Talk:Learning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The first sentence seems very long, I am removing "either individually or collaboratively" which doesn't seem to add anything. Also, the statement "Whatever you learn should be commited to memory" appears pretty random and doesn't really fit in, so I'm taking that out too for the time being.
-
- Go right ahead, this article still needs a lot of work. I'll look into it, but help me out. This seems a failed CotW in any case, but we can improve it all the same. -- Cugel 20:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- To limit learning to a measurable change in behaviour is highly problematic and rooted in the very dated behaviourist perspective. Behaviourism is useful when physical behaviour is the focus such as learning to cook and learning to control a class, but when abstract knowledge and understanding is sought, theories of Piaget (constructivism) and Vygotsky (sociocultural theory) are essential, as well as situated learning theory and others. If this sort of stuff included on this site, then i withdraw the complaint, but the definition of learning itself must certainly be changed.
-
I don't understand this sentence: "Learning is sense making that enables manifestation of purpose". Since an encyclopaedia should be intelligible to the 'intelligent layman', I would hope that some elucidation of the sentence might be added to the article.
I don't understand that sentence either, and learning is my area of study. I'm going to delete it. Furthermore, is this paragraph neccessary or useful?
-
- Harnessing learning as process is becoming very important to large scale innovation management. An individual's personal purpose is key to that person applying learning to new behavior in their work or their life. As they are exposed to new information, their willingness to apply their newfound knowledge is key to creating sustained value. Organizational change results from behavior potential being realized.
In the neuroscience section, while it is true that an intense experience may prevail over a less intense experience, in terms of learning, it is also true that we are pre-disposed to make certain associations over others. So, saying that a stronger experience will always prevail is not altogether true.
Contents |
[edit] Improvement drive
Public education is currently nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. You can support the article by voting for it there.--Fenice 20:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Tag
Please indicate which sections need work. Simply to add the tag is not as helpful as giving some indication where to start. This article was a wiki-wide collaboration so good faith was clearly involved in its production. I will leave this note for 1 week before rm'g the tag if no response is had. --Ancheta Wis 09:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The section on non-formal learning definitely needs a cleanup the links should have been placed in the external pages section and the writing was not in the proper style Mytchill 23:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] babies
"Most people will smile back at babies who gaze at them and smile."
this caption made me grin - I like to scowl at babies to test their reaction :p
--Froth 20:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Possibly broaden the topic to include animals learning behaviour and how its similar to humans?
This article seems to be very human orientated and focuses a lot on using examples of schooling as in teacher in a class teaching students. Would it be possible to user broader examples, such as how animals learn to hunt, and their techniques, including how some other animals are using tools (eg Ravens, Apes, Dolphins, etc) and how that could have possibly come to be and the processes they would have likely learnt by? The article I find starts off using a lot of complex terminology and its hard to follow, possibly tone it down a bit so its bit more lamen in the first paragraph explaining the very basics of learning and what the article is likely to outline? Feel free to delete this bit from the discussion in the future. (currently march 2007) --Docjp 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)--Docjp 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)--Docjp 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)--Docjp 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC) I know that those individuals who operate primarily or perhaps even exclusively fromt he Left-Hemisphere of their brains [hereafter referred to by the symbol "[L-H]"] are quite serious when they suggest that animal learning has some relevance to the learning of human beings. I also know they are not capable of cognizing the difference between animals and human beings relative to the evolutionary status of the two.... simply because this difference cannot be comprehended by using the [L-H] alone because the difference is Esoteric, and the [L-H] is physically limited to the physical plane of reality.
That there is a growing number of us capable of operating within the Esotericv realms of Man, and thus capable of perceiving both the MIND and Spiritual realms of Man, the topic of "learning" must be expanded to include the acquisition of Knowledge as DEc, or Direct Esoteric communication [which means use of the faculty of "intuition"]. This is a new concept for many individuals, and one that is beyond the grasp of a substantial number of individuals. It is not something that one can, by reading more, studying more, or expanding ones vocabulary and thinking capacity do anything about. The degree to which one can or cannot perceive the sublte concepts relative to the Esoteric dimensions of the human being has to do with ones level of Apapsyche [a new and more viable substitute for the old term "consiciousness" which is no longer useful].
I would like to offer the following for consideration:
--Docjp 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)--Docjp 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)--Docjp 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)--Docjp 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC) There is another form of acquiring Knowledge [capital "K" indicates this type of Knowledge is of an absolute nature] which comes through "intuition", which is possible when the Attn Aspect of your Apapsyche [new term to replace that of "consciousness" because "consciousness" no longer refers to the Esoteric and non-physical planes exclusively, whereas Apapsyche does refer to (and with one exception only), operates within the Spiritual realm exclusively].
