Spot on, Rosanna :-). Learning isn't inherently social, IMHO.
About John's questions... I think you're stealthily heading to the old "standing on the shoulders of predecessors" argument for saying that all learning is ultimately social :-). You know I can't play gnoseological games, but this is August and the list is quiet, so...
Using preexisting ontologies to elaborate new knowledge does not mean that you're not elaborating new knowledge. New knowledge can be acquired this way too (elaborated vs transmitted) through experimentation or rationalization. As any patent-aware engineer knows, innovation does not happen in a vacuum, but it does happen and can be pointed at.
Of course, from certain perspectives, everything human is ultimately social... so there's hardly any meaning left in the adjective when used that way ;-). I'd rather use it in a strict sense: as implying interaction.
So, knowledge can be acquired "reading, by association with wise people"... or through observation, experimentation and innovative thinking ;-). Knowledge is created, too, not just copied and pasted. It's just harder.
en nombre de Rosanna Tarsiero
Enviado el: Lun 31/07/2006 3:02
Asunto: RE: [cp] CoP Quote
I wild guess here but knowing Miguel I'd say:
1) teaching is social because it implies *interaction* (at least between
teacher and learner), while
2) learning isn't inherently social because it can happen in many *ways*
(back to Kolb's learning styles here)
I just recently gave a workshop applying the experiential learning styles
(kolb's) to online facilitation, so Miguel might have meant something
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]