Discussion: View Thread

I like Penny Miller's definitions of the three terms. I have noticed
that those who instruct in the K-12 environment are referred to as
"teachers," and those who instruct in post-secondary community college
contexts are called "instructors." (Only in senior colleges and
universities do we get into "professor" levels.) I don't know what
significance this difference has.

I see "teaching" as referring exclusively to "direct instruction."

I don't believe anyone can really "teach," "educate," or "train." All
learning (to me) occurs because a learner decided to learn, not because
of something another person did, no matter what it's called. (This is
beyond Ana's request, I know.)

If I call myself an "educator" then I hope I would be doing what Penny
said, engaging in the "process of helping others learn how to think
versus what to think." Becoming educated means, to me, to learn how my
brain works, how to search for information when I want it, and how to use
my brain to process that information.

Training seems to be used exclusively as Penny indicated.

However, in any context, education can occur. It depends on the
participant.

Edryce

Hit a cord... both ideas together provide the whole picture.

"All learning (to me) occurs because a learner decided to learn..."
whatever you call it those around can only direct, plan, enable the
stimulus that arouses the learner desires, the "...responsibility for
positive outcomes" is the result of efforts of both the learner and the
enabler. It takes two to tango.

"If we have have people in positions of visible authority who are unwilling
or can't undertake responsibility
for positive outcomes with the relatively helpless..." notion that their
control rests upon the free independent actions of others then we may never
progress into understanding the dynamic that entice the involvement of
others to produce a desired outcome believing that coercion alone is
sufficient.

Saludos Esteban





On 3 May 99, at 10:41, Edryce Reynolds wrote:

> I don't believe anyone can really "teach," "educate," or "train." All
> learning (to me) occurs because a learner decided to learn, not because
of
> something another person did, no matter what it's called. (This is
beyond
> Ana's request, I know.)

Hmmm- that is a neat disavowal of all responsibility for outcome, if
I've ever seen one.

I presume a corollary for management would be "I don't believe any
mnager can really 'communicate' or 'direct.' All work direction (to
me) is undertaken because a worker decided to work, not because
of something another person did, no matter what it's called.

Have you ever noticed that people who direct unskilled labor are
called supervisors, ones that direct skilled laborers are called
managers and people who direct professionals are called directors
and management?

Power and effectiveness- if we have have people in positions of
visible authority who are unwilling or can't undertake responsibility
for positive outcomes with the relatively helpless- elementary school
children- well then no wonder we have issues like Columbine and
postal workers.


My best
Ann Marie
$======= Better Communications Tooling ==========$
________ http://www.in-the-mood.com
______.---, | Your most valuable corporate
// | |~ STAFF | assets just checked in....
|| _____|-|_____ __|Or did they already check out?

$======= People Capital Development =============$

On 3 May 99, at 10:41, Edryce Reynolds wrote:

> I don't believe anyone can really "teach," "educate," or "train." All
> learning (to me) occurs because a learner decided to learn, not because of
> something another person did, no matter what it's called. (This is beyond
> Ana's request, I know.)

Hmmm- that is a neat disavowal of all responsibility for outcome, if
I've ever seen one.

I presume a corollary for management would be "I don't believe any
mnager can really 'communicate' or 'direct.' All work direction (to
me) is undertaken because a worker decided to work, not because
of something another person did, no matter what it's called.

Have you ever noticed that people who direct unskilled labor are
called supervisors, ones that direct skilled laborers are called
managers and people who direct professionals are called directors
and management?

Power and effectiveness- if we have have people in positions of
visible authority who are unwilling or can't undertake responsibility
for positive outcomes with the relatively helpless- elementary school
children- well then no wonder we have issues like Columbine and
postal workers.


My best
Ann Marie
$======= Better Communications Tooling ==========$
________ http://www.in-the-mood.com
______.---, | Your most valuable corporate
// | |~ STAFF | assets just checked in....
|| _____|-|_____ __|Or did they already check out?

$======= People Capital Development =============$

ESTEBAN TREVI�O MUGUERZA wrote:

> Hit a cord... both ideas together provide the whole picture.
>
> "All learning (to me) occurs because a learner decided to learn..."
> whatever you call it those around can only direct, plan, enable the
> stimulus that arouses the learner desires, the "...responsibility for
> positive outcomes" is the result of efforts of both the learner and
> the
> enabler. It takes two to tango.
>
> "If we have have people in positions of visible authority who are
> unwilling
> or can't undertake responsibility
> for positive outcomes with the relatively helpless..." notion that
> their
> control rests upon the free independent actions of others then we may
> never
> progress into understanding the dynamic that entice the involvement of
>
> others to produce a desired outcome believing that coercion alone is
> sufficient.
>
> Saludos Esteban
>

Now we are getting somewhere! I feel like I am on Mr. Roger's
Neighborhood, and he has just asked, "Can you say 'System'?"

'Teaching' and 'learning' take place in the space 'between the toes.'
There is no knob on the side of a head that is marked 'motivation,' or
'learning.' You can't turn that knob - there is no knob! But there are
factors (in social/medical science, explanatory variables) which
influence these things. The manager/teacher must determine the nature
of those 'things,' and how they change motivations and learning. Then
tweak the factors, see if the results are close to prediction.

"Would you like a raise?" Will it make you work longer hours? Maybe.
The other day I was talking with 2 people, just laid off from a factory,
and returning for some training at a community college. They had to
remind me again that not everyone wants the money. For them, a raise
tied to longer hours would not help.

If I offer you an A, will you do an extra credit report? Not everyone
will - some feel an A is what they get for showing up, since they are so
good. Yet I straightened out one student by reducing his lab grade from
20 to 16 (out of 20 for a yeoman task, out of 600 for the course). I
told him, I thought that would let him know that substandard work got
lesser grades, and he knew how to do better.

We start by assuming that there are factors (inputs), which influence
outputs (responses). For everything. Then the question is, what output
do you want, and what are the factors (and the sign & magnitude of
coefficients) that influence /control the output? With machines, we can
assert these are fairly stable. With groups of people we can often aim
for an average, and hit it. With specific individuals it's a lot
harder.

Given this core assumption, we are discussing a system of inputs and
outputs, some of which reflect back on the input coefficients, so we
know the whole thing is frightfully non-linear. Maybe not even
explicitly solvable. But the key word is, system.

Those who refuse responsibility, are asserting that the coefficients
equal 0, or are frightened by the possibility that the coefficients are
not 0, and their subsequent responsibility. Those who grandstand their
single 'answer' usually mean they see only one significant factor. Most
systems have many, with multiple significant ones. Those who say 'it
all depends...' mean that the coefficients change under different
circumstances. Yup. Those are the toughest issues, mathematically
amenable only to simulation. But are we allowed to give up? Do you
like to fire people, shut down plants? Do you like to flunk 20% of the
freshman class? Would you like more Littletons? Retorical questions,
all.

Thank you, Esteban, for saying it all so succinctly. I apologize for my
soapbox.

Jay
--
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA

Ph: (414) 634-9100
FAX: (414) 681-1133
email: quality@a2q.com
web: http://www.a2q.com

Power to the data!