Well, my time with you has come to a close (although I'll lurk in the background until my workload prevents even this.)
I've enjoyed it. At the University of California, Santa Cruz, when I arrived to give a guest lecture, the instructor handed out copies of the Communications of ACM article by Jim Spohrer and me that started this discussion going. I tried to describe the controversy generated here--the UCSC class could not understand it. Too many believers, I guess.
The real point I hope everyone takes home is that human learning and understanding are two of our most complex behaviors, and no single approach nor single explanation will suffice. Not only are there apt to be multiple brain mechanisms involved, but the huge differences among people and cultures translates into huge style differences. No single approach will suffice.
Actually, that is a good place to start with my responses to the last topic on this forum: mental models and the generality of knowledge and skill.
[quoting Tripp, 5 Apr 96] I would like to start a discussion of this topic: General skills do not exist.
My argument: Skills are always specific, and the more skilled you are the more specific they become.
Well, says me, strong statements are usually useful in clearing the air, but seldom hold up in practice.
Once upon a time, psychologists believed in general intelligence and general knowledge (many still do). The "g" of IQ test fame was a measure of general ability. One could train people how to study, how to think, how to problem solve. Today, the pendulum has swung to the other extreme: most skills and abilities are very domain specific. Expertise in one area has little to do with expertise in another.
My view, wouldn't you know, is in-between. In fact, take the specific hypothesis for a moment. Dissect any two areas, skills, or educational or practical domains into their constituent parts and I bet that there will be considerable overlap, even if very specific components, even if the two topics are chosen to be very different from one another. Thus, learning to focus attention or to practice, or dissection of complex problems into simpler ones will apply across domains.
Indeed, Steve's discussion of auto driving made the point by relying upon general knowledge:
I rely not on skills, but on knowledge of driving to get by. ... Thus knowledge has generality, but (true) skills do not. Skills don't transfer to unfamiliar situations, but knowledge does.
Not clear that I could distinguish between skills and knowledge. Nor that I would want to.
Thus, I agree with half of his conclusion:
1. If skills are not general (only knowledge is general) then an educational system that emphasizes skills and stigmatizes ("I can always look that up.") Knowledge, will have serious shortcomings.
Well, this is why Rumelhart and I said tuning was necessary. I may know that multiplication is repeated addition, but that won't help me solve a complex multiplication problem: the specific algorithm and multiplication table will help. (Or better yet, the skill to use a calculator or computer.)
He also states:
2. People who are trying to teach general thinking skills are trying to do the impossible.
No, I disagree, but probably what I will call General thinking skill you will call knowledge, so that means we do agree. (?)
I am trying to learn Japanese again. In order to do this you probably need to know at least 100,000 words and expressions, plus maybe 10,000 ways of writing those words and expressions. I am annoyed when people minimize the importance of learning "facts." You cannot just "look these up." This is serious educational work.
Why would anyone disagree? The only thing I would add is that the learning of those thousands of vocabulary items (such as Kanji) is dramatically simplified by having a conceptual framework. In fact, the more terms you know, the easier it is to learn yet another. There are numerous frameworks. One is to build on similar terms, such as the relationship between the "Kyoto" and "Tokyo." Another is to provide a conceptualization of the shape of the Kanji character and the meaning of the item, as in the shapes for sun, moon, man, woman, river. Note that the conceptualization does not have to be historically accurate. It just has to be something that the mind can grab hold of and build upon. The very same principles hold for teaching English spelling. Just sheer recitation is guaranteed to be inefficient.
[quoting Cassidy, 5 Apr 96] This reminds me of a perpetual argument I have with our local community college. I have been teaching various computer courses there on and off for 10+ years and they are very high on teaching specific application programs (Word Perfect, Lotus 1-2-3, Paradox, etc.) and don't allow instructors to stray from this list. My argument is that they should be teaching word processing (knowledge) NOT Word Perfect (skill)...
The community college is maximizing short-term gains at the expense of long-term. Even if the specific skills argument is 100% correct--in fact, especially if it is correct--this is a bankrupt policy. One update of the program, or a company merger, or failure, and poof, the knowledge is wasted.
In one sense they should really be learning general skills. But you know, usually too abstract to be useful. It is also unmotivating (that is, boring). This best way I know to teach general skills is to teach several specific ones first, then reflect upon the common principles. Teach Word Perfect and Lotus 1-2-3. Compare a word processor with a spreadsheet. Say, "Oh, I see." Learn that there are a tiny number of basic principles that any application observes, and then thousands of arbitrary procedures.(This also helps the student by preventing them from feeling stupid. Don't feel stupid that you can't learn that key F25 does this, or that control-shift-escape-P does that.) General principle: the designers needed some way to do it, and at 3 a.m., someone came up with that. No wonder it is weird. The students need where to look up the weird methods when they need it.
So I would still teach the specific applications, but I would emphasize the weirdness, the arbitrary nature of the commands, and emphasize the general activities that are there and some general procedures for figuring out how to figure out how to work a new application, or a new platform (Unix, OS/2, Windows, MacOS, ...)
In closing, take home the general principles that I have stated: don't worry too much about the specific statements.