lots of effort, but then hardly any gain. This view of learning is referred to by Smith as the ‘Official’ view.
Smith contrasts this with what he calls the classical view. ‘Classical’ because Smith believes it is how humanity has learnt throughout time, that is, learnt without effort. He says that every culture has an expression that translates approximately to ‘We learn from the company we keep’. Throughout time people have paid for their children to be apprenticed, or to go to Universities, or to join clubs - they do this because they know that we learn from those we associate with, we want to become like those we associate with. Learning according to the classical view is as effortless as breathing. Learning is something we do once we have been accepted into a particular club. If that club is the club of carpenters, for instance, then all that is needed for learning to take place is for the ‘student’ seeking to become a carpenter to be placed with a competent carpenter and for that carpenter to embrace the student as a worthy member of the carpenter club. Being collocated with a competent carpenter means being placed in situations where meaningful work is being done (and that is the sole requirement for meaningful learning to occur) and where there is someone available able to show you when you are making a mistake. You don’t ‘learn’ so much as ‘act’ and acting involves meaningful work.
The best of this book is where Smith explains how children learn to speak. This is interesting because many people say that learning (particularly learning to read) is quite different from how we learn to speak. Learning to speak is seen by those who oppose the idea of ‘effortless learning’ as something that we have evolved to do – so they hold that learning to speak, although apparently effortless – can’t really be compared with any other kind of learning. This thesis is developed, for example, in Words and Rules by Stephen Pinker. This is not a view that Smith agrees with. He asserts that kids learn to speak in much the same way that people learn everything else – by having competent instruction from experts who accept them as apprentice speakers and expect them to learn and so provide meaningful instruction along the way.
The Official learning theory asserts that learning is best achieved when it is based on the scientific method. This method takes tasks and breaks them down into their component parts and then teaches these parts. The Official theory is obsessed with measurement because if you haven’t learnt part one there is no way you can go on to part two. Do students struggle learning to spell? Then the point of instruction is to teach them the correspondence between letters and sounds. Does it matter if this is boring or even if it doesn’t immediately make sense to the student? No, because once these lessons have been learnt students will put them all together, whether they realise it or not. The point isn’t even that the teacher knows the point of the instruction. All that is necessary is that the learner is forced to attend to the instruction and that the instruction has been structured by an expert so that it follows a scientific and incremental growth. Measurement is the key here. You teach kids how to spell all the ‘at’ words – cat, mat, fat, sat, chat – and then you test that they have learnt this pattern before you move on to ‘ot’ words – sot, hot, cot, not, jot – and so on and on and on. Frank Smith’s point is that this meaningless way of teaching suffers from the fact that children aren’t all that good at learning from meaninglessness. Children seem to learn to speak as effortlessly as they learn to breathe, but many kids never learn to read following this kind of instruction.
The problem is compounded because if the method does not work this is seen as being the fault of either the teacher or the learner – it is never due to the method. Perhaps the learner simply isn’t trying hard enough. What is always recommended, then, is a stricter application of this scientific method of instruction with a subsequent greater effort on behalf of the learner. Soon, unfortunately, the learner is found to be not trying at all – as it is very hard to sustain learning when the learner is both bewildered and constantly reminded of their failure to learn. And the obsession with measurement means that failing learners are constantly reminded of how they are failing and constantly compared to those around them who have succeeded. The thing that is remarkable about this model is that no one seems to notice that it is completely rational for someone who is being told they are a failure to just give up. Being told you are no good at something hardly seems the most obvious way to encourage them to work harder at learning to do it.
If you were into conspiracy theories it would be hard to find a more effective way to disable learners than this Official method. I prefer Lenin’s idea that no amount of evidence is enough to disprove any theory and so no conspiracy is necessary. The effect is just the same anyway.
Smith undermines the theoretical basis of this Official view of learning by pointing out that much of it is based on experiments in which people are literally forced to learn nonsense. You see, learning is something that humans do exceptionally well when it is meaningful to them. They learn at an exponential rate, at a rate that is very hard to measure as long as the material is meaningful. The problem is that meaningful learning requires that the learning is meaningful to the learner – and therefore depends on their interest and life experience. Science doesn’t like things like that. Science requires ‘all things being equal’ and both ‘interest’ and ‘life experiences’ are things that are simply not ‘equal’.
