One of the most dangerous men around at the moment—dangerous because he seems to be subverting traditional assumptions—is Marshall McLuhan. Nonetheless, as of this writing he is capturing the attention of intellectuals and the press as few educationists have ever done.
馬素·麥克魯漢可說是當下最具威脅性的人物之一； 如此斷言是因為他動搖了傳統上我們習以為常的假設。 儘管如此，在這段文字寫下的同時， 他從知識界及出版界獲得的注意遠超過大多數的教育家。
One of the reasons is the seeming uniqueness of his remarks. Another is the unconventional manner in which he conducts his reflections. And a third is that he is not generally thought of as an educationist. If he were, he would probably lose a sizable portion of his audience. Nobody likes a smart educationist. Or at least nobody wants to be counted among his listeners. That is why Jerome Bruner insists on being called a psychologist and Edgar Friedenberg, a sociologist.
理由之一是他那看似獨特的發言。 再來是他那新穎的表達方式。 第三則是他通常不被視為教育家。 假如他是教育家的話，他將會失去相當比例的聽眾。 沒有人喜歡聰明的教育家； 至少，沒有人想成為他的聽眾。 這也是為什麼傑羅姆·布魯納堅持別人稱他為心理學家， 而埃德加·福里登伯格則是社會學家。
But McLuhan is an operational educationist nonetheless. Moreover, some of his “probings,” as he calls them, are unique mostly in their metaphorical verve. (For an educationist, he expresses himself in an uncommon flow of puns and poetry.) Many of his observations are reaffirmations of ideas previously expressed by other educationists—for example, John Dewey and A. N. Whitehead—ideas which were, and still are, largely ignored by those who could most profit by them.
但就他的所作所為來看， 麥克魯漢毫無疑問地是一位教育家。 此外，一些他提出的『探查』， 在譬喻手法的運用上有著相當獨特的神韻。 (以一位教育學家來說， 他在表達中使用的雙關語及詩句多的不尋常。) 他的許多觀察再次肯定了早先其他教育家， 像是約翰·杜威及阿爾弗雷德·諾思·懷特黑德， 表達過的想法。 然而大多數可能因此受益的人 都沒有意識到這些想法的重要性。 過去如此，現在亦然。
We are especially in McLuhan’s debt for his restatement, in alliterative language, of Dewey’s belief that “we learn what we do.” McLuhan means much the same thing by his famous aphorism, “The medium is the message” (which for emphasis, fun, and publicity he has rephrased, “The medium is the message”).
我們尤其受惠於麥克魯漢著名的格言： 『媒介即訊息。』 他以頭韻的修辭法重新詮釋了杜威相信的 『所做即所學。』 （他這麼做是為了強調這個想法的重要性， 同時增加了趣味性及宣傳性）
From this perspective, one is invited to see that the most important impressions made on a human nervous system come from the character and structure of the environment within which the nervous system functions; that the environment itself conveys the critical and dominant messages by controlling the perceptions and attitudes of those who participate in it.
藉此，他引導人們注意到： 人類神經系統中最深刻的影響 來自其所處環境的特性及結構； 進一步地說，藉由控制參與者的視角及態度， 環境自身傳達了至為關鍵的訊息。
Dewey stressed that the role an individual is assigned in an environment—what he is permitted to do—is what the individual learns. In other words, the medium itself, i.e., the environment, is the message. “Message” here means the perceptions you are allowed to build, the attitudes you are entitled to assume, the sensitivities you are encouraged to developed—almost all of the things you learn to see and feel and value. You learn them because your environment is organized in such a way that it permits or encourages or insists that you learn them.
杜威強調，環境賦與一個人的角色—他 所能做的—即是這個人所學的。 換句話說，媒介或者環境本身就是訊息。 『訊息』在這裡指的是媒介許可的視角、 賦予的態度以及鼓勵的感受。 這幾乎涵蓋了所有你學會怎麼理解、 怎麼感受以及怎麼衡量事物的方式。 你學習這些東西是因為你處的環境 允許、鼓勵甚至要求你去學它們。
McLuhan seems to have his most difficult moments trying to persuade his audiences that a television set or a newspaper or an automobile or a Xerox machine can usefully be defined as such an environment. And even when his audiences suspend disbelief long enough to probe with him further, McLuhan still must labor to persuade that the relevant question to ask of such environments is not “What’s on TV?” or “What’s in the newspaper?” but “In what ways does the structure or process of the medium-environment manipulate our senses and attitudes?”
