B2Unit1reading[1]

Methods of Education: East and West

A teacher from Canada recently visited an elementary school in Japan. In one class, she watched sixty young children as they learned to draw a cat. The class teacher drew a big circle on the blackboard, and sixty children copied it on their papers. The teacher drew a smaller circle on top of the first and then put two triangles on top of it; the children continued their cats in exactly the same way. The lesson continued until there were sixty-one identical cats in the classroom.

The Canadian teacher was startled by the lesson. The teaching methods---and their effects---were very different from those in her own country. An art lesson in a Canadian school would lead to a room full of unique pictures, not a series of identical cats. Why? What causes this difference in educational methods?

In any classroom in any country, the instructor teaches more than just art or history or language. Part of what’s going on--- consciously or not--- is the teaching of culture: the attitudes, values and beliefs of the society. Every education system is inevitably a mirror that reflects the culture of the society it is a part of.

In many Western societies, such as the United States or Canada, which are made up of many different nationalities, religious groups and cultural orientations, individualism and independent thinking are highly valued. And these values are reflected by the education systems in these countries. T eachers emphasize the qualities that make each student special. Students are seldom expected to memorize information; instead, they are encouraged to think for themselves, find answers on their own and come up with individual solutions. At an early age, students learn to form their own ideas and opinions, and to express their ideas in class discussion.

In Japan, by contrast, the vast majority of people share the same language, history, and culture. Perhaps for this reason, the education system there reflects a belief in group goals and traditions rather than individualism. Japanese

schoolchildren often work together and help one another on assignments. In the classroom, the teacher is the main source of knowledge: He or she lectures, and the students listen. There is not much discussion; instead, the students recite rules or information that they have memorized.

The advantage of the education system in Japan is that students there learn the social skill of cooperation. Another advantage is that they learn much more math and science than most American students. They also study more hours each day and more days each year than their North American counterparts do. The system is demanding, but it prepares children for a society that values discipline and self-control. There are, however, disadvantages. For one thing, many students say that after an exam, they forget much of the information they memorized. For another, the extremely demanding system puts enormous psychological pressure on students, and is considered a primary factor in the high suicide rate among Japanese school-age children.

The advantage of the education system in North America, on the other hand, is that students learn to think for themselves. They learn to take the initiative ---- to make decisions and take action without someone telling them what to do. The system prepares them for a society that values creative ideas and individual responsibility. There are

drawbacks, however. Among other things, American high school graduates haven’t studied as many basic rules and facts as students in other countries have. And many social critics attribute the high crime rate in the US at least partially to a lack of discipline in the schools.

(605 words) Questions:

1. What does the author mean by the statement ―in any classroom in any country, the

instructor teaches more than just art or history or language‖ in para.3?

2. What is the most serious problem, with the Japanese system, according to the

author?

3. How does the author view the fact that in the North American system students ―learn

to take the initiative‖?

4. Find out the paragraphs that use comparison and contrast.

(2)

When discussing innovation and risk-taking in our leadership development programs we regularly ask participants, ‖How many of you have ever learned a new game or a new sport?‖ Invariably every hand in the room goes up.We then ask, ―And how many of you got it perfect the first day you played it?‖ People chuckle. No hands go up. Who ever gets it right the first time?

There was this one time, however, when Urban E. Hilger, Jr. raised his hand and said that on the very first day he went skiing he got it perfect. Naturally we were curious and asked Urban to tell us about the experience. Here’s what he said.

It was the first day of skiing classes. I skied all day long, and I didn’t fall down once. I was so elated; I felt so good. So I skied up to the instructor, and I told him of my great day. You know what the ski instructor said? He told me, ―Personally, Urban, I think you had a lousy day.‖ I was stunned. ―What do you mean lousy day? I thought the objective was to stand up on these boards, not fall down.‖ The ski instructor looked me straight in the eyes and replied, “Urban, if you’re not falling, you’re not learning.”

Urban’s ski instructor understood that if you can stand up on your skis all day long the first time out, y ou’re only doing what you already know how to do, not pushing yourself to try anything new and difficult. By definition learning is about something you don’t know. Those who do what they already know how to do never learn anything new. Promoting learning requires building in a tolerance for error and a framework for forgiveness. Learning and innovation go hand in hand. You can’t have one without the other. We’ve also discovered that the same thing is true for leadership.

In a series of research studies we conducted —along with Lillas Brown of the University of Saskatchewan — we found that leaders can be differentiated by the range and depth of the learning tactics they employ when facing a new or unfamiliar experience. We measured managers on four different approaches to learning — taking action, feeling, thinking, and accessing others —and we discovered that managers who were more engaged rather than less engaged in each of these learning tactics were also more effective at leading. The more they engaged in learning the better they did at leading. We discovered, in other words, that we could predict that someone would be a more effective leader based on the extent to which they engaged in learning!

This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. It just makes sense that those people who push themselves to learn will do better than those who only dabble in it. Attending one three-day workshop, reading one best-selling book, reflecting only on one incident, or participating in one simulation doesn’t produce great leaders. It doesn’t produce great innovators either. What was somewhat surprising to us, however, was that no one style of learning was more effective than any other at being a more effective leader. Learning to lead seems to be independent of any particular l earning style. It doesn’t matter how you learn. What matters is that you do more of whatever learning tactic works best for you. Becoming a better leader is clearly linked to becoming a better learner.

These findings also raise an extremely interesting and mostly unexplored question: Which comes first, learning or leading? Whenever we pursue this question with our clients their hunches are the same as ours. Learning comes first, they say. When people are predisposed to be curious and want to learn something new, they are much more likely to get better at it than those who don’t become fully engaged. When it comes to getting great at leading, or anything for that matter, the axiom is not simply ―Just do it.‖ It’s ―Just do more of it!‖

Learning is the master skill. When we fully engage in learning —when we throw ourselves whole-heartedly into experimenting, reflecting, reading, or getting coaching –we’re going to experience the thrill of improvement and the taste of success. Less is not more when it comes to learning. More is more. And a word of caution to executives with the red pencils. In these challenging times when we’re faced with the need to innovate, don’t cut the training budget!

(736 words)

Questions:

1. Why did Urban’s ski instructor say ―Urban, if you’re not falling, you’re not learning.‖?

2. What is required in promoting learning?

3. A better learner needs to ________________.

4. Whom do you think the author is addressing to?

5. Which sentence impresses you most? How do you understand it?