I liked Ana's depiction of the learning process as three-way, and the
student-teacher interaction as an important part of that three-way process.
I agree also with Francoise that it makes sense to distinguish interaction
with the nonhuman world from interaction with other humans. Even
infants show different patterns of attention cycling when interacting
with a toy as compared to a human--as well as different levels of
interest in face-like as compared with non-facelike objects! It would
be difficult for me to imagine that human-human interaction does not
hold a privileged position within a sociocultural perspective, even
if it is understood that all human activity (whether solitary or not)
is mediated socially, and that much of this mediation occurs through
nonhuman objects such as tools and other material artifacts. Anyway,
I thought it made sense to privilege the human relational aspect of
learning and learning activities. Yes, I can learn by reading and
watching documentaries and so on, but there is something special about live
interaction with a live human being.
Paul and Jay mention the gap between the *is* of science and the *ought*
of policy, and the role of values in this gap. I agree with this
wholeheartedly--and of course it is questionable that there really is
and *is* of science, since value-laden judgments regarding what
constitutes a legitimate conceptual framework for the posing of
specific questions is always a part of what we consider to be
basic research and theory-making. THe values are there from the
beginning of our endeavors, not tacked on at the end when we suddenly
come to "practical" or "applied" issues. So perhaps my value question
would be something like: "If learning is a socially mediated activity
(and I believe that it is), then doesn't it make sense for us to structure
classrooms in such a way as to maximize and capitalize on social
interaction as a vehicle for learning?" This is not to say that
students can't learn listening to lectures or watching videotapes
or reading essays or whatever else they wish to do; but, if we
truly believe that cognition and learning are socially mediated,
then why would we want to leave the interactional component out
of the classroom? I have always been interested in writings about
kindergartens and elementary schools in Japan (Merry White, Cathy Lewis,
Harold Stevenson, etc.), and the ways in which the group functions
as the unit of learning there rather than the individual. Obviously,
we can't simply transport one element of an entire whole from Japan
to the U.S. and expect it to work, but I do use small groups in my
classes, and though this is initially foreign to my undergrads, they
usually end up appreciating the unique opportunities this setting
provides.
Dewey, I certainly never meant to suggest that we should focus only
on observable behavior. I was simply wondering, How can I feel
certain that my students are actually learning anything? Jay, I agree
that part of the culprit here is the "test"--and you'll notice that
I never implied that "testing" could tell us whether or not real
learning was occurring! My question is far more fundamental: what IS
"real learning", and how do we recognize it?
In terms of this fundamental aspect of my question, I have gleaned the
following: (a) learning is to some extent generated by the learner;
(b) learning occurs within human interactions; (c) teachers MAY be able to
arrange things so that students are more likely to learn.
I'd appreciate hearing other thoughts on this matter.
Robin