The lost discipline of life-long learning.

“That I, whose experience of teaching is extremely limited, should presume to discuss education is a matter, surely, that calls for no apology. It is a kind of behavior to which the present climate of opinion is wholly favorable. Bishops air their opinions about economics; biologists about metaphysics; inorganic chemists, about theology; the most irrelevant people are appointed to highly technical ministries; and plain, blunt men write to papers to say that Epstein and Picasso do not know how to draw . . . For if we are not all professional teachers, we have all, at some time or another, been taught. Even if we learnt nothing— perhaps in particular learnt nothing—our Contribution to the discussion may have potential value. “. . . if we are to produce a society of educated people, fitted to preserve their intellectual freedom amid the complex pressures of our modern society, we must turn back the wheel of progress some four or five hundred years, to the point at which education began to lose sight of its true object, towards the end of the Middle Ages.” The quote is from an essay written in 1947 and presented at Oxford University by the author, Dorothy Leigh Sayers. Ms. Sayers was born in 1893, the sole child of an Anglican minister and school headmaster. Writing became a passion for this woman, authoring, among many others, Whose Body, the first of fourteen volumes centering on the main character, Lord Peter Wimsey. She wrote constantly, drawing on her expertise of modern language and medieval history. Sayers also fell in love with the stage, writing many plays. Much time was spent in meticulous translations of works originally written in Italian or the old French. Contemporaries and friends, the likes of CS Lewis and TS Eliot encouraged her to stand firm even when opposition to her work was great. Dorothy L. Sayers thrived on controversy, using logic and humor to win many battles. “The Lost Tools of Learning”, from which the quote was taken, served as a treatise on the state of education. Sayers expounded a reversion to the educative process of the Middle Ages, which included the Trivium and Quadrivium, both of which will be discussed later. Her goal for doing so is reflected in the following words written by her own pen. “Do you ever find that young people, when they have left school, not only forget most of what they have learnt (that is only to be expected), but forget also, or betray that they never have really known, how to tackle a new subject for themselves?. . . Is not the great defect of our education today . . . that although we often succeed in teaching our pupils ’subjects’ we fail lamentably on the whole in teaching them how to think: they learn everything, except the art of learning”. . . We dole out lip-service to the importance of education—lip-service and, just occasionally, a little grant money; we postpone the school-leaving age, and plan to build bigger and better school; the teachers slave conscientiously in and out of school hours; and yet, as I believe, all this devoted effort is largely frustrated, because we have lost the tools of learning, and in their absence can only make a botched and piecemeal job of it.” Sayers argues that the Middle Ages concept of the Trivium consisted of Grammar, Dialectic, and Rhetoric. These three elements are not “subjects” per say. They are merely the logical methodology of dealing with “subjects”. It was only when the Trivium was mastered that this syllabus served as the basis or preparatory stages for the Quadrivium, a university-based study of specific subjects. Now, back to the Trivium. There is a grammar of everything. The grammar of language seeks to establish rules and relationships for words. The grammar of math is the rudimentary relationships of numbers. Math facts are key. Memorization of multiplication tables standard. The grammar of art is a study of color and composition. It is JECT. 2003;35:112–114 The Journal of The American Society of Extra-Corporeal Technology