My name is Glen and I am new to the list formally. I have been receiving
many contributions to the list from a friend. I find these highly thought
provoking. My work that connects with LO is mainly in the area of teaching
and training. I am personally trained as a Cognitive Scientist.
The main issue that continually arose in my awareness when reading the
contributions was the separating of the linear and non-linear processes in
learning. What was appearent to me I wasn't finding as an assumption by
others. I wanted to use a recent inquirey as an example to demonstrate the
way I resolve the linear and non-linear aspects of the continual learning
processing.
To break it down into its most simple model.
The linear aspects are the science of learning, the causality, the moving
from the present state A to the future desired state B.
The non-linear processes of learning is the art of learning, the desire,
curiousity, experience, and attitude contribute to the flow of moving from
the present state to the future state.
The contribution I wanted to respond to is as follows.
> Professionals in learning and development try often to link learning
> directly to the outcomes of learning tasks. But to me the changes in
> perspectives (mental models and accompanying feelings) and ultimately
> the
> changing relation to the world are much more important. This approach is
> applicable to personal growth as well as acquiring skills or becoming an
> expert.
The second sentence in that statement to me is matching what is happening
cognitively with a person who is contextualizing the task to goal learning
process. That to look at the pieces separately is helpful when knowing
what phase of the training process one is in. Non-contextualized learning
creates a gap between formative knowledge and schematic processes (the
applied behaviors). To consider them as two mutually exclusive parts is
unproductive unless in a philosophy class. In an environment where the
knowledge is learned for the purpose of advancing the participant and
therefore advancing the organization, it is goal based, and therefore
needing a context unwhich to apply the concept.
In the section that I copied I see the author separating the science, the
task to goal, from the art, the models (experience) and feelings ( the
expressions of desire, curiousity and attitude). Since I see them as all
part of the process it is unproductive to separate them apart as opposed
to knowing the differences and then utilizing them simultaneously in the
learning environment.
An Example:
I have taught Multi-demensional statistics. The science in the learning
situation was to get the students from point A (not having competency in
the use of the statistical functions) to point B ( having competency with
the functions). While doing the fundamentals of demonstrating the contexts
the equations would be applicable in, how to use the functions, what the
data means, the art begins to become integrated. By drawing on the
emotions of the group pacing is needed. I use metaphor and analogy that
relates to the group. A match to their internal models is needed.
Simultaneaously the linear process is kept explicit. I realize that the
more I can connect the information to past knowledge structures,
heuristics, and familiar schemas, while repeating the structure over and
over, the greater the probability the information will become coherent.
This process follows the known information in memory formation that states
repetition (linear processing) and elaboration (non-linear processing)
create "stronger" memories. It is the use of the two processes together
that creates the strongest memory. Simple linear repetition creates a
non-contextualized memory trace, therefore harder to retrieve. Highly
elaborated information without repetition gets lost in the cognitive
noise.
Thanks for your contributions,
Glen
voxdeis@aol.com
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>