But if you force people to learn things that are meaningless to them then you can show scientific relationships between the amount of effort expended and the learning achieved. We all learn nonsense badly, but not quite equally badly - some of us can learn nonsense better than others. As soon as what students are being taught is meaningful and engaging then students learn at rates that simply couldn’t be accounted for by the official view. Now, you might think that this would be enough to convince people that what you need to do is make what is being taught meaningful. But no, that would mean removing how we measure learning – and science needs a way to measure.
Instead, what we do is press on with meaninglessness and expand its reach. But people don’t like to learn things that are meaningless, and so teaching ends up being a way to force people to do things they would never choose to do of their own free will. Learning becomes a kind of enforcement and teachers a bit like prison guards.
The solution, according to Smith, is quite simply to change the world. That is, stop teaching meaninglessness and find ways to show students the meaning behind what they are learning. It is not about FUN!!!! it is about interest and the remarkable results that can be achieved once people’s interest is engaged and the material provided is meaningful.
One of the things I’ve been hearing repeatedly lately is how much young people who leave school, students who had had no interested in education for 12 years, suddenly become interested once they start work. They enrol in courses that will help them with their careers and suddenly find that they can learn after all.
It is hard to imagine that people might think that learning would be better if it was also meaningless – so even if you do think we need to ‘learn the basics’ first, surely those basics can be learnt in a way that is also meaningful. We don't really need to teach by rote to learn, in fact, rote learning is often the best way to ensure no learning takes place at all. My two years of French at high school are a testament to that.
This book does some very sexy things when it shows the underlying attitudes we have to education as shown in the metaphors we choose when talking about education – advancing, withdrawing, batteries, drills, word attack skills, targets, campaigns, a war on literacy, an education revolution – disturbing stuff.
I think this is a remarkably interesting book and one I must buy now as it is a book I would like to refer back to again. But let’s end with a quote:
“It is not difficult to see how learning flourishes where there is interest, confidence, and understanding and how it withers under boredom, trepidation, and confusion … And if we learn to watch for the danger signals of boredom, anxiety, and confusion in others, we can learn not to be trapped by them ourselves.”
Wonderful stuff.
By the way, this was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life – I can only highly recommend it.
Debate has raged over the years about the virtues of what is referred to as Whole Language learning and which gets compared with Phonic or Direct Instruction. There was a time when I would have been happy to say that those calling for more phonics were ‘rightwing’, but Australia’s current Labor Government’s obsession with educational measurement in its various guises proves how bi-partisan support has become for methods based on measurement. The simple ideological divisions of the past are fading and now everyone seems rightwing.
After reading Smith years ago I found myself a convert – the view explained in that book is developed and expanded here in his beautifully clear and simple prose. Frank Smith is someone dedicated to the idea that learning is only possible on the basis that the learner is not confused by what is being taught – as such his works are the living embodiment of clarity of exposition. They are exemplary and extraordinary in their clarity. It is a rare thing to read anyone who practices so consistently what they preach. If learning is at root a function of how well someone is being understood, then Frank Smith does everything in his power to ensure he is always understood. His clarity has nothing to do with the topics he covers being ‘easy’. He covers some remarkably difficult pedagogical theory – although, not that you would notice. His criticisms of Chomsky, Skinner and Cognitive Psychology are handled in a way that allows people familiar with these theories and theorists and those who have never heard of them insights well worth having. His criticisms are profound despite how easy they are to read.
Our society believes that learning is something that is remarkably hard. Learning doesn’t just happen, it is about swotting and about testing. Testing in particular needs to happen very soon after learning has occurred if it is to be ‘fair’ because it is clear that learning is also directly related to forgetting. It is best not to postpone any examination of learning too long after learning has taken place, as our ability to retain what we have learnt is all too often pitifully short-term. We have all studied for tests only to forget virtually everything within days of the exam. It is hard to know what the point of this kind of learning is. There appears to be lots of effort, but then hardly any gain. This view of learning is referred to by Smith as the ‘Official’ view.
