Week 1: Accidental Learning

If Tuesday's class were a newspaper article and I had to give it a title, it would most likely be something like this: "Accidental Learning Runs Rampant: Students Unaware".

This "headline" is based on a conversation we had about one of the courses in the TSTM program - what we learned, and what we didn't (or so we thought...). One of the tasks for the day was to download and install Windows XP on a virtual machine in order to install the open source software for our upcoming training sessions. While we were supposed to wait for the ITS representative to walk us through it, many of us went ahead and installed it on our own. Those of us who had taken the advanced networking course had already done this once to create a server environment, and knew what to do. While explaining that we were already done with the install, the entire subject of discussion turned to this particular class and how many of us in the major do not feel like we learned anything about advanced networking. After listening to us talk about our experiences in the course, Dr. Keane asked something along the lines of "What did you learn in the course?". To which much of the class responded with an emphatic "Nothing!". She pointed out that we already knew what to do with the install - so we must have learned something...

...and this is when I learned that Dr. Keane has an uncanny ability to take the most banal conversations (like the ones students have while in class waiting on software to install), apply a training/learning objective, and throw it back at us as if she had put it in the lesson plan for the day. She has either mastered the art of mind control in order to produce conversation to which learning theories can be applied, or she's just THAT good . Considering the likelyhood of the former option, I'm guessing it's the latter. I thought it might have been a fluke, but this has happened multiple times in the past few weeks:
Step 1: banal conversation.
Step 2: application of learning philosophy by Dr. Keane.
Step 3: realization that it IS all connected - that our experiences really do reflect the theory.
Step 4: repeat step 1.

For the record, I AM IMPRESSED... and not just because she will most likely read this (haha!). There is something to be said for a professor that can align student experiences and the theories of their expertise together in a way that seems so down to earth and, well, relevant.

But I digress... Dr. Keane was pointing out that learning happens in unexpected ways, and much of what we learn is through self-directed learning. For the sake of this blog, I'd like to call it "Accidental Learning." During this exciting adventure we'll call "Laura goes to college a decade too late," I've noticed a trend to the contrary in the mindset of students. In general, they seem to believe that:
1. learning must be intentional, and/or
2. it is preferred that ideas are given rather than discovered.
When faced with the notion that knowledge might have been gained by a more natural process, students seem surprised.

I don't want to seem judgemental or age-ist... so I'll try and clarify this observation. I think the idea of "intentional learning" is simply a product of primary and secondary education. There are times that a more cognitive or constructivist approach is taken in primary and secondary education, but it rarely is the case (with the exception of the science realm). The majority of the knowledge is presented in a more structured way - common pedagogical methods that require endless lectures and memorization of facts without applying them to the bigger picture. Students are not often encouraged to take the initial exposure to information and explore to discover/gain more knowledge.

Not too long ago, a friend mentioned in frustration that most Americans know who won American Idol, but cannot tell you the name of the first president of the United States. A little while later, I came across an article on the Science Daily website titled Rote Memorization of Historical Facts Adds to Collective Cluelessness. The article makes the same point as my friend, and mentions that many students find history to be boring, resulting in the "collective cluelessness" described in the title. History is boring if all you are looking at is memorizing dates and events without exploring the context surrounding them.

When I was much younger, I HATED history. I couldn't remember the dates, and without context to make the events relevant - I was totally uninterested. I didn't enjoy history until I "experienced" it, until I found interest in the context of all the events that led to where we are today. I am now a reformed "history-hater". I didn't realize how much I loved history until returning from a trip to Rome 4 years ago. For three days I walked around Palatine Hill, The Forum, and the Colosseum with permanent goosebumps from being in the presence of the magnificent ruins there. I've always been a bit of an architecture freak, and I especially love buildings that are remnants of forgotten times/places. Every building has a story (a history!) and when I returned from Europe, I wanted to know what the stories of the structures in the forum were. It took me at least six months to post the pictures from my trip because every time I would start to sort and upload them I'd be distracted by another building or column that intrigued me. This always resulted in hours of internet research on roman history, and the history of that spot that I stood in months earlier.

It wasn't until I began to experience history first hand that I found it interesting. That is why a constructivist approach works so well - the knowledge affects you and becomes relevant. It is this relevance that allows you to learn, even if it is "accidental".

Week 1: In the Gray

The first day of class, we were asked what we thought "training" and "learning" meant. I found this exercise quite interesting. I wasn't quite sure why at the time, but after giving it some thought it came to me: this was not a black and white question... this was a question of that "gray" area of personal interpretation that is mostly ignored in a structured educational environment.

As students, we are accustomed to memorizing definitions of terms and regurgitating those definitions to make a grade. My experience in school has been that when asked what a concept means, personal opinions or interpretations have no place. The definition in the text is what is accepted, and that is that. This model of learning is good for factual knowledge, but what happens when you need to apply that knowledge? A memorized definition can only take you so far in life...

I believe that the true test of the knowledge we have gained comes when we have to define a concept in our own words, or apply those concepts. Being asked to give our own definitions of "training" and "learning" was an eye opening exercise - and one that helped me connect the dots between the definition and the concept.

In class, we were first asked what our idea of "training" was. I defined training as learning or acquiring new skills through various means. Examples of these means could be (but are not limited to) lecture, technology, activities, or exploration. Then we were asked what we thought "learning" was. This definition didn't come to me quite as quickly, but I decided that my idea of learning was absorbing the information gained during training, to be able to put the information to use.

After the exercise, I noticed that in my definitions for both concepts I used the other term. Since the word "learning" was used in the "training" definition and vice versa, I wonder...

...is there really such a huge difference between Training and Learning?

Like any good TSTM student would, I turned to the web for advice. There, I found a good bit of discussion on the topic - and many of the articles ask the same question: What is the difference?

An article from the Fast Company website, titled "Education vs. Training vs. Learning" makes some interesting points about the concepts, such as whether we would want a surgeon to be well educated or well trained. In the end, the author admits to using the terms interchangeably and suggests that the difference between them does not make for a productive argument.

Another opinion I found was on a blog called "Library Bites." The post was in response to another article, and her argument was valid. On training and learning, she thinks "Training gets done to you. Learning is something an individual does themselves." She maintains that the terms are indeed two separate concepts and adds something that I think is quote-worthy:

The best learning happens by self-discovery, when two very important elements are present. In order for anyone to truly learn, they must be

a) engaged in their own discovery process and
b) be motivated to learn.

and neither of these really require a "trainer." :)

After reading some articles and thinking about my definitions, where do I stand on the training versus learning argument? Well, the answer is... in the gray. The terms seem to have a cyclical relationship to each other, making them hard to define. However, I'll try anything once... so here's what I think:

1. Overall, I believe that "training" and "education" are closely related concepts. Their use depends on the context.
2. "Training" and "Education" are often (but not exclusively) the catalyst for "learning".

What do you think? Is learning dependent on training? Is it simply the by-product of training, or something that has to be cultivated?