對麥克魯漢來說，他碰上最大的困難似乎是說服聽眾： 電視機、報紙、汽車和影印機 皆符合上面提到『環境』的定義。 即便聽眾暫且相信這件事並隨他深入探討， 麥克魯漢仍得花上相當的力氣來說服他們： 需要關切的問題不是『電視在播些什麼？』或 『報紙在寫些什麼？』而是 『媒介/環境自身的結構及程序是如何 操縱我們的感知及態度？』
One would think it is much easier to persuade an audience that a classroom is an environment and that the way it is organized carries the burden of what people will learn from it. Yet, oddly, it isn’t. Educational discourse, especially among the educated, is so laden with preconceptions that it is practically impossible to introduce an idea that does not fit into traditional categories.
有人可能會認為，說服聽眾相信 『教室是一種環境，而它的組織方式肩負了 人們可以從中習得哪些東西的責任，』 要簡單得多。奇怪的是，事實並非如此。 關於教育的討論，尤其在知識份子之間，總是囿於以下的成見： 『傳統的教育方式適用於幾乎任何想法的教授與學習。』
Consider as a primary case in point the notion that a classroom lesson is largely made up of two components: content and method. The content may be trivial or important, but it is always thought to be the “substance” of the lesson; it is what the students are there to “get”; it is what they are supposed to learn; it is what is “covered.”
我們用以下的概念作為上面這句話的主要例子： 課堂主要是由內容和方法兩個部分組成。 也許瑣碎，也許重要， 內容一律被視為課程的本質； 它是學生想要從課堂中得到， 學生應該要學習的，以及課程涵蓋的東西。
Content, as any syllabus proves, exists independently of and prior to the students, and is indifferent to the media by which it is “transmitted.” Method, on the other hand, is “merely” the manner in which the content is presented. The method may be imaginative or dull, but it is never more than a means of conveying the content. It has no content of its own. While it may induce excitement or boredom, it carries no message—at least none that would be asked about on the College Boards, which is to say, worthy of comment.
如同任何課程大綱證實， 內容是獨立且優先於學生的存在， 而且它不在乎透過什麼樣的媒介傳播。 與此相對， 不論是有創意的還是枯燥的， 方法僅僅是傳遞內容的手段。 它不具有自身的內容。 即便它能令學生感到興𡚒或無聊， 它都不帶有訊息—就算有， 那也不會是任何人想從大學理事會打聽的東西。 換言之，方法本身不帶有任何值得討論的訊息。
To our knowledge, all schools of education and teacher-training institutions in the United States are organized around the idea that content and method are separate in the manner we have described. Perhaps the most important message thus communicated to teachers in training is that this separation is real, useful, and urgent, and that it ought to be maintained in the schools.
就我們所知，美國所有的教育學院和講師培訓機構 的組織方式都是建立在前述的分割上。 這當中傳達給培訓教師最重要的訊息可能是： 這樣的分割是真實的、有用的和迫切的，同時 應當在學校中被強調。
A secondary message is that, while the “content” and “method” are separate, they are not equal. Everyone knows that the “real” courses are the content courses, the kind of which James Bryant Conant is so fond: The Heritage of Greece and Rome, Calculus, Elizabethan Drama, The Civil War.
第二個訊息是：當內容和方法分割的同時， 兩者的地位並不平等。 每個人都知道 『真正的』課程是關於內容的課程， 像是古希臘和羅馬的傳承、 微積分、伊莉莎白時代的戲劇、南北戰爭。 這些正是詹姆斯·布萊恩特·科南特特別感興趣的一類課程。
The “fake” courses are the methods courses, those conspiracies of emptiness which are universally ridiculed because their finest ambition is to instruct in how to write lesson plans, when to use an overhead projector, and why it is desirable to keep the room at a comfortable temperature.
