Reflections on Learning and Teaching

I have really been struggling with the concept of evaluating learning and teaching. I do a lot of it constantly, both formally and informally (and even tacitly). At the heart of this issue lies the idea of learning and what it is. I have really struggled with ontological ideas of learning. I feel like in some ways that the ontology of learning is overlooked as if it is trivial. I feel like the sheer complexity of describing learning has discouraged people from focusing on it. I do not think we adequately understand learning. The evaluation of instruction ought to take into account how well the instruction facilitates learning, but in order to do so, a clear and definitive understanding of learning must be determined. And so I struggle with what has already been proposed in terms of descriptive learning theory. It seems as though it is either a behavior, a cognitive phenomenon, or a reality construction, or some combination of the three (although this last combinatorial option seems rare to me).

Steve Turley made the observation that Richard Feynman decided that he was going to derive all of the mathematical proofs for himself that he would use in his science. In so doing he would come to understand things for himself without having to rely on others. I have somewhat determined to do the same by starting with a more fundamental perspective of theology. And so I reason:

One central purpose of creation was to receive a physical body in order that our existence as a spirit intelligence might be enhanced. This physical body would provide the means whereby a spirit intelligence could grow, develop, progress, etc. This progress would require that the spirit and body experience together different events that would facilitate the growth of one another. From here I venture to say that the growth of the spirit through experience with the physical body and its senses constitutes learning.


There are conditions to learning however. Experience alone is not learning. Experience that leads to the growth of the spirit constitutes learning.

*** It is important to understand how a spirit grows and what factors and forces contribute to that growth. I am still seeking to understand this by study and by faith.

From these premises I make the following assertions:

1. Learning is the acquisition of experience that develops the spirit.
2. As experience is evaluated and expanded it can be shared with others. This constitutes the learning process.
3. The sharing of experience demonstrates that learning has taken place.
4. Sharing experience also leads to learning in others as it constitutes a reciprocating experience with both learner and sharer "learning".

These were just some thoughts I've had. I feel like if I could understand learning better, I could devise better instruction to facilitate learning. That is where I am going with this. What I have written may be all wrong in a few days or as I learn more, but this is where I am at. It is ok to learn more, break down our understanding, and rebuild it again to incorporate new experience.

Reductionist approach to instruction

While most instructional theorist take a prescriptive or descriptive approach to instruction, the 3-Person model offers a reductionist approach.

Take any given instructional situation. Determine (reduce) what the key elements are.
[The 3-person model reduces instruction, and therefore learning, to Roles (people), Knowledge (content and context), and Experiences (interactions)]

Once you have determined what the key elements of instruction are, determine (reduce) the key elements of each of those.
[The 3-person model reduces Roles to the L/T role, Knowledge to Purpose and Values (context) Main Idea and Validations (content), and Experience to capture, expand, teach, and evaluate]

You can further drill down into each of these elements and reduce them further but that may be unnecessary.

Now reduce the complexity of instruction down to 3 people. With 3 people, you have all of the interaction possibilities that you would have with a larger classroom or social environment. Reducing the interaction to 2 people is simply insufficient because interactions in classroom and social environments do not occur in isolated dyad relationships. A simple consideration of these facts will be enough to support the reduction of learning and teaching to 3 people instead of 2 people.

The reduction approach is open to interpretation and flexible because is is not prescriptive. It is also not perfectly descriptive because it does not claim to identify every element of learning and instruction, only the most prominent or important ones.

The power of the reductionist approach is that it minimizes complexity and empowers individuals to channel energy into learning and instruction where that energy efficiency is maximized. That is the goal of the reductionist approach:

Minimize complexity and maximize energy efficiency

This approach will lead to breakthroughs in fields not just related to education. It can change the world as we know it...

The Relationship between Knowledge and Questions

The types of questions that people ask are indicative of their knowledge.

The more someone knows about a subject, the more informed their questions may become.

"God will not answer any questions that we are not prepared to ask".
- Susan Peterson-Gong-

When comparing how much students know about a subject, it is helpful to ask them to list their questions about the subject. I think this will indicate depth of knowledge and depth of engagement with the subject.

The more initiated one is (Legitimate peripheral participation - communities of practice theory), the more "engaged" one is, both with the subject matter and with the members of the community that possess the knowledge of the subject matter. Dialogical knowledge sharing is a communal experience (that means more than 2 people).

This is the crux of assessing depth of knowledge.