All Discussion Threads]
Commentary by Downes (Stephen Downes)
on link by noreply@blogger.com (Verónica Vázquez Zentella), The difference between learning and teaching, February 10, 2011.
Actually, I think that 'studying' or 'practicing' are like eating. These are activities we so.
The word 'learning' is a success-term. It refers to the result. Although we say "I am learning to drive" we really mean "I am practicing how to drive." If we keep practicing but get no better, it becomes foolish to say "I am 'learning' to drive."
To say 'I am learning' is like saying 'I am becoming stronger'. This is something 'studying' can help with, the way 'eating' can help with becoming stronger. But there are other factors involved. There are things you can't control. Though the result is desired and expected, it is not what you are *doing*, it is what you are *hoping* for. (Hits Today: 4925 Total: 4925)
[Link] [Tags: none]
[Previous][Next]
Comments
luisa dall'acqua,
February 10, 2011
In my opinion, "studenting" is a term connected with so called "orienting reflex"in Didactic, that is the possible developing of a critical mind, able to make choise and decisions. Then I sustain the student should be a "decision manager", and in my view the teacher is a "risk manager" when orients the student toward a learning path.
Ken Anderson,
February 10, 2011
I don't think learning and practicing say the same thing, as suggested here. One could practice something without improving. The lack of improvement might be suggestive of a lack of learning. Or maybe the lack of improvement only suggests the lack of advancement of the learning that has already occurred.
However, the lack of improvement might not necessarily mean that learning has not occurred, perhaps it is just a different form of learning. Perhaps a reinforcement or sustenance type of learning has occurred, though no advancement has occurred. Perhaps an 'unconscious' learning has occurred. "Hoping for" suggests an intentional learning, on the other hand.
Using a neural network metaphor (connectivism) to explain reinforcement or sustenance learning: the neurons are re-aquainting themselves with each other, renewing and maybe even strengthening their connections. Intentional theories of learning such as constructivism are useful to explain conscious forms of learning such as the 'hoped for' learning characterized here as 'success' learning.
xiaoxi,
February 11, 2011
In Chinses the word "study" is formed by two characters:Xue(to learn) and Xi(to practise)
Stephen Downes,
February 11, 2011
> I don't think learning and practicing say the same thing, as suggested here.
Nobody is suggesting that learning and practicing are the same thing.
The difference is, 'learning' is a *success* verb. It speaks not only to what we do, but also to what the result was.
So there is no *activity* that we undertake called 'learning'. We do other things, such as 'practice', which if *combined* with successful results, is called 'learning'.
Ken Anderson,
February 11, 2011
>So there is no *activity* that we undertake called 'learning'
I beg to differ. I don't define the words the way you do. You are welcome to your interpretation, of course, as am I. There is no rule in life that requires either of us to accept the other's signification as absolute, as is suggested here. I have suggested that learning can be unconscious, and not necessarily tied to observable, measurable results, or 'success' as you call it.
That is interesting that in Chinese 'study' incorporates both terms, learning and practice.
veronica,
February 11, 2011
Hi, Stephen :-)
I appreciate very much your comment to my post which opens new questions.
It troubles me to see learning as a success outcome, because that seems to me that once you learn something, you're done with it, as if learning is a finished, concluded, packaged and complete outcome. Don't you think that we keep adding, subtracting, adapting, associating, connecting, etc. knowledge to that outcome? Would you agree that the outcome –successful or not- is never final?
Taking your driving analogy, I learned how to drive when I was 16, but ever since I've been incorporating new things: I've learned the different traffic regulations (driving in Mexico City is a completely different thing than driving in the US, for example), I've learned how to listen and answer to the complex and constant questions of my 10 year-old son while I'm driving at the time that I need to ask for directions, change the CD, etc. So, let's say, that even though I knew how to drive (let's call it the "basics" of driving), I'm still learning, and in 20 years from now, since everything changes so fast, I'll be learning how to drive whatever we'll be driving...
Does this make sense to you?
Kindest regards,
Verónica
luisa dall'acqua,
February 11, 2011
@ Ken
I agree that is interesting that in Chinese 'study' incorporates both terms, learning and practice.
I didn't know it, even if I worked with Chinese educational research group.
Effectively, main issue they have is the environment in which the student works, behind the learning methodologies and conditions.
The interaction with the environment (human, cultural, experimental, technological, virtual, etc.) should be one of the informal practical factor of the learning. And the dynamicity and complexity of the environment generate the necessity of a flexible learning skills.
Luisa
Stephen Downes,
February 11, 2011
> I have suggested that learning can be unconscious, and not necessarily tied to observable, measurable results, or 'success' as you call it.
It is really frustrating when you completely change the meaning of what I've said. Please stop it.
I never mentioned "observable, measurable results". You are bringing an entirely different type of argument, one that has nothing to do with my position, and nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make here.
And the point is, something doesn't count as 'learning' unless learning actually happens. That's why it's called a 'success verb'. I have made no attempt to *define* what counts as success here. All I am saying is that the result - the success - is distinct from the input.
Ken Anderson,
February 11, 2011
>It is really frustrating when you completely change the meaning of what I've said. Please stop it.
