[quoting Wild, 2 Aug 96] But surely its the content, rather than process or medium, that makes the difference here--would Rod's dog-walking experience have been as notable if interrupted by a sardine and its family, as by the whale?
Gimme a break guys. You now turn Rod's personal experience into a continuation of your specious argument. Medium? Content? Rod was receptive, he was observant, he noticed the wonder of what he saw, he internalized it, reacted with emotion, he took enjoyment from it, he reported it to others and no doubt he will remember it with some degree of fidelity in years to come. He reacted in a personal and unique way to a set of circumstances. No cataloguing of types of man/mammal/fish interaction, nor prescription of content, no minute variation of the situation would have made one scrap of difference to the fact that HE made the interaction and someone else (e.g., a whaler captain) would have reacted in a different way.
That's why the original research that gave rise to this whole thread (trying to relate learning outcomes to types of interaction) is arguably likely to be unrewarding. We're dealing with people here, folks, the ultimate variable.
Or perhaps the breed of dog made a difference.