[Martin Taylor 970211 12:00]
Bruce Gregory (970211.1130 EST)]
Bruce Abbott (970211.1105 EST)
> I take Tracy's "entrenched conflict" to mean that reorganization is not
> taking place; the student's goal has become to defeat the system (assert
> autonomy) rather than to do what is required of her by the teacher. How
> does this happen? Assume that the student has been assigned a task that the
> student cannot successfully complete without undergoing some reorganization
> (learning). The student attempts to comply but is soon frustrated because
> she lacks the necessary knowledge or has not yet grasped how to apply that
> knowledge to the task so as to complete it successfully.Indeed. Even when not rebelling, it is easy to shift one's goal
from "understanding" to "getting the right answer to the
problem". One can answer all the problems at the end of the
chapter by plugging numbers into different algorithms, but never
reorganize at the level necessary to understand the principles
behind the problems.
For sure. That's a corollary of the analysis I proposed yesterday, to which
Bruce A was replying. The good teacher has some guesses (or better) as to
what perceptual variables the student is attempting to control, and is
conflicting with those that the student "ought not" to be controlling.
The good teacher tries not to conflict with reference perceptions (whether
or not they yet exist) that involve understanding the material, and to
conflict with those that involve "defeating the system." The bad teacher
fails to conflict with controlled perceptions that involve _only_ plugging
in numbers (though in itself plugging in is not bad--it's the _only_ that makes
it bad). How can the teacher encourage learning how to do the plugging-in
that provides the tools for problem-solving, and at the same time discourage
the "_only_" aspect? Surely this is done by setting the conflict at the
higher level--the level that has not been learned. In other words, try to
provide problems that require the plugged-in tools to be used, but for which
the way to do the plugging is not a repetition of something already taught.
I'm reminded of Gordon Pask's three-level approach to successful communication.
At level 1, the listener can repeat the words that the talker said. At
level 2, the listener can paraphrase them, and at level 3 the listener can
come at the "same" thing in a different context. As an example, suppose
the talker says "a circle". At level 1 the listener can say "you said 'a
circle'", at level 2 the listener can say "you mean the locus of points
equidistant from a given point"; and at level 3 the listener can say "like
the rings in a pond after you threw a stone in, or what you get when you
cut a pipe straight across." The good teacher could try to conflict with
level 1 and possibly level 2 answers, and to provide self-image-enhancing
comments when level 3 answers occur (even if they are wrong and need to
be opposed in further conflict).
What is "entrenched" conflict? One way of looking at it is geometric. The
situation is such that there is a very small probability that any Hebbian
reorganization will lead to an improvement. Most of the ways out of where
you are lead "uphill". But saltatory reorganization can always lead to
a situation in which there is a better probability of successful Hebbian
reorganization--even if the "teacher" is simply controlling for a
continued high-level conflict, such as at the principles (not "principal"
in the school context:-) level. So "entrenched" means that there is no
easy way out--no smooth transition to a mode of control that effectively
supports the student's high-level references. And even here, the saltatory
reorganization need not be within the student. It depends on whether the
teacher is controlling for the conflict to continue to exist.
The deepest entrenched conflicts are those at very high perceptual levels,
such as those between people of different religious dogmas. People die
because of those. Conflicts at lower perceptual levels need not be so
entrenched--there are usually other ways of satisfying the higher-level
reference values.
Martin