HI John,
thank you for your message.
Miguel,
we could write a very good paper on this useful to
everyone. but have in mind I am more into
Human-Computer Interaction than learning. I try to
create the enviroenmnt where the learenr has the
possibilities to unfold herslef and her full
potential, nothing more than this> by the way this is
Einsten' quote (I dont have an opinion, everything I
say somebody said it, so I there is no argument for me
here, -thank you, Ian Dolphin :)
this is Norman,
[we might work in] sociocultural groups, but cognitive
processing occurs within the heads of individuals ....
What really matters is the situation and the parts
that people play. Norman (1993:3-4)
ans this is situated>
‘Situated’ … does not imply that something is concrete
and particular, or that is not generalizable, or not
imaginary. It implies that a given social practice is
multiply interconnected with other aspects of ongoing
social processes in activity systems at many levels of
particularity and generality. Lave (1991:84) According
to Lave, knowing, learning and cognition are social
constructions, expressed in actions of people
interacting communities. The notion of distributed
cognition has been advanced, among others, by Salomon
(1993), while continuing the previous discussion. It
refers to the observation that much of the
intelligence needed to solve complex and even not so
complex everyday problems is not "inside" individual
minds, but is distributed across different minds
(i.e., people) as well as embodied by external
artefacts. If knowledge is distributed among
participants in a specific activity context, it is
necessarily situated as well (Greeno, 1997).
this is ME THINKING like the Rodin sculpture>>
Inherently social activities in which talk and social
interactions are not a means … but also how they
engage in thinking … discourse is cognition is
discourse … one is unimaginable without the other’.
Resnick, Säljö, Pontecorvo, and Burge
(1991:2):
some more>>
Aristotle (384-322 BCE, translation from the ancient
text by the author) suggested 3 levels of a process
for becoming a Master or a ‘scientist’; in addition,
the previous level contains the potential for the
next: (i) the learner who knows nothing but if s/he
wants can change through learning by studying next to
a Master; (ii) the learner who has reached her/his
Master’s level and if s/he wants could bring theory
into practice; and (iii) the learner who now as a
Master decides to practice what s/he has learnt. The
latter are the real Masters or the scientists
according to the ancient text: ‘üíôåò, åíåñãåßá
ãßíïíôáé åðéóôÞìïíåò’ (2003:168). Following a
contemporary terminology for CoP legitimate peripheral
participation the three levels might appear as
(Lambropoulos, 2004a):
(i) Initial introduction to the learning practice: the
learner knows nothing about the subject. The Master
(tutor from now on) is the more advanced person who
will help the learner to build the distance of the
asymmetrical interactions (zone of proximal
development, Vygotsky, 1978:86).
(ii) Mutual understanding between the tutor and the
learner occurs when interactions are symmetrical as in
common knowledge (Mercer, 1995) and grounding.
(iii) Energetic participation in the community of
practice, in order to develop both the community and
its media/artefacts as such.
Papert (1991) once suggested that when the learner is
engaged in the construction of something external or
at least shareable, it indicates a cycle of
internalization of what is outside, then
externalization of what is inside. The verbal exchange
in the community works as the situated platform for
conceptual alignment, collaborative learning and
common knowledge (Mercer, 1995)
The use of contents arouses awareness among the
members of the group and a general tendency appears to
accept or reject the opinions (Hovland et al., 1953).
This selection activates the process of informal group
learning and changes occur in or against the favour of
opinions towards conclusions drawing on both
individual and group level. Surprisingly enough we
find an experiment conducted by Janis and King in 1954
cited in Hovland et al.. The experiment had two
experimental groups of college students: (a) ‘active
participants’, who were supposed to deliver a talk in
a group situation and (b) ‘passive controls’, who
merely read and listen the same material. The results
suggested that opinion change was created by the
active participants and was depended on the amount of
improvisation and not related to the amount of
satisfaction of the active participants. Improvisation
indicated that the subjects were trying actually to
convince themselves in the first place. ‘The findings
provide additional support for the improvisation
hypothesis and suggest that the effects of active
participation depend upon whether the act of
conformity is accompanied by inner responses of a
supporting or an interfering nature’. In addition,
Hovland and Weiss (1951, cited in Hovland et al.,
1953) the ‘sleeper effect’ of the passive subjects
occurs when cues as to the source of reference i.e.
the line of reasoning are absent or forgotten. People
tend to disassociate the content with the source after
a period of time and as such the learning seems to
originate from the group and not from the individuals
who made the suggestions. The latter is a great
indicator for a research interest in public/group
copyright.
