… as a result of my thesis (now finished ad reviewed) a new question raised up for me, i would like to share with you. Taking the theoretical base on the critical theory of learning, expressed through Holzkamp and others the main line of argumentation is: teaching doesn’t automatically result in learning. Following this means learning itself happens in more complex processes located in the subject (not the individual) and being teached and in the following enabled to learn through the information in the context settled should express the process characteristics the right way around.
Going through the critical theory it also means: It could be right to state: Somebody has been enabled to learn in one situation by an adequate researching view from the past. To get the view opened: It should be difficult to predict learning success and or those scenario. If research leads to be more precise, settings of education could enable to enrich earning by offering possibilities expressing the own learning, share this learning experience with others and enable to get an reflective approach to the own learning.
Trying to get this approach of critical learning theory to up to date technology and strategies often I run into a leak of definitions and the adequate use of the term learning and it’s meaning. And therefore the previously announced question raises:
When we explore technology of personal learning, enriched and maybe enabled through technical learning environments, we should provide channels for information distribution containing experiences and things learned. In its characteristic they are simply distributed information – with the maybe contained previous learning of the origin. source. Thinking from this point, it can be shared both: The result and/or the progress. But it stays as pure data unless it is categorized and or interpreted by another subject. Sharing a learning-progress result without the progress could be valued as a good end product, but it differs from the progress view of learning. But how? Like a video and the making of of a video both are assets which can be used by other subjective learners in their personal development. At one hand offering the content to be state of the discussion. At the other hand the progress inspiring to share the same way or choose another way. And there is need to mention the potential third hand, in my point of view recognized enough: The potential learning enrichment of the discourse about the distributed information and/or the illustrated progress.
Thinking personal learning environments to take part in all three mentioned situations, it strangers me, to discuss about learning, by simply offering the technology to distribute information. Would it value the fully potential on social learning? The charming moment in personal learning networks brings back the individuals and – in reality the subject behind the avatars / nicknames / logins/ and the connection potential.
The problem with the PLN term is, it prospects the networked feeling, before it maybe covered by the learners experiences. Can you call it a network, shouting out loud, but never experienced to be listened?
Going back to the subject: There should be a need to ask on how information distribution and learning are related. And digging deeper in this question and the context explained above, how could we help learners to step over from information reception to learning, in own reflective reception and discourse?
Or to quote the illustration found on the net: „When we make our learning transparent we got teachers?“ Isn’t there an interest on how to make in times the internet can be used/misused/forced/prohibited learning in best ways transparent others can easily share and contribute with their learning the information received before? What about the discourse? Isn’t there the biggest potential about the learning? Is this quote true in general, or can we say something reliable about the circumstances this dream came true? how to help students to get the most/best/safest way to get inside such learning experiences?
So see this post in it’s twice meaning: First as a statement not to fallback into the old discussion about learning as the automated result of teaching and secondly following the focus on unanswered questions if we can see the learning process on long term and not as publish and learn. I would like to have some more discourse about this.
