- My eBooks
- Ed Radio
More info
About
About Stephen Downes
About Stephen's Web
About OLDaily
Subscribe to Newsletters
gRSShopper
Threads Discussions
Privacy and Security Policy
Subscribe
Web - Today's OLDaily
Web - This Week's OLWeekly
Email - Subscribe
RSS - Individual Posts
RSS - Combined version
JSON - OLDaily
Viewer
Social Network
Stephen's Web and OLDaily
Half an Hour Blog
Google Plus Page
Twitter Feed
Flickr Photos
Huffington Post Blog
Slideshare
Blip TV
Professional
National Research Council Canada
Research Topics, Research Wiki, Code
Publications
Presentations
All My Articles
Contact
Email: stephen@downes.ca
Email: Stephen.Downes@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
Skype: Downes
Recognizing Learning
Responding to Rob Wall, who says:
"Literacy, of any type, is about pattern recognition, about seeing how art is like physics is like literature is like dance is like architecture is like …Literacy is not about knowing where the dots are. Literacy is not about finding dots about which you may not know. Literacy is about connecting the dots and seeing the big picture that emerges."
Yes. Exactly. This is a very key point.
Put this in context (this came up in a discussion in Den Bosch a few days ago)...
When we think about 'what being a physicist is' or 'how we know a person is a qualified physicist':
- these are (crucially) *not* redicible to a set of necessary and sufficient conditions (we can't find a list of copentencies, for example, or course outcomes, etc., thast will define a physicist).
- the way an examiner knows whether a students is a qualified physicist is not by *measuring* whether they have succeeded, but rather in *recognizing* that they have succeeded.
... and the reason for this is that the measurement is an inaccurate abstraction - it consists in identifying a few (salient) features of 'being a physicist' and elevating these to the position of *defining* being a physicist.
But this abstraction:
- is not the same as 'being a physicist' - it will typically include things that (in certain contexts) are unimportant, and leave out things that are important
- is not an *objective* account of 'being a physicist' - it reflects a skewed perspective that reflects the biases and prejudices of the person doiung the defining (this is especially apparent in a rapidly changing field, where a person may be 'recognized' as being an authority even though he/she does not satisfy traditional 'criteria' (competences, outcomes) defining an 'authority'
(That's why we do not want to collapse the individual data points in a 'team' - why we don't want to define a 'common goal' - because this obscures the pattern in the team membership, and prevents us from *recognizing* things that are important resulting from the interactions of the members).
Comments
Your comments always remain your property, but in posting them here
you agree to license under the same terms as this site
(CC By-NC-SA). If your comment is offensive it will
be deleted.
Automated Spam-checking is in effect. If you are a registered
user you may submit links and other HTML. Anonymous users cannot
post links and will have their content screened - certain words are prohibited
and your comment will be analyzed to make sure it makes sense.