Smith contrasts this with what he calls the classical view. ‘Classical’ because Smith believes it is how humanity has learnt throughout time, that is, learnt without effort. He says that every culture has an expression that translates approximately to ‘We learn from the company we keep’. Throughout time people have paid for their children to be apprenticed, or to go to Universities, or to join clubs - they do this because they know that we learn from those we associate with, we want to become like those we associate with. Learning according to the classical view is as effortless as breathing. Learning is something we do once we have been accepted into a particular club. If that club is the club of carpenters, for instance, then all that is needed for learning to take place is for the ‘student’ seeking to become a carpenter to be placed with a competent carpenter and for that carpenter to embrace the student as a worthy member of the carpenter club. Being collocated with a competent carpenter means being placed in situations where meaningful work is being done (and that is the sole requirement for meaningful learning to occur) and where there is someone available able to show you when you are making a mistake. You don’t ‘learn’ so much as ‘act’ and acting involves meaningful work.
The best of this book is where Smith explains how children learn to speak. This is interesting because many people say that learning (particularly learning to read) is quite different from how we learn to speak. Learning to speak is seen by those who oppose the idea of ‘effortless learning’ as something that we have evolved to do – so they hold that learning to speak, although apparently effortless – can’t really be compared with any other kind of learning. This thesis is developed, for example, in Words and Rules by Stephen Pinker. This is not a view that Smith agrees with. He asserts that kids learn to speak in much the same way that people learn everything else – by having competent instruction from experts who accept them as apprentice speakers and expect them to learn and so provide meaningful instruction along the way.
The Official learning theory asserts that learning is best achieved when it is based on the scientific method. This method takes tasks and breaks them down into their component parts and then teaches these parts. The Official theory is obsessed with measurement because if you haven’t learnt part one there is no way you can go on to part two. Do students struggle learning to spell? Then the point of instruction is to teach them the correspondence between letters and sounds. Does it matter if this is boring or even if it doesn’t immediately make sense to the student? No, because once these lessons have been learnt students will put them all together, whether they realise it or not. The point isn’t even that the teacher knows the point of the instruction. All that is necessary is that the learner is forced to attend to the instruction and that the instruction has been structured by an expert so that it follows a scientific and incremental growth. Measurement is the key here. You teach kids how to spell all the ‘at’ words – cat, mat, fat, sat, chat – and then you test that they have learnt this pattern before you move on to ‘ot’ words – sot, hot, cot, not, jot – and so on and on and on. Frank Smith’s point is that this meaningless way of teaching suffers from the fact that children aren’t all that good at learning from meaninglessness. Children seem to learn to speak as effortlessly as they learn to breathe, but many kids never learn to read following this kind of instruction.
The problem is compounded because if the method does not work this is seen as being the fault of either the teacher or the learner – it is never due to the method. Perhaps the learner simply isn’t trying hard enough. What is always recommended, then, is a stricter application of this scientific method of instruction with a subsequent greater effort on behalf of the learner. Soon, unfortunately, the learner is found to be not trying at all – as it is very hard to sustain learning when the learner is both bewildered and constantly reminded of their failure to learn. And the obsession with measurement means that failing learners are constantly reminded of how they are failing and constantly compared to those around them who have succeeded. The thing that is remarkable about this model is that no one seems to notice that it is completely rational for someone who is being told they are a failure to just give up. Being told you are no good at something hardly seems the most obvious way to encourage them to work harder at learning to do it.
If you were into conspiracy theories it would be hard to find a more effective way to disable learners than this Official method. I prefer Lenin’s idea that no amount of evidence is enough to disprove any theory and so no conspiracy is necessary. The effect is just the same anyway.
Smith undermines the theoretical basis of this Official view of learning by pointing out that much of it is based on experiments in which people are literally forced to learn nonsense. You see, learning is something that humans do exceptionally well when it is meaningful to them. They learn at an exponential rate, at a rate that is very hard to measure as long as the material is meaningful. The problem is that meaningful learning requires that the learning is meaningful to the learner – and therefore depends on their interest and life experience. Science doesn’t like things like that. Science requires ‘all things being equal’ and both ‘interest’ and ‘life experiences’ are things that are simply not ‘equal’.