That one exception is the Attn Aspect of your Apapsyche. Apapsyche is defined as: The Operational Energy of your Soul. It operates using two Aspects: The Attn Aspect, which has the ability (since it consists of Neutral Spiritual Energy -same Energy as your Soul) to instantly enter any of the three realms which make-up the whole of Man by simply adopting the vibrational energy of the realm it is entering. The Awar Aspect has the ability to "experience", and the Awar Aspect always follows the Attn Aspect, and what the Attn Aspect is focused upon is what the Awar Aspect is experiencing.
When you are "thinking" the Atten Aspect is fixed within the Left-Hemisphere of your brain. What the Awar Aspect of your Apapsyche is experiencing while your Attn Aspect is in the [L-H] of your brain is physical phenomena. In order for you to "intuit", the Attn Aspect of your Apapsyche must shift into your Apapsyche KE [the Knowledge/Empathy aspect of your Apapsyche] and while focused within your Apapsyche KE, one or more "bits" of Knowledge may be Known... but as soon as your Attn Aspect of Apapsyche shifts into the [L-H] of your brain [which is our "habit"] what you were experiencing as "Knowledge" is gone.
What one intuits is not accidential, nor capricious, but is intended to "guide" one and enhance ones understanding by applying ones own stored Knowledge to some aspect of ones present life to which such Knowledge is pertinent.
Everything within the physical plane of existence is linear, accumulative, and builds... one item upon another. Within the Astral plane [the immediate inner plane within oneself], within the Causal plane [the second inner plane within oneself], and within ones Spiritual realm [at ones Core], all communication is of direct perception and in the form of a whole concept. That is, everything one needs to fully comprehend something is contained in the concept of which one becomes aware. Unfortunately, when one intuits such a "concept" and then instantly ones Attn Aspect shifts into the [L-H] of ones brain...[the reason for this is fear of the "unknown"] the only parts of the concept one can comprehend are those for which some physical plane terms may "sort of" apply. For this reason, and other reasons, it would be both evolutionarily beneficial and life altering for us as a species to encourage and focus children upon the development of their Apapsyches relative to the faculty of intuition.
Of course to do this, we must first encourage adults to commense dealing with their little known fear of the "unknown" within themselves... because it is this fear that prevents them from allowing children to naturally develop this ability to access and utilize intuition.... via the [R-H] of their brains. That this little known fear of the unknown has been permanently incorporated into mental health as denial of the Esoteric within Man largely prevents the West from evolving naturally. --Docjp 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)--Docjp 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)--Docjp 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)--Docjp 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC) --Docjp 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC) More on this can be found at[[ < http://www.geocieits.com/minderid>]] which is my website, and anyone may quote from or copy any part thereof.≤± --Docjp 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)--Docjp 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)--Docjp 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)--Docjp 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Go easy on the signatures my friend, you only get so many. Richard001 09:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Learning (animals) should be a topic in of itself, and this article should include a notice it's human-specific. J. Hall • (Talk) 05:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's a bit of both at the moment. Shouldn't the animals banner be kept until it is changed from that? Richard001 06:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Your right it is... and since this really falls under the purview of animal behavior (and there seems to be a lot of interest in the topic) I'll leave it at your discretion. J. Hall • (Talk) 15:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Put it somewhere in "Play"
I found this piece from the article that I think should belong in the play section rather than the Observation section, as it talks about how children can play to learn:
The sandbox (sandpit) in a playground is an example of a location where children can learn by experience. It is instructive to watch smaller children on a merry-go-round, for example, who naturally push it more slowly than the larger, older, more experienced ones. In order for a little one to get on the merry-go-round, they might simply grab a bar and drag their feet in the sand, while holding on. This slows down the rotation, which allows the little one to climb on, under the oversight of a supervisor, to ensure their physical safety.
[edit] Gross Bias
Good job on the construction so far everyone, but the scope of what classifies as "learning" seems limited here. I think this page should stay limited to a general definition, and that more dense topics associated with learning should have their own pages. DrBrunson (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. my HTML is rusty, so please edit my post for any errors and discrepancies; thank you.
>>I agree. The scope needs to be broadened, and the sub-topics need to be specified. The article focuses on different implications of the word, yet doesn't specify them as different areas. e.g. Learning as a cognitive/biological process requires a very different conception from the conventional sense of "acquiring knowledge/skill," and that is not conveyed at all here. - 99.231.5.33 (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
! header 1 ! header 2 ! header 3 |- | row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |- | row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3--71.13.223.75(talk) 22:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Media:Bold text#REDIRECT Small Text
[edit] Neuroscience of learning
The introductory section on physiology was unseemly - I've changed it but it is still wanting. It alluded to the current hypothesis about how learning is implemented in the nervous system. Although it has some support, it by no means should be stated as fact. The entire "pathway forming" spiel is just quasi-scientific prattle. The current dogma is that learning is effected mainly by tweaking the efficacy of synapses (such as in LTP and LTD). While there is some evidence of synapse formation (and elimination!!!) during learning (e.g. - Kandel's seminal work on the Aplysia) this has not been proven to be the case in mammals (and currently cutting edge research employing 2-photon imaging is conducted in hope of unravelling this mystery). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomerfekete (talk • contribs) 18:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)