而『虛假的』課程則是關於方法的課程。 這類課程最大的抱負 僅僅是指出如何撰寫授課計畫， 何時使用吊掛式投影機， 以及為何應該將教室的溫度保持在舒適的範圍內。 因此，它們總是被人嘲笑想法空泛。
(The educationists have got what they deserve on this one. Since they have saddled themselves with a trivial definition of “method,” what they have been able to do in their courses has wavered from embarrassing to shocking. The professors of the liberal arts have, so far, escaped the censure and ridicule they deserve for not having noticed that a “discipline” or a “subject” is a way of knowing something—in other words, a method—and that, therefore, their courses are methods courses.)
（在這件事上，教育家是自作自受。 由於他們滿足於用最膚淺的定義來詮釋什麼是『方法』， 一直以來，他們在課堂中所能做的 總是擺盪在陳腔濫調（局促）及異想天開（過份）兩種情況。 博雅教育的教授忽略以『學科』或『主題』—換言之， 內容—做為了解事物的途徑， 因此，他們的課程同樣為關於方法的課程。 不同的是，他們至今仍得以倖免於這些應得的指責及嘲笑。）
“The medium is the message” implies that the invention of a dichotomy between content and method is both naïve and dangerous. It implies that the critical content of any learning experience is the method or process through which the learning occurs. Almost any sensible parent knows this, as does any effective top sergeant. It is not what you say to people that counts; it is what you have them do.
『媒介即訊息』暗示著，發明【內容/方法】 這樣分割的不但天真而且危險。 它也暗示，促使學習行為發生的方法或是過程 才是學習經驗中最關鍵的內容。 幾乎任何明理的父母或成功的士官都了解， 影響人們的關鍵並非在於你對他們說了什麼， 而是你讓他們做了什麼。
If most teachers have not yet grasped this idea, it is not for lack of evidence. It may, however, be due to their failure to look in the direction where the evidence can be seen. In order to understand what kinds of behaviors classrooms promote, one must become accustomed to observing what, in fact, students actually do in them.
假使大多數的老師尚未領悟這個想法， 原因不在於缺乏相關的證據。 這反而可能是因為他們沒有把注意力放在證據出現之處。 要了解教室促進何種行為， 一個人必須習慣去觀察學生實際上都在教室裡做些什麼。
What students do in the classroom is what they learn (as Dewey would say), and what they learn to do is the classroom’s message (as McLuhan would say). Now, what is it that students do in the classroom? Well, mostly, they sit and listen to the teacher. Mostly, they are required to believe in authorities, or at least pretend to such belief when they take tests. Mostly, they are required to remember.
學生在教室裡做的，就是他們所學的（就如 Deway 會說的）， 而他們學習做的，就是教室本身的訊息 （就如 McLuhan 會說的）。 那麼，學生在都在教室裡做些什麼呢？ 大多時候，他們待在座位上聽老師講課。 大多時候，他們被要求相信權威， 至少在考試的當下裝作相信。 大多數時候，他們被要求記住內容。
They are almost never required to make observations, formulate definitions, or perform any intellectual operations that go beyond repeating what someone else says is true. They are rarely encouraged to ask substantive questions, although they are permitted to ask about administrative and technical details. (How long should the paper be? Does spelling count? When is the assignment due?)
他們幾乎不需要去觀察，不需要去構思定義， 不需要任何『複誦他人宣稱的事實』之外的腦力行為。 他們很少被鼓勵提出實質的問題， 雖然他們被允許提問有關行政上或是技術上的細節。 （書面報告應該多長？拼寫算分嗎？報告何時繳交？）
It is practically unheard of for students to play any role in determining what problems are worth studying or what procedures of inquiry ought to be used. Examine the types of questions teachers ask in classroom, and you will find that most of them are what might technically be called “convergent questions,” but which might more simply be called “Guess what I’m thinking” questions.
關於決定什麼問題值得學習 或是該透過什麼樣的程序進行調查， 幾乎從未聽說學生扮演過任何角色。 仔細檢查老師在課堂上提出問題的類型， 你會發現它們大多數都是專業術語中的『收歛問題』。 但更淺白地說，它們都可以被稱作 『猜猜我在想什麼』問題。
Here are a few that will sound familiar:
What is a noun?
