From ALLEY@coefac.engr.wisc.edu Mon Feb 5 09:04:11 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu by sea.cs.wisc.edu; Mon, 5 Feb 96 09:04:09 -0600; AA01179 Received: from serv0.cae.wisc.edu by lucy.cs.wisc.edu; Mon, 5 Feb 96 09:04:07 -0600 Received: from coefac.engr.wisc.edu (coefac.engr.wisc.edu [144.92.4.28]) by serv0.cae.wisc.edu (8.6.12 CAE/8.6.10) with ESMTP id JAA11365 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 1996 09:04:05 -0600 Received: from COEFAC/SpoolDir by coefac.engr.wisc.edu (Mercury 1.21); 5 Feb 96 09:04:06 -600 Received: from SpoolDir by COEFAC (Mercury 1.21); 5 Feb 96 09:03:51 -600 From: "Michael Alley" Organization: University of Wisconsin - Madison To: eta-people@lucy.cs.wisc.edu Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 9:03:26 CDT Subject: Minutes from CCLE Meeting (2/2/96) Reply-To: alley@engr.wisc.edu Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail/Mac (v2.1.2) Message-Id: BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF 2/2 MEETING: We discussed aspects that belonged to step 4 (Reinforcement) and step 5 (Ownership) of our model on learning. Ended up with more questions than answers. DETAILED SYNOPSIS OF 2/2 MEETING: First, we reviewed the major parts of our model on how we learn: 1) Preliminary, 2) Exposure, 3) Internal Processing, 4) Reinforcement, and 5) Ownership. >From this review, we raised questions about whether we have already made false assumptions in our model. Curt asked, whether the steps of learning are binary, as a flow chart progression would suggest? I asked, whether each subject was inherently learned in different ways? Dave went further and questioned, whether individuals learned the same subject the same way and even whether a single individual could not learn the same subject in multiple ways? In discussing the aspects of step 4 (Reinforcement), Curt presented a list of items that he had come up with: practice (exercises); application; reflection and self-explanation; teaching others; relation to previous (lower-level) material in the same subject; relation to material in other subjects; and time. Discussion followed about the role and value of testing in this step. For some reason and I'm not sure exactly why, we began discussing factors that motivate people to learn, especially to learn on their own: curiosity, desire for glory, the challenge of it all, creative joy. Then the conversation came back to ownership and whether creation was the test for ownership. QUESTIONS THAT WILL UNDOUBTABLY RESURFACE Does the kind of learning that we are proposing work for subjects such as dancing? Is creation an extension of learning? Why are we using solely words, as opposed to words and images, to develop our learning model? THINGS FROM THE MEETING THAT NO ONE WRITES DOWN BUT THAT EVERYONE REMEMBERS Dean told a great story, in relation to motivation, about how after paper deliveries on Saturday morning his Dad took him and his brother to Dunkin Donuts. Kathy brought in a paper about positive kicks-in-the-shorts and negative kicks-in-the-shorts as applied to management of companies. Dave and Chris created a new motif for our discussions--fanning the pilot lights within students. Jim raised the concern that if we made all the students self-learners we would be without jobs. Other topics: Picasso's cubism, crossword puzzles, the Socratic method.