“Natural” and “artificial” learning

By Gordon Rugg

There’s a widespread belief that there’s a useful distinction between “natural” learning and “artificial” learning.

There’s also a widespread belief that Elvis is still alive.

In this article, I’ll explain why the natural/artificial distinction is worse than useless in the context of education, and I’ll describe a more useful, solidly-grounded set of categorisations.

Natural and unnatural skills: The handaxe and the razor

header3

Continue reading

Advertisements

Parallel processing and “natural” learning: Inside the black box

By Gordon Rugg

There’s a widespread idea that before entering formal education, people learn via “natural” learning.

It’s a warm, cosy concept; “natural” evokes thoughts of wildflowers and meadows and beauty and fluffy kittens. There’s even a certain amount of truth in it; formal education does generally involve something different from non-formal education. However, when you start looking for clear, practical, explanations of how “natural” learning actually works, you encounter a sudden silence.

There are plenty of descriptions of what “natural learning” looks like, but there’s very little discussion of how it might work, in terms of plausible cognitive or neurophysiological mechanisms. This absence makes a sceptical reader start to wonder whether there actually is such a thing as “natural learning” and whether this strand of education theory is chasing something that doesn’t exist.

In fact, there is a well-understood mechanism that accounts for the phenomena being lumped together as “natural learning” and “formal learning” (or whatever term is being used in juxtaposition to “natural learning”). However, when you look in detail at this mechanism, it soon becomes apparent that using a two-way distinction between “natural” and “non-natural” is simplistic and misleading. This is one reason that the “natural/non-natural” debate in education theory is still rumbling on, after more than two thousand years of fruitless and inconclusive argument.

In this article, I’ll discuss the mechanisms of parallel processing and serial processing, and I’ll outline some implications for education theory and practice.

The joys of nature and of fluffy kittens – not always quite the same thing…

fluffy kittens2

Original images from Wikimedia

 

Continue reading

Education and nature, part 1

By Gordon Rugg

There’s a debate going on in education theory about “natural” learning versus what happens in formal education. It’s not likely to end any time soon, because it’s framed in the wrong terms. This article is about how the framing relates to a more widespread set of intertangled issues involving beliefs about nature and the natural. It’s a broad overview; I’ll deal with some of the issues separately in later articles.

As is often the case, one key relevant phenomenon was first noticed a long time ago. The ancient Greeks were well aware of it; there’s a fair chance that earlier civilisations had also spotted it.

As is also often the case, the ancient Greeks proceeded to invent an explanation for the phenomenon which was very plausible, and which was also not just wrong, but actually worse than wrong, because it lured everyone off in the wrong direction for the next couple of thousand years.

Continue reading