John Dicus writes:
__We say "well its hard to tell you, but we can show you."
When exposed to these learning techniques, people say "wow, they're
unstructured."__
We must be careful not to confuse structure with process with
orthodoxy, etc. A good example would be a class room where the
students are allowed to learn at their own pace. They all use the same
materials and lesson plan (structure) but some students may choose to
work in study groups where others may stick with individual study
(process). The big difference being a class room where there seems to
be no rigidly disciplined learning process, which in most teaching
institutions is unorthodox.
Structure can be such an abstract term, however, that the context must
be held in consideration for proper interpretation. You even go so far
as to disclaim this at the beginning of your posting, "admittedly out
of original context (please excuse)". Each of the individuals you have
quoted define their context of the term 'structure'. Perhaps the best
way to eliminate any perceived confusion would be to confine
'structure' as a more fundamental criterion. That basic plan which
processes and policies evolve from. That way, when one refers to a
different structure, we know that they aren't just putting the cream
and sugar in the cup before the coffee instead of after the coffee.
James_Carrington@hp.com
--JAMES_H_CARRINGTON@HP-Chelmsford-om1.om.hp.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>