Alan McLean wrote, among other things:
> On the other hand, a body of knowledge can be thought of as a set of
> 'rules'.
I think you are concentrating on the information in what is learned and
ignoring the format. This works for computers, which learn in only one
format (memory), but not for people, for which memory is just one
format. My argument:
For the sake of example, suppose I want to teach students how to tie
their shoes. I could observe what I do and create a verbal
description. I could teach students this verbal description, and they
could memorize it. I could test them on their ability to remember this
information. A student who could remember it probably could tie their
shoes.
My students might end up knowledge roughly the same information as me,
but their knowledge wouldn�t be stored in their brains the same way it
is stored in mine. I have a connected series of motor movements built
into my brain as a habit. And these different storage formats have
different implications. My students would be good at verbal
descriptions, but probably not so fast at actually tying their shoes.
Now to reality. Research on implicit learning has suggested that
people can learn something without being able to report what they have
learned. Presumably, they have no conscious knowledge of what they have
learned. In my published opinion, there are three types of implicit
knowledge, with habits being just one. Combined with conscious
knowledge, that makes four different types of learning.
The format in which something is learned has implications. One is for
memory. Research suggests that implicit learning is retained much
longer than explicit learning. Another is for usage. Obviously, for
verbal report, conscious knowledge is far superior than any other type
of knowledge. But the other types of learning probably are probably
better for other types of performance. For example, in one study, we
either gave subjects implicit knowledge of a rule or explicitly taught
them a collection of rules. The subjects with implicit knowledge could
use the information in an identification task better than they could
report it. The subjects with conscious knowledge could report the rules
better than they could use them.
The hardest type of learning to describe or define is what I call
mental models, and what often corresponds to what people call
understanding. For example, you have a mental model of your spouse (or
friend). You can use this mental model to predict what your spouse or
friend will do. You can also try to use this mental model to verbally
describe your spouse or friend, but that isn't a natural use of the
mental model and that format of learning isn't that good for verbal
report. Someone adept at statistics would have a mental model of
standard deviation, the t-test, statistical testing, etc. Teaching
students rules or formulas does not develop mental models.
Bob F.