But if you force people to learn things that are meaningless to them then you can show scientific relationships between the amount of effort expended and the learning achieved. We all learn nonsense badly, but not quite equally badly - some of us can learn nonsense better than others. As soon as what students are being taught is meaningful and engaging then students learn at rates that simply couldn’t be accounted for by the official view. Now, you might think that this would be enough to convince people that what you need to do is make what is being taught meaningful. But no, that would mean removing how we measure learning – and science needs a way to measure.
Instead, what we do is press on with meaninglessness and expand its reach. But people don’t like to learn things that are meaningless, and so teaching ends up being a way to force people to do things they would never choose to do of their own free will. Learning becomes a kind of enforcement and teachers a bit like prison guards.
The solution, according to Smith, is quite simply to change the world. That is, stop teaching meaninglessness and find ways to show students the meaning behind what they are learning. It is not about FUN!!!! it is about interest and the remarkable results that can be achieved once people’s interest is engaged and the material provided is meaningful.
One of the things I’ve been hearing repeatedly lately is how much young people who leave school, students who had had no interested in education for 12 years, suddenly become interested once they start work. They enrol in courses that will help them with their careers and suddenly find that they can learn after all.
It is hard to imagine that people might think that learning would be better if it was also meaningless – so even if you do think we need to ‘learn the basics’ first, surely those basics can be learnt in a way that is also meaningful. We don't really need to teach by rote to learn, in fact, rote learning is often the best way to ensure no learning takes place at all. My two years of French at high school are a testament to that.
This book does some very sexy things when it shows the underlying attitudes we have to education as shown in the metaphors we choose when talking about education – advancing, withdrawing, batteries, drills, word attack skills, targets, campaigns, a war on literacy, an education revolution – disturbing stuff.
I think this is a remarkably interesting book and one I must buy now as it is a book I would like to refer back to again. But let’s end with a quote:
“It is not difficult to see how learning flourishes where there is interest, confidence, and understanding and how it withers under boredom, trepidation, and confusion … And if we learn to watch for the danger signals of boredom, anxiety, and confusion in others, we can learn not to be trapped by them ourselves.”
Wonderful stuff.
July 26, 2010
I'm giving this book 5 stars only because of the ideas within it; Smith's writing is dull, and his organization not particularly powerful. That said, his morals are unimpeachable. I want to give the guy a hug. More, I want every teacher to read this book.
Smith's argument, after a lifetime of teaching and studying learning: The official, logistical, industrial, capital-driven (my emphasis--he elides Marx) version of teaching results not in learning but in learning-that-learning-sucks. Kids run away from "teaching" in the official, typical American sense. They turn off/tune out.
I can't agree more with the book's basic thesis: We need to move away from testing and statistics. They are not motivating. Rewards and punishments work for monkeys, not kids. Kids learn when and only when they are interested. The good news is, as Smith points out (and supports), kids are always interested and thus always learning. The bad news is, they're not always learning, say, biology or how to build a cabinet. Sometimes they're learning amoral, asocial behaviors, from their peers, from anything more interesting than a test-oriented, regimented, shut-up-sit-down classroom.
Anyway, it's a dope book, and only 100 pages (with 20 pages of notes appended--you have to read the notes! the best quotes are always there).
Smith's argument, after a lifetime of teaching and studying learning: The official, logistical, industrial, capital-driven (my emphasis--he elides Marx) version of teaching results not in learning but in learning-that-learning-sucks. Kids run away from "teaching" in the official, typical American sense. They turn off/tune out.
I can't agree more with the book's basic thesis: We need to move away from testing and statistics. They are not motivating. Rewards and punishments work for monkeys, not kids. Kids learn when and only when they are interested. The good news is, as Smith points out (and supports), kids are always interested and thus always learning. The bad news is, they're not always learning, say, biology or how to build a cabinet. Sometimes they're learning amoral, asocial behaviors, from their peers, from anything more interesting than a test-oriented, regimented, shut-up-sit-down classroom.
