From hartel@calshp.cals.wisc.edu Tue Nov 28 17:15:39 1995 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu by sea.cs.wisc.edu; Tue, 28 Nov 95 17:15:37 -0600; AA28228 Received: from calshp.cals.wisc.edu by lucy.cs.wisc.edu; Tue, 28 Nov 95 17:15:36 -0600 Received: from [144.92.197.31] by calshp.cals.wisc.edu; id AA145610713; 1.37.109.16/42; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 17:18:33 -0600 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 17:18:33 -0600 Message-Id: <199511282318.AA145610713@calshp.cals.wisc.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list From: hartel@calshp.cals.wisc.edu Subject: Summary - 11/28 Attendees: Kathy, Dean, Mike, Kurt, Rich and Chris (for a half hour) Activities: Kathy has begun summarizing our problem tree analyses, although had not completed the Facilities branch. She was unable to copy another group's efforts for us as she changed software packages. Our assignment from last week was to draw or sketch our version of the learning process on an overhead transparency. Four of us had done this and we presented them to the group to initiate discussion on learning. Interesting that we all used different analogies to describe learning, or at least certain aspects of learning. Kurt's analogy was of a person climbing a mountain. There were many twists to this analogy. These include, but were not limited to: each person reaches their own vista; each person follows their own special path to either the top or the desirable scenery on the other side; there is an energy barrier to be overcome to learning, etc. etc. Mike's analogy was a confrontation, or war as Kathy calls it, approach. Kathy noted that it's interesting to see how different personalities come out in these diagrams or models. Mike gave a few examples of topics that he has confronted and found difficult - things like the uncertainty principle, and the German subjunctive. The model proposes that we assess the difficulty of and time investment (is that what you had Mike?) required for us to learn such topics. Attempts at understanding these topics lead to either successes or failures, which can further lead to either denial or successful, confident learning. A second confrontation is needed to really cement the understanding. Dean used the EE model for learning. Example - we learn by watching (and then imitating) others; and Experimentation - trial-and-error approach to hands on learning. We felt that both probably had to occur, for the most part, to give the best chance at learning. My analogy was the radiation model, developed during a lecture when I should have been paying more attention. The model has information emanating from a source (a teacher?), and accounts for different aspects of a learner's ability to correctly (or incorrectly) absorb the radiated information. I have added input from the other senses, but this model probably applies most to boring lectures. We ended our session by beginning to pull common threads together from each of our models. More on this next week. Assignment: For those of you who haven't developed your own learning model, we will ask you to present next week. So please draw your model of learning on a transparency and be prepared to discuss with the group next week. Rich ****************************************************************** * R.W. Hartel Dept of Food Science * * hartel@calshp.cals.wisc.edu University of Wisconsin * * ph: (608) 263-1965 1605 Linden Dr. * * FAX: (608) 262-6872 Madison, WI 53706 * ******************************************************************