What were the three causes of the Civil War?
What is the principal river of Uruguay?
What is the definition of a nonrestrictive clause?
What is the real meaning of this poem?
How many sets of chromosomes do human beings have?
Why did Brutus betray Caesar?
這裡是一些你可能會感到熟悉的例子：
名詞是什麼？
引發美國南北戰爭的原因有哪三個？
哪一條河是烏拉圭的主要河流？
非限定子句的定義是什麼？
這首詩真正的意涵是什麼？
人類有幾對染色體？
為什麼布魯圖斯背叛了凱撒？
So, what students mostly do in class is guess what the teacher wants them to say. Constantly, they must try to supply “The Right Answer.” It does not seem to matter if the subject is English or history or science; mostly, students do the same thing.
因此，學生在課堂上做的大多是 猜測老師想要他們說些什麼。 他們總是得提供『正確答案』。 無論科目是英文、歷史或科學， 大多情況，學生都在做相同的事。
And since it is indisputably (if not publicly) recognized that the ostensible “content” of such courses is rarely remembered beyond the last quiz (in which you are required to remember only 65 percent of what you were told), it is safe to say that just about the only learning that occurs in classrooms is that which is communicated by the structure of the classroom itself.
毫無爭議地（儘管也許是非公開地）， 學生對這些課程表面上的『內容』的記憶， 很少能保留到最後一次測驗之後 （你可能只需要記得百分之六十五的內容就足以應付考試）。 因此，我們可以十拿九穩地說， 教室中唯一存在的學習是 由課堂結構傳遞的。
What are these learnings? What are these messages? Here are a few among many, none of which you will ever find officially listed among the aims of teachers:
這些是什麼樣的學習？ 它們又透露出什麼樣的訊息？ 這裡我們舉出其中一部分， 即便它們從不會正式列在授課目標中。
Passive acceptance is a more desirable response to ideas than active criticism.
相較主動批判，被動接受是對想法更理想的回應方式。
Discovering knowledge is beyond the power of students and is, in any case, none of their business.
知識的探索不在學生的能力範圍內， 反正這也不是他們的本分。
Recall is the highest form of intellectual achievement, and the collection of unrelated “facts” is the goal of education.
記憶力是聰明才智的最高表現， 而教育的目的是讓學生記住一堆毫無關聯的『事實』。
The voice of authority is to be trusted and valued more than independent judgment.
相較個人的判斷，更應該相信並重視權威所說的。
One’s own ideas and those of one’s classmates are inconsequential.
個人和同儕的想法是微不足道的。
Feelings are irrelevant in education.
感受、情緒和教育毫無關係。
There is always a single, unambiguous Right Answer to a question.
任何問題皆有單一而且明確的正確答案。
English is not History and History is not Science and Science is not Art and Art is not Music, and Art and Music are minor subjects and English, History and Science major subjects, and a subject is something you “take” and, when you have taken it, you have “had” it, and if you have “had” it, you are immune and need not take it again. (The Vaccination Theory of Education?)
英文不是歷史。歷史不是科學。 科學不是藝術。藝術不是音樂。 藝術和音樂是次要科目。 英文、歷史和科學是主要科目。 科目是可以『取得』的東西。 當你通過一門科目，你就擁有了它。 當你擁有了它，你就對它免疫， 而且不需要再次修習這門科目。 (教育的免疫理論？)
Each of these learnings is expressed in specific behaviors that are on constant display throughout our culture. Take for example, the message that recall—particularly the recall of random facts—is the highest form of intellectual achievement. This belief explains the enormous popularity of quiz shows, the genuine admiration given by audiences to contestants who in 30 seconds can name the concert halls in which each of Beethoven’s symphonies had its first public performance.
