System of knowledge transfer is crucial to effective learning in classroom

Modern education is running on the defective system of knowledge transfer in which teacher to student knowledge transfer (TSKT) is recommended in school system. Teaching is not the scientific system of knowledge transfer because it does not activate the learning circuits of student’s brain for logical operation and memory formation. In fact, knowledge is transferred from book to teacher’s brain and then it is projected to student’s brain. So, indirect school is running under modern education. School learnography is conducted on the brainpage theory of book to brain knowledge transfer (BBKT), therefore, brainpage school is the direct school of learning transfer. Students can apply the learning dimensions of brain to make proper brainpage in classroom.

There is a great difference between direct and indirect schools. It is suggested that teachers must have professional relationships with the students of their classroom to conduct learning transfer successfully. I think this is motivational instruction which is not powerful to launch learning transfer and ensure high performance. We must appreciate that knowledge transfer is more important than relationships. Educators should care about the brain learnography of student’s knowledge transfer in classroom. In my opinion, the concept of relationship is based on the teaching theories of school education. But knowledge transfer becomes important in the brainpage theory of school learnography.

Teachers have graduated from universities and so they are already qualified in subject matter. There are many defects in the system of knowledge transfer for the academic performance of school system. Teachers are blamed for low grade performance but they have performed good teaching in the classroom. High grades are obtained from the development of smart brainpage and it is not modulated in teaching performance. Students have to use the motor knowledge of brain for knowledge modulation and memory formation. In fact, neuroscience does not support the teaching theories of knowledge transfer.

The school system of education now places a greater emphasis than ever on the exam results, while the rise of social media can make problems like bullying or body image issues more intense than they were in the past. Difficult experiences in childhood, like growing up in poverty or experiencing discrimination, can have a huge impact on mental health – but there are also new pressures that have emerged in recent years.

Teaching can’t improve the cognitive ability of student’s logical thoughts. The causes of student’s unhappiness may be depression, bullying, pressure at school, emotional abuse, grieving or having relationship problems with family and friends. One of the students blamed the rise in self-harm among young people on factors which include teachers having less time to spend with their students to see how they are and mental health resources being stretched. It claimed children felt under pressure from friends to be good looking, but those who felt boys should be tough and girls should have nice clothes were least happy with life.

School can play a vital role to solve the problems of student’s unhappiness if classroom runs on the effective system of knowledge transfer. It’s vital that children’s well-being is taken more seriously and that much more is done to tackle the root causes of their unhappiness and support their mental health.

What is required of teachers is that they enjoy and be capable of sharing with children work programs designed to modify their experience and understanding. That means making relevant experience available to the student at the right time. The teacher must be mature, have humour with a sense of status, be firm yet unruffled, and be sympathetic but not overpersonal. With large classes, the teacher becomes a leader of a group, providing stimulating learning situations.

The subject matter taught also has a marked influence on the total transfer learning situation. It may be conveniently divided into broad headings of languages, humanities, sciences, mathematics and arts. Although each group of subjects has something in common with others in terms of the demands it makes on the thinker, each area has also something quite specific in its mode of development. Languages call for verbal learning and production based on oral work, particularly during the early phases.

The humanities call for an understanding of cause-effect relations of immediate and remote connections between persons and institutions and between human beings and their environment. The sciences call for induction from experience, though deductive processes are required when the laws of science are formalized into mathematical terms. The humanities and sciences both depend on the ability of the learner to hypothesize. Mathematics calls for the ability to abstract, symbolize, and deduce. An interest in the formal and structural properties of the acts of counting and measuring is fundamental. Arts and literature call for a fairly free opportunity to explore and create.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s