Discussion Questions for Feb 2, 2009
Question #1
The apparently fascinating example of the cottage cheese portion control learning is mentioned by both Resnick and Young. I’m not sure how I could avoid creating a question around this incident. Both authors use the exact same example to examine learning in two different ways. Resnick describes the learning as an interaction between the environment and the learner. The physical material one works with is contextualized and becomes part of the learning. In the Weight Watchers case, the cottage cheese becomes part of the process. Young, on the other hand, talking about ecological psychology, sees the same example in a different way. He explains that it is the action, or the “whole-body activity” rather than the “in the head process” which enables learning. Further, Young posits, the intention of the new goal (created by the context of Weight Watchers) must be created and then combine with the action in order to solve the problem and create learning.
To come to my potion of cottage cheese, I would never have thought to pat it out, divide it into 4, and then separate 3 of the 4 parts. I would have done the math so I would have the correct portion in the first place. Granted, there is nothing saying my way is “better,” just different. What intervening variables are possibly at work here?
Question #2
Salomon and Perkins mention the “dark side” of social learning. What an individual learns (or, I argue know) may “subvert rather than abet collective ends” or “what is learned by the collective does not necessarily benefit an individual learner.” While we have certainly “advanced” as a society since these writings have been published, there is still an emphasis in most schools on individual learning—at least at a K-12 level. Standards are still based on individual scores. In the “real world” a lot of the training that still goes on is individual based (for example assessment centers). Is it the “dark side” of social learning that is limiting its application or is it habit?