這裡列舉的每一項學習都反映出我們文化中 某些不斷出現的行為。 以『記憶力是聰明才智的最高表現， 特別是記住隨機事實的能力』 這個訊息為例。 這項信念解釋了為何機智問答節目能大受歡迎。 在這類節目中，能在三十秒內列出 貝多芬每一首交響曲 首次公演演奏廳的參賽者將會得到 觀眾發自內心的讚賞。
How else explain the great delight so many take in playing Trivia? Is there a man more prized among men than he who can settle a baseball dispute by identifying without equivocation the winner of the National League RBI title in 1943? (Bill “Swish” Nicholson.)
不然我們還能如何解釋許多人從軼聞競賽中獲得的喜悅？ 當一個人可以毫不含糊地指出 『哪位職棒選手贏得一九四三年國家聯盟打點王頭銜』 來解決一項關於棒球的爭論， 有誰能比他更能受到眾人重視？ (這位職棒選手是 Bill “Swish” Nicholson。)
Recently we attended a party at which the game Trivia was played. One young man sat sullen and silent through several rounds, perhaps thinking that nothing could be more dull. At some point, the question arose, “What were the names of the actor and actress who starred in Mr. First Nighter?”
最近，在我們參加的一場聚會中就舉辦了軼聞競賽。 一個年輕人繃著臉、沈默地坐了數個回合， 心裡也許想著沒有比這更無聊的事了。 某一刻，問題出現了： 『哪些演員曾在 Mr. First Nighter 演出？ 請列舉出他們的名字。』
From somewhere deep within him an answer formed, and quite astonished himself, and everyone else, by blurting it out. (Les Tremaine and Barbara Luddy.) For several moments afterward, he could not conceal his delight. He was in the fifth grade again, and the question might have been, “What is the principal river of Uruguay”? He had supplied the answer, and faster than anyone else. And that is good, as every classroom environment he’d ever been in had taught him.
令他自己和眾人都驚訝不已的是， 年輕人脫口而出某個從心靈深處浮現的答案。 （Les Tremaine 和 Barbara Luddy） 片刻之後，他流露出感受到的喜悅。 他又一次回到了小學五年級， 面對『哪一條河是烏拉圭的主要河流？』諸如此類的問題。 他比其它人都更迅速地給出了答案。 這是值得肯定的， 就如同任何他待過的教室環境教的那樣。
Watch a man—say, a politician—being interviewed on television, and you are observing a demonstration of what both he and his interrogators learned in school: all questions have answers, and it is a good thing to give an answer even if there is none to give, even if you don’t understand the question, even if the question contains erroneous assumptions, even if you are ignorant of the facts required to answer.
看一個人—比如政治人物—在電視上接受訪談， 你觀察到的其實就是採訪者和採訪對象 對他們在學校所學的示範： 所有問題都有答案，而給出答案是值得肯定的， 即便根本沒有什麼答案好給， 即便你不了解問題， 即便問題隱含著錯誤的假設， 即便你對回答問題必需的事實一無所知。
Have you ever heard a man being interviewed say, “I don’t have the faintest idea,” or “I don’t know enough even to guess,” or “I have been asked that question before, but all my answers to it seem to be wrong?” One does not “blame” men, especially if they are politicians, for providing instant answer to all questions. The public requires that they do, since the public has learned that instant answer giving is the most important sign of an educated man.
你可曾聽過受訪人說，『我一丁點想法都沒有』或 『我所知道的程度還不足以做出猜測』或 『有人問過我相同的問題，但我給出的答案似乎都是錯的？』 沒有人會『責怪』一個人 對所有的問題給出即刻的答案， 特別這個人是政治人物時。 群眾要求他這麼做， 因為按他們所學， 即刻回答是學識涵養的標誌。
What all of us have learned (and how difficult it is to unlearn it!) is that it is not important that our utterances satisfy the demands of the question (or of reality), but that they satisfy the demands of the classroom environment.
我們所有人都學會(而且要忘掉是如此之難)： 重點不在於我們口中說的是否滿足問題(或現實)的需求； 重點在於它是否滿足教室環境的需求。
Teacher asks. Students answers. Have you ever heard of a student who replied to a question, “Does anyone know the answer to that question?” or “I don’t understand what I would have to do in order to find an answer,” or “I have been asked that question before and, frankly, I’ve never understood what it meant”?