I think we had enough :)
--- John Konrad <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Niki,
>
> This is a really interesting thread and one with
> considerable practical
> impact.
>
> I'm preparing to look at the issue of learning in
> SMEs and I think that it
> would be important to reflect these ideas.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> John
> ==========
>
> On 8/3/05 8:55 am, "niki lambropoulos"
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > love the subject :)
> > we could write a paper based on a debate, couldnt
> we?
> >
> >
> > The Social Learning of Imitation was first
> mentioned
> > in 1890: Å’ [learning as] a natural instinct to
> imitate
> > the actions of others‚ (W. James as sited in
> > Thorndike, 1898). Observational learning (or
> modeling)
> > in the form of the study on Œimitation‚ by
> > behaviourists such as Miller and Dollard (1941).
> They
> > were the first to include the motivational subject
> who
> > is positively reinforced for matching the rewarded
> > behaviour. It was then when Social Learning and
> > Imitation was first mentioned connected to human
> > behaviour as motivated by internal drives and the
> > observed behaviours were either reinforced or
> > extinguished through environmental reinforcement.
> > Following Aristotle, matched-dependent behaviour
> > occurs when the model is older, smarter or more
> > skilled than the imitator. Responsiveness to
> modelling
> > cues is largely determined by factors as
> > characteristics of the models (e.g. high status,
> > competence or power), the attributes of the
> observers
> > (e.g. lack of self-esteem, prone to adapt
> behaviours)
> > and the response consequences (positive or
> negative)
> > associated with matching behaviour (Bandura,
> > 1977:88-90). The results from these studies
> (Bandura &
> > MacDonald, 1963) were based on observer‚s
> emotional
> > arousal (modelled pain reactions).
> >
> > At that time researchers were trying to define the
> > field of Social Learning Theory based on the
> concepts
> > of learning by experience & observation,
> reciprocal
> > interaction, individual's behaviour and
> environment,
> > vicarious learning, modelling behaviour based on
> > identification and reward vs. punishment
> contingencies
> > (Rotter, 1942; Sears, 1951; Mischel, 1968). In the
> > 50s, a theoretical approach of historical
> personage
> > simulation was suggested by Auerbach (1953). The
> > significant time lapse between cause and effect,
> > created the passage from Social Learning Theory to
> > Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986). Bandura
> > connected vicarious learning with the exposure to
> > positive and negative situations. As such
> vicarious
> > reinforcement and vicarious punishment were
> related to
> > profit from successes and mistakes of others as
> well
> > as from their own experience (1977:117-121). These
> > processes introduce comparative judgement
> processes
> > into the operation of reinforcement influences
> > (1977:123). Bandura described observational
> learning
> > as a multiprocess phenomenon. This process ˆbased
> > approach consisted by the following stages:
> > 1. attentional processes that regulate
> sensory
> > registration of modelling stimuli;
> > 2. retention processes that are influenced by
> > rehearsal operations and symbolic coding of
> modelled
> > events into easily remembered schemas;
> > 3. motoric reproduction processes that are
> concerned
> > with availability of component responses and the
> > utilisation of symbolic codes in guiding
> behavioural
> > reproduction; and
> > 4. incentive or motivational processes that
> determine
> > whether or not acquired responses will be
> activated
> > into overt performances.
> >
> > ***************** List information:
> *****************
> > Remember - replies go by default to the entire
> list.
> > Access the list via the web on
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/vle.html
> > To unsubscribe, email [log in to unmask] with
> the message: leave vle
>
>
> ***************** List information:
> *****************
> Remember - replies go by default to the entire list.
> Access the list via the web on
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/vle.html
> To unsubscribe, email [log in to unmask] with
> the message: leave vle
>
***************** List information: *****************
Remember - replies go by default to the entire list.
Access the list via the web on http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/vle.html
To unsubscribe, email [log in to unmask] with the message: leave vle
|
