Is anything without the underpinning of theory? What is the role of theory in education? Ought one to teach theory before or after practice? Many actions can be executed without formal theoretical knowledge: fighting for example can be known theoretically, yet one can still win a fight without formal martial training. It seems to be the same in Fine Arts–from my own experience. I was never trained to do art formally until college; however, I was a proficient artist before then. I am wondering, which comes first practice or theory? With regard to a pedagogical model, it seems to me one could either begin with the theory behind something (how to draw in perspective for example) and then say, “now go do that,” or one could have them actually practice and perhaps succeed (at drawing in perspective) and then tell them, “what you were doing was this thing called perspective.” But which is more beneficial? Does anyone have a handy dandy Aristotle quote, or an experience with this? I guess it could also depend on the circumstances, but for the practice of art. The idea is to literally create an abstraction of reality that attempts to conform to reality. So is it better to know tricks of the trade if it were or is it better to do it the other way. I have one student who knowing the laws of perspective has no ability to draw anything unless he can put it in a plane. But the human figure isn’t in perspective, so he can only draw things that look very mechanical. I wonder how he would do with abstraction. If he didn’t have perspective it may be that he would actually have to look at the world closer, but now I’m just rambling. So my question again, which do you have them know or do first? Or is it a bit of both? I usually will start with the theory and then have them practice the theory in specific ways. That is working for some, but others have a hard time digesting the theory. I would greatly appreciate any philosophically based answers, as this is somewhat a philosophy of education question.
Cheers,
Peter
I choose practice before theory, even though I do not yet have a philosophical defense for it. I thinking about it though.
Only in theory does Josh think theory comes second, for he has yet to try to put his claim into practice. Besides pedantry, I am also pointing out the difficulty of separating the two, since "practice" would mean the particular application, which is at most only seconds away from most ideas.
Well think about it this way. How do you go about learning a pattern? If I begin a pattern of numbers, say, 1, 2, 3… How do you know you can continue the pattern. You begin to follow a rule that is unwritten. If you continue the pattern and I say, "That's not right," you may try again, or I could give you more aid in continuing the pattern, at which point, you try again. Consider this pattern: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9… How do you continue it? You may say, "1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19…" but I may respond, "No, no, no. That's not right. It should be '1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 30, 50, 70, 90…" Is this not an equally reasonable pattern? Of course you don't learn it by some theoretical, in this case mathematical, function. You learn it by practice.
In much the same way, and in the case of a visual art perhaps even more so, the teacher of the pattern, as it were, may demonstrate for a moment what ought to be done. Then the student could follow such a pattern. This might be more in line with our basic manner of learning. Besides, it also allows for creativity. One might be following a rule, but now the rule is not something limiting but freeing.
Of course, after some time, the theory could be explained in more detail. At that point, the student may realize that he's already able to practice at least some of the theory. Talk about a confidence-builder. Then the more intricate parts of the theory can be springboards for adaptation, rather than constricting details.
And Peter, I have put this theory in practice without realizing it. I studied philosophy at UD, but prior to that I was exposed to others engaged in such practice. I, along with most pedantic UD students, engaged in the practice in an amateur fashion before refining our actions with a theoretical model. To be honest, even in my senior year, I learned more about thinking philosophically through practice than through theory.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Josh. I have been considering this for a number of weeks now, and even more so with your response, that practice ought to come before theory, at least in the case of learning a practical skill like the visual arts.
I have tried both. The idea of drawing in 3-D is foreign to many 6th graders, and even if they draw in 3-D they still do not understand the theory of it. It seems to me that before they can know that an ellipse is just a flattened out circle you have to force them to practice drawing ellipses from ones that you provide for them to copy (not from observation). Only then can they look at a cylinder and know that the top part of it is an ellipse and must be drawn like an ellipse.
I will be considering this more and more, but I am also curious if this only applies to visual arts, or if it is coextensive with all fields of study? Should one always begin with practice and then theory or is it sometimes appropriate to begin with theory?
A person can become a very proficient guitar player with very little theory and a great deal of practice. They may have difficulty developing their musicianship if they do not learn theory at some point, but that point does not need to be immediate. It is usually better if music, in general is approached this way. Practice (usually) is harder than theory.
Conversely:
A child can only learn to read a word or a sentence by learning a "theoretical" aspect of how words form – that certain letters or groups of letters make particular sounds.
Also, your definition of theory is wonderfully vague.
Andrew, you said, "A child can only learn to read a word or a sentence by learning a "theoretical" aspect of how words form – that certain letters or groups of letters make particular sounds."
Can you spell out why you think this is the case? It does not seem to me to be true on first glance, though perhaps it is.
When I think of a child first starting to learn to read, I recall some of those children's books with many pictures and a few words. The words are often repeated in these books. The reason they are repeated, as far as I know, is so that when the adult reads to the child, the adult can point to the words and say them at the same time, thus allowing the child to hear and say and perhaps say the words as well. It is not as though the child has to learn to recognize individual letters, then learn the sounds, then learn the way they are strung together as words, then learn the grammatical and syntactical forms before we would say he can read well for his age. At least, that's not how I did it. But if you can either show how that's not the case for the most part or that what I described fits into the our wonderfully vague category of theory, then I may be forced to concede on this example.
As a fellow musician, I think the guitar-playing example is good.
Lord Bloch, you said, "I will be considering this more and more, but I am also curious if this only applies to visual arts, or if it is coextensive with all fields of study? Should one always begin with practice and then theory or is it sometimes appropriate to begin with theory?"
At the moment, I'm not sure that I could say what one should do in all cases. I am confident, however, that beginning with practice is the way we do in fact go about learning the productive arts like drawing, reading, carpentry, and the like. I am confident also that beginning with practice in these arts is better than beginning with theory.
Though I am unsure about the theoretical and practical arts (in the Aristotelian sense of the term), I think that I could make a good case that we begin with practice in these cases as well.
Whether one should begin with practice in the cases of the theoretical and practical arts, I do not think I have the ability to determine quite yet. As of now we are arguing quite inductively, and I'm not sure how many cases one would need to examine before making a general rule. Besides, some of the arts and sciences, although I think the truth is one in all, are very disparate. It's possible, then, that the natural manner of learning the art or science and the proper way of teaching it differ depending on the subject matter.
So since no one's responded in a while, I'm going to say it:
Practice ought to come before theory.
Q.E.M.F.D.