Where comes learning? LO20400

worknews (rbacal@escape.ca)
Sat, 16 Jan 1999 21:35:08 +0000

Replying to LO20393 --

On 15 Jan 99 at 12:11, sberberi@uhl.uiowa.edu wrote:

> My conclusion then was that I "learned" about torque before I knew
> its name. That left my task in the course much less threatening
> than what I originally thought it was. I had "learned" torque
> already; I just needed to "learn" the language to describe it.

One thing that is lacking in discussions on learning on this list is the
huge amount of research and theory about learning available in the field
of psychology.

I'm going to suggest that you had a loosely constructed concept of torque
from your experience. It may have been completely clear and correct, or it
may not have been. Much learning from experience is not complete or clear.

The learning continues as you formalize it. The concept gets clearer and
clearer, more expanded, richer. You learn about math, formulas (whatever,
I'm not a torque guy).

The concept can continue to evolve.

Learning by experience is notoriously unreliable, which is why we have
formal education. If you look at how kids acquire concepts you see this.
If left to their own devices they may think a dog and a horse are both
cats. With instruction, the concept clarifies and becomes more accurate,
stable and consistent.

So, "more learning" about torque is much more than learning the language,
it is also about clarifying the concept.

Robert Bacal, Listowner, Learning At Work.
Subscribe via email to: worklearning-subscribe@egroups.com


"worknews" <rbacal@escape.ca>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>