Anyway, it's a dope book, and only 100 pages (with 20 pages of notes appended--you have to read the notes! the best quotes are always there).
July 18, 2024
This book made me think about my purpose within education. I was reminded how far we have come off of the path within education that we have completely missed the point of learning—to experience answers to our curiosity and search for more. It was healing and uplifting and a refreshing summer read!
March 31, 2019
There’s a lot to this one. Education is broken, and this book looks into one reason why. The premise? There is a “classic theory of learning” that we all grew up with and a historical theory.
We’re all familiar with the classic theory. You go to class with others of your age, your teacher goes over a set curriculum, you take a test on the subjects and are left feeling great or like you failed. Repeat this process to “learn”.
This process hasn’t been around that long. Look back 200 years ago and people learned completely differently. It seemed to work well, as it led to enlightened artists and ancient philosophers. This book looks into what led to this change in education, and what we can do to get back to the old ways.
Many of the concepts of the old ways connected with me. Leaning towards hands on learning, favoring fun and mentor ship over assessments, mixing up groups to include people of different skill levels and more. It left me wanting to figure out what a curriculum would look like and just how much fun it would be to learn with an excited group of learners in this way.
We’re all familiar with the classic theory. You go to class with others of your age, your teacher goes over a set curriculum, you take a test on the subjects and are left feeling great or like you failed. Repeat this process to “learn”.
This process hasn’t been around that long. Look back 200 years ago and people learned completely differently. It seemed to work well, as it led to enlightened artists and ancient philosophers. This book looks into what led to this change in education, and what we can do to get back to the old ways.
Many of the concepts of the old ways connected with me. Leaning towards hands on learning, favoring fun and mentor ship over assessments, mixing up groups to include people of different skill levels and more. It left me wanting to figure out what a curriculum would look like and just how much fun it would be to learn with an excited group of learners in this way.
July 30, 2025
Quite simply: this is the finest book about education - what it is and what it should be - that I have ever read. Everyone who has ever intersected with a school (which is to say, all of us) should read it.
February 21, 2008
Frank Smith is the author of many books on education and child development. He holds a Ph.D. from Harvard University and teaches in Canada. Smith defines two visions of learning: the ‘official’ theory (learning is work) and a ‘classic’ view (we learn effortlessly every waking moment of our lives). Smith points out how schools perpetuate and control the official theory of learning by separating learning from living and making learning work; whereas, the classic view, which does not need school, celebrates learning and recognizes it as something we are constantly doing, something we can shape and be aware of, and something that is enjoyable. Smith expands on how and why the official theory is the more common way of understanding learning and how and why the classic theory is mostly overlooked. An excellent book that points out different ways to understand ‘learning’.
February 15, 2019
I read this book in one sitting while earning a Masters in Education. I was launching a second career and had two kids in college. It changed the way I think about learning - and helped me identify why seeking to learn more about my passions - photography, cooking, design - felt so much more effortless than some of my schoolwork. I could see the same of my children and their interests. Not a fan of the use of technology in education, Frank Smith wouldn't approve of my chosen new field in online instructional design. But I believe we can vastly improve courses for any learner by considering some of the same principals.
Read
May 13, 2019Dear Educator:
This is a book that compares two theories of doing education: the classical vs. official theory of learning. The official theory is what we have today: standardized everything. Whereas the classical view envisions the way teaching was first introduced. A student wanting to learn a particular skill would come under the watchful eye of a mentor, who would teach them all they know about a certain skill.
Mr. Smith argues that we learn best when we are in the company of those we trust, associate with, and love. It is these affinity groups where classic learning takes place. For example, if I want to learn to shoot guns then I will find people who are gun-enthusiasts. I will shoot with them, buy guns with them, and do everything with them that is gun related. Smith states that this same type of environment needs to permeate classrooms.