老師問，學生答。 你可曾聽過學生這樣回應問題： 『有「任何人」知道這個問題的答案嗎？』或 『我不明白我該做些什麼來得到答案，』或 『我曾經被問過相同的問題。 坦白說，我從未了解這個問題的意涵』？
Such behavior would invariably result in some form of penalty and is, of course, scrupulously avoided, except by “wise guys.” Thus, students learn not to value it. They get the message. And yet few teachers consciously articulate such a message. It is not part of the “content” of their instruction. No teacher ever said: “Don’t value uncertainty and tentativeness. Don’t question questions. Above all, don’t think.”
這類行為一律導致某種形式的懲罰。 學生理所當然會謹慎地避開—除了 一些『有智慧的傢伙』外。 於是，學生學會不去評斷問題的價值。 儘管只有極少數的老師會刻意表述這類訊息。 他們仍收到這樣的訊息。 這並非授課『內容』的一部分。 老師從不會說：『別重視不確定的事物。 別重視嘗試性的東西。 別質疑問題。最重要地，別思考。』
The message is communicated quietly, insidiously, relentlessly, and effectively through the structure of the classroom: through the role of the teacher, the role of the student, the rules of their verbal game, the rights that are assigned, the arrangements made for communication, the “doings” that are praised or censured. In other words, the medium is the message.
但這樣的訊息悄悄地、 偷偷地，但不間斷地而且有效地 透過教室的結構傳遞： 透過老師的角色、 透過學生的角色、 透過他們之間語言遊戲的規則、 透過他們被賦與的權利、 透過對溝通方式的安排、 透過那些被獎勵與被譴責的『行為』。 換言之，媒介即訊息。
Have you ever heard of a student taking notes on the remarks of another student? Probably not. Because the organization of the classroom makes it clear that what students say is not the “content” of instruction. Therefore, it will not be included on tests. Therefore, they can ignore it.
你可曾聽過學生為同儕做出的評論寫下筆記？ 大概不曾。因為教室的組織方式清楚表明， 學生的發言不構成上課的『內容』。 因此，這些東西並不會在考試的範圍內。 也因此，學生們可以忽略它們。
Have you ever heard of a student indicating an interest in how a textbook writer arrived at his conclusion? Rarely, we would guess. Most students seem unaware that textbooks are written by human beings. Besides, the classroom structure does not suggest that the processes of inquiry are of any importance.
你可曾聽過學生表示他對課本作者如何得出書上 的結論感到興趣？ 我們可以猜測這樣的情況極少發生。 大多數學生似乎沒有意識到課本是人寫的。 此外，教室的結構也不會去暗示調查的過程是重要的。
Have you ever heard of a student suggesting a more useful definition of something that the teacher has already defined? Or of a student who asked, “Whose facts are those?” Or of a student who asked, “What is a fact?” Or of a student who asked, “Why are we doing this work?”
你可曾聽過有學生就老師已經定義的東西 提出一個更有用的定義？ 或是有學生問：『那些是誰的事實？』 或是有學生問：『什麼是事實？』 或是有學生問：『為什麼我們做這些工作？』
Now, if you reflect on the fact that most classroom environments are managed so that such questions as these will not be asked, you can become very depressed. Consider, for example, where “knowledge” comes from. It isn’t just there in a book, waiting for someone to come along and “learn” it. Knowledge is produced in response to questions. And new knowledge results from the asking of new questions; quite often new questions about old questions.
大多數教室環境被控制成學生不會提問這類問題。 如果反思上面這項事實，你大概會感到相當沮喪。 讓我們思考『知識』從何而來。 它並非單純地寫在書裡等著某人學習。 知識的產生是來自對問題的回應。 而新知識是提出新問題的結果， 並且常常是針對舊有問題的新問題。
Here is the point: Once you have learned how to ask questions—relevant and appropriate and substantial questions—you have learned how to learn and no one can keep you from learning whatever you want or need to know. Let us remind you, for a moment, of the process that characterizes school environments: what students are restricted to (solely and even vengefully) is the process of memorizing (partially and temporarily) somebody else’s answers to somebody else’s questions. It is staggering to consider the implications of this fact.
