We Participate therefore we are

Learning and Participation

The start of this week's study, engaged us with John Seely Brown (JSB).  During the Open Learn conference in 2007. Here he talks about learning as a social construct - we learn through our interaction with others and the world. I have come back to Seely Brown after my other studies this week, to try and put him in some kind of perspective.

Some key points in his address include:

·         rejection learning as knowledge transfer

·         if knowledge is a substance then the pedagogy will be about how best to maximise the transfer

·         not about 'knowledge' but about 'understanding'

·         we learn through our interaction with one another and the world

·         the art of 'tinkering' as 'tacit understanding'

The crux for me of this speech, is the view that we need to shift our view of learning from the transfer of knowledge/content, into the development of understanding through activities and human interaction.

In JSBs speak he talks about the best indicator of success being that students participate in study groups. This statement troubled me until I did some further reading around, and found that JSB was talking about some research conducted by Richard Light at the Harvard Grad School. In this he had found that students who participated in study groups  were more engaged and successful in their study outcomes. The research is focused on what the students themselves said about their experiences and makes for some interesting reading. So study groups are important because they help students to clarify areas of uncertainty or take on the role of 'teacher' to help others

The 'Cartesian ' view, is something that I have seen in several of the articles and papers I have read this week. Basically going back to the idea of knowledge as a substance that can be transferred - 'I think therefore I am.'  It echoes back to the traditional master student relationships where the student must master all the knowledge before they are allowed to put this into practice. The argument is that this need to be reversed if we want students to 'understand' rather than attain knowledge.

The image for Tacit knowledge was also interesting to me, as I have seen this before in another version, when talking about peoples understanding of diversity. In the version that I have seen it shows how our identity is not just made up of the outwards signs, but of the internal sociological, psychological and historical aspects of our lives. We are because of all the influences that we experience, not just the obvious ones.

Like any good speaker/inspirational leader...the basis of the opening speak can be found her e in the Minds on Fire article.

The method itself? This raises an interesting point on my own understanding journey. Although I picked up some of the information from listening to the address, much of my further study and understanding of what JSB has said has come through the text that I have read. In fact, when I read the transcript, there were a number of elements I couldn't remember. So maybe the audio/visual lectures cannot be the only form of learning that I might use on a subject, as it didn't 'penetrate' my mind enough. Or maybe I was too distracted to pay attention properly?