"All learning pivots on who we think we are, and who we see ourselves s capable of becoming." (11)
Of particular notice, chapter six describes how schools evolved over time. His historical anecdote relating how the Prussian Army inaugurated our modern schools is almost inconceivable. This was incredibly discouraging, yet interesting. In chapter ten he discusses how larger classes require less rigid structures. The large class dictates differentiation; all students cannot operate on the same timeline while in a large class.
"The larger the class, the more important it is that students can interact with each other, engage in absorbing and collaborative activities--and take the strain off the teacher." (79).
Also, writing must mean something to the student author (79). If students know someone is going to receive their writing they may be more apt to keep corrections to a minimum.
Mr. Smith spends a lot of time evaluating the official theory and how it is a travesty to our eduction system. He does end his book on a positive note suggesting theoretical ways to change the system. The bottom line is that teachers need to be liberated to do what is interesting and engaging to students.
This book will challenge your thinking and cause you to take a second look at our education system. I believe the more who read this the more our education will change - for the better. Do yourself a favor and pick this one up, teachers.
Sincerely,
Mr. Simpson
This is a book that compares two theories of doing education: the classical vs. official theory of learning. The official theory is what we have today: standardized everything. Whereas the classical view envisions the way teaching was first introduced. A student wanting to learn a particular skill would come under the watchful eye of a mentor, who would teach them all they know about a certain skill.
Mr. Smith argues that we learn best when we are in the company of those we trust, associate with, and love. It is these affinity groups where classic learning takes place. For example, if I want to learn to shoot guns then I will find people who are gun-enthusiasts. I will shoot with them, buy guns with them, and do everything with them that is gun related. Smith states that this same type of environment needs to permeate classrooms.
"All learning pivots on who we think we are, and who we see ourselves s capable of becoming." (11)
Of particular notice, chapter six describes how schools evolved over time. His historical anecdote relating how the Prussian Army inaugurated our modern schools is almost inconceivable. This was incredibly discouraging, yet interesting. In chapter ten he discusses how larger classes require less rigid structures. The large class dictates differentiation; all students cannot operate on the same timeline while in a large class.
"The larger the class, the more important it is that students can interact with each other, engage in absorbing and collaborative activities--and take the strain off the teacher." (79).
Also, writing must mean something to the student author (79). If students know someone is going to receive their writing they may be more apt to keep corrections to a minimum.
Mr. Smith spends a lot of time evaluating the official theory and how it is a travesty to our eduction system. He does end his book on a positive note suggesting theoretical ways to change the system. The bottom line is that teachers need to be liberated to do what is interesting and engaging to students.
This book will challenge your thinking and cause you to take a second look at our education system. I believe the more who read this the more our education will change - for the better. Do yourself a favor and pick this one up, teachers.
Sincerely,
Mr. Simpson
June 15, 2020
I'm not even sure how I heard about this obscure book. I liked the main premise: that real learning happens when we are engaged in meaningful activity with someone else and that the way we try to force kids to learn in school is totally ineffective and harmful in some ways. The author asserts that if you're having to force yourself to memorize information or try really hard to learn something, you will end up forgetting it quickly and that the solution is to find a better, more engaging way to learn something. He spent a lot more time describing the problem than outlining solutions, which isn't super helpful. The irony is that the book is really hard to understand and took me a long time to slog through despite it's short length.
Practical takeaways:
Kids learn really well from interesting books. Look for children's books to teach any subject (science, history, etc.)
Kids learn well when they're able to collaborate with other kids and problem solve together on a meaningful project.
We learn effectively from mentors that know something we want to know; we can find mentors for our children.
It's important to be very careful not to send the message that kids can't learn something; this creates a major roadblock for them.
Even if your kids are in a traditional school with typical busy work and lots of testing, you can minimize the detrimental effects by communicating to them that you don't put a lot of stock in the testing and that it's just a result of bureaucrats trying to control education from the top down.
Practical takeaways:
Kids learn really well from interesting books. Look for children's books to teach any subject (science, history, etc.)
Kids learn well when they're able to collaborate with other kids and problem solve together on a meaningful project.
We learn effectively from mentors that know something we want to know; we can find mentors for our children.
It's important to be very careful not to send the message that kids can't learn something; this creates a major roadblock for them.
