Replying to LO28724 --
Dear LO' ers, dear friends,
I have linked my reply to At's contribution. However, also Alan Coterell
and Jan Lelie made contributions which I hope to include in this mail.
This mail starts strange enough with something Fred Nichols replied to At
in the thread: History of uncovering the act of learning:
(Fred's words)
I think there are two fundamental avenues to learning (of coming to know).
One is rather casual or incidental and it does indeed begin with
observation, etc. The other is more purposeful and deliberate; it begins
with the desire to know and that is rooted in reflection. It can be
argued, of course, that reflection is upon experience and that, too,
begins with observation but I'm driving at something more basic than the
point of origin of a process. I'm suggesting a different state of mind on
the part of the learner. It seems to me that a large part of deliberate,
intentional learning is essentially a quest for answers. Often the
questions are vague and ill-formed because we don't yet know enough to
formulate them in a crisp fashion. Sometimes, however, the questions to
be answered are razor-sharp and that is good because they are meant to
slice away at ignorance (at reducing the state of not knowing).
Thank you Fred to write what I had in mind with my original contribution,
learning with a goal. It is exactly what I thought - a different state of
the mind, and thus differences in the process of learning. As Alan pointed
his experience of learning on schools to his 57th year! Bravo, Alan :-)
You had certainly a goal, otherwise I think you never had made this life
long learning.
At has described in a vivid way which paths and motivations his learning
follow. The pictures I got from that description were spirals and meanders,
not sure which one is preferent.
What surprises me is that in an earlier contribution At and Alfred Rheeder
in yet another thread (Sudbury Valley School) wrote:
Alfred Rheeder <alfred@pvm.co.za> writes:
>I read everything I could regarding the Sudbury School
>on their website. I would like to make some observations.
>Nothing is mentioned about a learning plan nor the
>facilitation of emergences of the pupils.
And At replied:
Greetings dear Alfred,
You are right.
When I worked through the site, it hindered me that I could not find any
indications to learning plans. To learn by chance can lead to an
incredible waste of energy. The reason is that whatever has to be learned,
has an implicate order to it. Should the learner jump around in that order
without taking it into consideration, few relationships will be
discovered.
Dear At and Alfred, is it not a failure to appreciate the childs NATURAL
learning behavior, not making too large learning steps because there is no
motivation for doing so. The wanting of learning to deviate comes naturally
after known what quantities are and how to add and multiply. A young child
playing with plastic coloured cubes which fit into each other (thus each of
other size) learns how to build a tower and how to fit all of them into the
largest cube, without knowing and without wanting to know the fractions of
all the cubes.
The goal (I realise that this word is not well chosen, maybe wanting or
motivation is better) of the child is to build a stable tower or to fit them
all together. I think that if children have the freedom to follow their own
and personal learning paths, driven by motivation, they will learn faster
and better, without instructions of others (but with the help of others, no
much steering).
And that is what I intended to put forward in my original contribution on
learning with, or without a goal.
Jan Lelie wrote in 'Luctor at emergo' (thank you Jan, sketching the complex
history of the first democratic forms and organisations in our country) a
story that ended with the conclusion that If a common enemy serves as
learning goal, it should be an non-human enemy, an enemy coming from nature.
I think I could agree with you, Jan. Although I think that also human
enemies could under cirtain circumstances act as learning goal (Think of
sports for instance).
For me, it is still not clear, but I think that learning with a goal, or
motivation has much higher impacts than without (just learning for the
learning). Think of all those kids on schools. They try to learn, but they
have no idea for what reason. At the highest it is a highly abstract
reason (father to his child: "It is good to go to school because of your
future").
But........
I know I am learning each day. I have forgotten for what reason. Wandering
has also its good sides :-)
Have a pleasant day
Leo Minnigh
--Minnigh <minnigh@dds.nl>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.