重點在於：一但你學會如何問問題—相關、適當、 實質的問題—你就學會了如何學習， 而且沒有人能阻止你學習任何你想知道的東西。 此刻，讓我們提醒你學校環境是由什麼樣的過程所刻劃： 學生被限制在一個（不完全且臨時的）記憶過程中。 他們得記住『某些人的回答』； 這些回答針對的是『另一些人的提問』。 考慮到這項事實背後的意涵是多麼令人震驚。
The most important intellectual ability man has yet developed—the art and science of asking questions—is not taught in school! Moreover, it is not “taught” in the most devastating way possible: by arranging the environment so that significant question asking is not valued.
學校並沒有著力於一個人最重要且有待發展的智識能力—問 問題的藝術及科學！ 更糟的是，這件事以最嚴重的方式被忽略了： 環境的安排造成重要問題的提問不被重視。
It is doubtful if you can think of many schools that include question asking, or methods of inquiry, as part of their curriculum. But even if you knew a hundred that did, there would be little cause for celebration unless the classrooms were arranged so that students could do question asking; not talk about it, read about it, be told about it. Asking questions is behavior. If you don’t do it, you don’t learn it. It really is as simple as that.
你大概找不到許多學校在其課程規劃 中包含提問方法及調查方法。 即便你真的知道有一百間學校這樣做， 這也不是什麼值得慶祝的理由； 除非教室被安排成讓學生能夠真的去問問題， 而不僅僅是討論、閱讀、或是被告知關於提問的知識。 問問題是種行為。如果你不身體力行，你不可能學得會。 事情就是這麼簡單。
If you go through the daily papers and listen attentively to the radio and watch television carefully, you should have no trouble perceiving that our political and social lives are conducted, to a very considerable extent, by people whose behaviors are almost precisely the behaviors their school environments demanded of them.
如果你仔細閱讀每天的報紙，注意聆聽廣播， 小心觀看電視節目，你應該不難發現，相當程度上 我們的政治以及社會生活是由 某類型的人所領導；這些人的共通點是： 他們的行為舉止幾乎符合 他們曾待過的學校環境的要求。
We do not need to document for you the pervasiveness of dogmatism and intellectual timidity, the fear of change, the ruts and rots caused by the inability to ask new or basic questions and to work intelligently toward verifiable answers.
我們甚至不需要為你記錄 教條精神、思想上的怯懦、 對改變的恐懼以及種種陳舊腐敗是多麼普遍。 缺乏能力提出新的和基本的問題以及 有智慧地尋求可驗証的答案正是這些現象的𦘦因。
The best illustration of this point can be found in the fact that those who do question must drop out of the “Establishment.” The price of maintaining membership in the Establishment is unquestioning acceptance of authority.
下面的事實很好地描繪了以上的觀點： 那些認真提出問題的人勢必得和現有建制分道揚鏢； 相對地，對權威毫不懷疑地接受是 在現有建制下保有一席之地必須付出的代價。
We are, of course, aware that there are more structures than the school affecting or controlling behavior. One must be careful in identifying and discriminating among the media which have taught us how to behave.
當然，我們十分清楚學校之外還有許多體系影響和控制著 人們的行為。我們必須小心地識別和區分這些不斷地 教導我們行為舉止的媒介。
They do not all convey the same messages. As McLuhan would want us to see, an automobile, a Xerox machine, and an electric light bulb are all learning environments.
它們傳遞的訊息並不相同。 如同麥克魯漢想要我們了解的， 汽車、影印機和電燈泡皆為某種學習環境。
So is our architecture, the A & P, and color TV. We are focusing on the school because it is capable of becoming the critical environment for promoting the beliefs and behaviors that are necessary to survival. We should like then to turn to a description of the type of learning environment which can best accomplish this.
而我們的建築、連鎖企業(大西洋與太平洋茶葉公司) 和彩色電視也是如此。 我們把焦點放在學校的理由是：學校有能力成為 促進生存必需的信念及行為的關鍵環境。 因此，我們打算藉由 『描述最有可能達成此一目標的學習環境』 來實現這件事。