Even if your kids are in a traditional school with typical busy work and lots of testing, you can minimize the detrimental effects by communicating to them that you don't put a lot of stock in the testing and that it's just a result of bureaucrats trying to control education from the top down.
November 1, 2019
Frank Smith contrasts two ways of learning in this book. On the one hand there is school learning, with its decontextualised knowledge, constantly measured and controlled by teachers. On the other hand thereis 'classic' learning, taking place in mixed age social settings with no tests, exams or curricula. If you agree with him, you have to say that the way education is planned around the world is a learning disaster.
He's engaging and I'm swayed. Make your own mind up. The book is a short, easy read.
He's engaging and I'm swayed. Make your own mind up. The book is a short, easy read.
July 26, 2024
A very interesting read in helping to shift my perspective on education from the official view I've experienced in my own education and teaching, and recognizing the values of classical education. I frequently was able to draw lines of classical education to my own life, such as the learning of subjects I may not have been interested in on my own, but have developed an interest due to the people around me. Didn't love his writing style though; too much repetitive fluff at times.
November 7, 2017
This book changed how I teach. It removed the pressure of "curriculum" and helped me realize learning is a social activity. It will happen in the right circumstances; therefore it isn't my job to stuff information in a student's head. However, I am responsible for creating an environment where they embrace the learning because it has value.
July 19, 2024
The ideas in this book Smith wrote about towards the official theory of learning were very thought-provoking. Smith made me dig deep in my thinking and what has been long ingrained into our minds as educators towards the process of learning. There were very interesting points made on how historical events played a role in changes in education. There were great ideas, too. Unfortunately, the writing style was slow and did not keep me engaged. I'm glad it's finally finished. Also, sadly, these were great ideas, but I'm not certain it's a realistic expectation we can have for school systems given how far we are as a nation in the official theory of learning.
February 19, 2020
Smith details the difference between the "official" versus the "classical" views on learning. He points out what have been the major forces promoting the "official version, and makes a scathing attack against it.
August 7, 2018
Excellent read about memory, learning, and today's education.
August 18, 2018
Really enjoyed this book on different learning theories- an easy read, great info.
September 27, 2021
An intriguing take on education. I enjoyed the book, but doubt the practicality of the authors suggestions for changes to modern schools.
August 22, 2023
Very excellent points… but can we get to said point a little faster?
June 7, 2024
Excellent read.
February 25, 2017
What a beautiful concept: let's value and recognize all of the things our students are learning, not just the things we want them to learn. This is fundamental to teaching the whole child and seeing what's unique and precious in each of them.
Read
August 12, 2011THE BOOK OF LEARNING AND FORGETTING is simply written--a quick read--with a profoundly revolutionary message. It should be on the reading list of anyone entering education as a profession, anyone who is or may someday be a parent, anyone who has ever struggled with learning, and anyone who is human.
Hopefully those who, like Frank Smith, are aware of the damage that can be done by the institutional and personal proliferation of a corrupt philosophy of learning will be heard and make a difference for future generations of learners. This is a topic that no human can escape. We are always learning.
I am delighted that this book was recommended to me by a teacher. That tells me there is hope. The greater challenge would be to get through to the makers of curriculum and standardized tests, an industry that thrives on the status quo.
Hopefully those who, like Frank Smith, are aware of the damage that can be done by the institutional and personal proliferation of a corrupt philosophy of learning will be heard and make a difference for future generations of learners. This is a topic that no human can escape. We are always learning.
I am delighted that this book was recommended to me by a teacher. That tells me there is hope. The greater challenge would be to get through to the makers of curriculum and standardized tests, an industry that thrives on the status quo.
March 16, 2010
What is refreshing about this book is that in addition to pointing out how flawed the school systems are with the emphasis on organized learning, standardized testing, grading and evaluating, drills and memorization, Smith spends some time showing what schools could, and should, be.
I really wish this book, along with some notable others (books by John Holt, John Taylor Gatto and the like), would be read by teachers and school administrators. I like to think some minds would be opened to viewing learning differently and that conventional thinking will change. In fact, if classic learning would be embraced, this might change the corporate culture as well (which also likes performance reviews and systems for standardizing performance).
