? The Science of Chinuch ?

I have recently began studying the field of education psychology. This field attempts to look at the way a person's mind is designed to learn and store information and then develops educational models most in sync with that process. One such model is that of Dr. Madeline Hunter. http://www.humboldt.edu/~tha1/hunter-eei.html#direct who was a professor at UCLA. Dr. Hunter researched educational theory and developed a number of elements that defines good educational practice. Once trained her approach, I would consider sharing this knowledge with other to insure that the Torah educators are teaching in the optimum way.

After at first resisting, then personally researching and experimenting with these techniques, I have learned their significant value. When I take the time to develop a lesson plan based on the suggested model I find the lesson to be more effective and the students learn with better understanding.

When I shared this information with a fellow mechanech, he aggressively objected to the entire premise. He based his objection on the published opinion of Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg zt”l. I was able to find the quote in his book on education that consists of his transcribed speeches given to mechanchim.

“There is one thing that is very difficult to recognize and accept, but it the very foundation of all Jewish education: Torah and chochmah are two entirely different things, and therefore all of the experiences, judgments, experiments, and conclusions that may be correct about secular education have utterly no relevance o a Torah education .”Chochmah b’umos ta’amin Torah b’umos al ta’amin – Wisdom among nations, believe it; Torah among the nations, don’t believe it” (Eichah Rabbah 2:13) suggests that Torah does not enter the mind the same way that secular knowledge does. Therefore, all of the methodologies that apply to secular knowledge are completely irrelevant when it comes to the way we learn Torah.” (pg 105-06)

Where does this leave my new found appreciation for Madeline Hunter?

I am confident that Dr. Hunter did not develop her theories in the Los Angeles cheder with students involved in Torah study. So what level of validity do these effective elements have? How to we resolve this conflict?

After sharing this question with a number of very prominent principals, I have synthesized their collective responses in the following way:
The “mesorah” of chinuch is to effectively communicate to our talmidim the words of chazal. The key word is effective. Any “tool” employed by a Rebbe that is effective cannot be classified as “secular”. Just as we would not consider a desk, pen or board, secular because it may have been created by a non-Jew, we cannot declare “anticipatory set” invalid . It is merely a tool that we use to transfer our Mesorah to our Talmidim.

Furthermore the Mesorah can never preclude the use of new and valuable tools due to the basic principle of Chanoch LeNar Al Pi Darcho. Each child, each generation, and each classroom, require a new set of tools that must be employed. If a mechanch picks up a technique that works for that situation, he must use it.

The Talmudist in me wonders if Rav Weinberg’s message can be understood to allow the usage of Dr. Hunter's research. Could Rav Weinberg's words suggest that when a technique is developed for the secular classroom its validity will be based on research done in secular environments and studies; however, when assessing an education tool for the Torah classroom it must be validated using a different standard? The standard must include the technique's consistency with Mesorah, its effectiveness with Torah learning, and the general impact on the Talmud’s appreciation of Torah.

When a new technique passes these additional tests one can certainly employ them in a Torah classroom. In fact, any Rebbe that does not employ these effective techniques will be missing out on providing talmidim with a fuller understanding of Hashem and His Torah.