Haha. Sorry, but I find that to be funny. I wish you weren't so frustrated. I didn't change anything, your words are still on this thread, I offered my interpretation of what you said. I find it interesting that rather than think about the interpretation I made of your words, you make the choice to tell me to 'stop it'. I am very interested in your response. Maybe this is the type of response a teacher should make with a student that makes 'changed interpretations' of the sage's words? What do you think? I lean towards being hospitable to different interpretations, myself, but am interested to hear your reasons for your position.
btw, when words are used, they bring with them definitions/meanings, the definitions/meanings ascribed to them by the user. So far, you have claimed that learning is the same as practice, it is a verb and not a noun, it is a 'success' verb and is geared to results. I'm guessing that you have a different idea of what defines definition, and that's ok. I can only speak to what I interpret/see/decipher etc.
Ken Anderson,
February 11, 2011
@ Luisa
Thanks for your insights. From observations and conversations I've had with some very close friends in that culture, I've learned that practice is valued very highly in their studies: repetition in learning how to play a musical instrument for example. I got the impression that learning to play an instrument included a great deal of practice, and it was very interesting to see that both terms fall under 'study'. I love learning how different people view the world. This is an interesting statement:
>And the dynamicity and complexity of the environment generate the necessity of a flexible learning skills.
I think it is important to have a flexible outlook on learning, as different environments do present different affordances, dynamics and complexity. Thanks for expressing it this way.
Ken
Ozlem Ozan,
February 11, 2011
Learning is intrinsic, teaching is extrinsic.
lindawright,
February 12, 2011
So, in the connectivist model, practicing is aggregating related ideas, forming links among them and previously understood concepts, as well as putting newly linked constructs "out there" for others to see, use, interact with.
Then, what is teaching in this model? From Stephen's and George's examples, to be providing a place to begin, some content resources and tools to play with. It seems to me it is important for the "teaching" to be a presence, rather than just backing away. How do you decide how much interaction is needed?
Ken Anderson,
February 12, 2011
Maybe this explains the role of the teacher?
"In my own work, I have stated that the role of the teacher is to "model and demonstrate." What I have tried to capture in this is the idea that students need prototypes on which to model their own work."
Excerpt from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-downes/the-role-of-the-educator_b_790937.html
luisa dall'acqua,
February 13, 2011
In my opinion a teacher has additional tasks as, among others, attracting the attention, encouraging the exploration and motivating the student, defining or supporting a learning path adaptation, considering the student learning preferences and style.
Stephen Downes,
February 13, 2011
Luisa, you might be interested in a paper I wrote recently on this: The Role of the Educator http://www.downes.ca/post/54312
That said, it should be kept in mind that the role of the educator is different in a connectivist perspective than it is from a traditional perspective. Because students are not assembled into classes studying mandatory subjects, such factors of motivating, focusing attention, encouraging exploration, etc., play much smaller roles.
luisa dall'acqua,
February 13, 2011
Hi Stephen.
Thank you very much for your reply and reference.
The cited taxonomy and your reflections are both very valuable and interesting to me.
LeahGrrl,
February 15, 2011
This has been a really interesting thread. Thank you all for contributing.
If "learning" is a "success verb," as Stephen says here, what's happening when I have those "a ha!" moments of clarity? It feels qualitatively different from "practicing." It feels to me like turning a corner or entering a well-lit room from a dark one.
Having just had my first stained glass class [now hold the class record for times cutting my own fingers] at age 46, I had a couple of those moments along the way.
:)
Stephen Downes,
February 15, 2011
> what's happening when I have those "a ha!" moments of clarity?
Pattern recognition. That 'snap into place' moment when your perception changes from being something unorganized, unrelated, unknown, to something that fits a pattern, is organized, and known.
Think about looking at faces in a crowd, searching for someone, and then seeing their face. That 'snap to' moment of reflection. That's the same feeling as the 'a ha' moment in learning.
LeahGrrl,
February 15, 2011
I keep getting stuck when you say things like this, Stephen. Maybe I'm misreading, but sometimes (in one of our earliest readings, What Constructivism Is, for example in response 2 to Bill Kerr), you write that learning is about "recognizing patterns"--in a way that I think you're saying everything is already there waiting to be discovered. Similarly, in that same article but in the 4th or 5th paragraph, you say "connections form naturally."
Everything else makes sense to me about connectivism, except that I keep finding these moments of a sort of essentialism. Am I misreading? If so, could you explain or point me in a direction?
Thank you--I very much appreciate the feedback. Postivie or negative. :)
Lindsay Jordan,
February 17, 2011
@LeahGrrl - that's a new word for me - 'essentialism' - I just looked it up but to be honest I don't feel much wiser for it ;-)
I don't have a problem with the idea that 'everything' is already there waiting to be discovered. I'm not sure I've always felt that way; perhaps I used to think of humans as being more creative beings. But these days I think of us as just fumbling around in the dark trying to make sense of it all - and right now I can't think of a single example of anything we've 'discovered' that wasn't, in some form, there all along. I'd be interested to hear more about your thoughts on this...?
LeahGrrl,
February 17, 2011
Hi Lindsay,
Essentialism is the idea that things "are what they are" intrinsically and somewhat automatically and regardless of the context they're in. The idea that I even if I was born in another place and time, to another family, and had wildly different experiences than I have had, I would be the same person I am now--that's essentialism.
I'm coming at the discussion from a standpoint more like, our culture, history, family, etc., make us who we are. We would be different in a different set of circumstances.
So it has seemed to me that connectivism as a theory based on networks has that social aspect to it. But sometimes there are points in the writings that seem contradictory to this.
Does that make sense? I love your "fumbling around..trying to make sense." Most days I feel exactly like that. ;)
You can preview your comment and continue editing until you are
satisfied with it. Comment will not be posted on the CCK11 until you have clicked 'Done'.