I really wish this book, along with some notable others (books by John Holt, John Taylor Gatto and the like), would be read by teachers and school administrators. I like to think some minds would be opened to viewing learning differently and that conventional thinking will change. In fact, if classic learning would be embraced, this might change the corporate culture as well (which also likes performance reviews and systems for standardizing performance).
July 26, 2013
Though Smith speaks in extremes, liberally using "always" and "never" in his reasoning, and though I don't agree with several of his bifurcated arguments, I do appreciate the following claims:
3 steps to change: understanding, effort, and honesty
Learning takes place as a process of collaboration
Hmmmm..."the question should never be 'are the students learning?' but always 'what are the students learning?' The answer is found not by testing the students but by looking at what they are doing and how they are doing it."
We have to understand something in order to learn it.
Change from "if something isn't learned the first time, teach it again" to "if something isn't learned the first time, then something is wrong in the learning situation."
3 steps to change: understanding, effort, and honesty
Learning takes place as a process of collaboration
Hmmmm..."the question should never be 'are the students learning?' but always 'what are the students learning?' The answer is found not by testing the students but by looking at what they are doing and how they are doing it."
We have to understand something in order to learn it.
Change from "if something isn't learned the first time, teach it again" to "if something isn't learned the first time, then something is wrong in the learning situation."
July 3, 2009
Take back my old review - one of the best books about learning I've read. The main points about learning and forgetting inform a big part of my current thinking about education, and resonate with every recent high school grad that I talk to. Looking back, this is one of the seminal books that has changed my awareness about education, and has helped drive me to want to learn more about the learning process.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who has been in a classroom at any time in their life.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who has been in a classroom at any time in their life.
December 17, 2015
I read this in a Philosophy of Education class and while I share Smith's primary thesis (that the classic view of learning- that it is easy and natural- has been subverted in favor of the official view of learning -that it is hard, requires tests, and if you don't learn it's because you're lazy), I could not get over his hatred of psychology. It is informative and provides a solid inquiry into our view of teaching as educators, but my distance from Smith's approach (especially his sections on psychology) prevented me from enjoying his book further.
June 11, 2016
Fantastic read for those interested in learning theory.
Love the ideas about the classical method (self-driven learning) and the official method (forced learning). Tons of great nuggets about the power and need for learners to own their learning. I also liked the points around learning not just being about knowledge, but about doing. What can I do because of what I learn? Memorization is crap. Yes, it's a part, but a much smaller part than the official method makes it out to be.
Must read for anyone in the learning/teaching fields.
Love the ideas about the classical method (self-driven learning) and the official method (forced learning). Tons of great nuggets about the power and need for learners to own their learning. I also liked the points around learning not just being about knowledge, but about doing. What can I do because of what I learn? Memorization is crap. Yes, it's a part, but a much smaller part than the official method makes it out to be.
Must read for anyone in the learning/teaching fields.
August 25, 2009
The premise is that we learn, and quickly, from those we admire. My favorite line from this book is something to the effect of: "You never hear people complain that their child is a slow learner when they're picking up bad habits from their friends." I thought I remembered it being more astute the first time I read it, though, so I was slightly disappointed. Perhaps I'd simply internalized the message.
September 25, 2010
I've wanted to read this book for years and am glad I finally did. Smith writes on how we learn and how the notion that learning is work and hard leads to memorization and forgetting. He states that learning is easy and comes from "the company we keep." He advocates worrying less about what children are learning and more on what they're doing. It's through doing that they learn. His observations support what I experience with my own kids.
April 12, 2013
I feel a love-hate thing going for the way this guy presents ideas. I am all for the ideal of effortless learning and making learning fun. But his demonization of technology and science really annoys me. I agree that psychological testing heavily influenced educational theory--but I don't think that means we need to disregard everything from psychology.
I like the idea of effortless, student-driven learning, but it would have been nice to see some evidence, even anecdotal.
I like the idea of effortless, student-driven learning, but it would have been nice to see some evidence, even anecdotal.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews