I started digging into this with the comment on "Leonardo had it easy", and it made for some interesting reading and thinking. Wow, this is a big one! There are so many theories of learning, and implications about learning that its nearly overwhelming!
So the basics - What do we mean by learning? Basically its "to aquire (knowlege, habit, skill etc) by experience, exposure, instruction, or the like.
Pretty open ended, but it addresses the fact that we humans are pretty much learning machines. Everything we experience basically changes us. Quite often though the change is either not very great, or somewhat unexpected direction! The thing that really interests me though, it how do people generally perceive how the act of learning works. What is the conceptual model they use?
Yay, another bucket of worms that just keeps on going. But the general consensus is that there is a particular learning curve, or more precisely an S curve. The initial change (in behaviour or knowledge) is hard, followed by a period of reinforcement which tapers off over time. Each unit of "effort" then, gives a different result depending on how much you know. The initial investment is hard, then it gets easier to improve, until it becomes expensive to get any significant improvement.
Now after this, things get very confusing and there are lots of different opinions and experiences. But the thing that struck me was the pretty consistent bias towards "education" or instruction. ie how one person transfer's or imparts stuff to another. The idea of an autodidact (ie, someone who learns without formal instruction) has weird implications in a lot of theories, and is often quietly left unmentioned.
This is also a prevalent attitude amongst most people I know or have heard about. There is a HUGE amount of emphasis on "certification" and "courses". You can only be recognized as knowing something if you have done the right courses or have the appropriate certification. Graduations, Degrees etc. The biggest horrors: home- or un-schooling. Heck, the process of getting this formal certification has become a massive industry, and even when the certification is seen as sub-par or unconnected to the real work, its often seen as still necessary.
Strange. There are a whole series of logical fallacies based around that one :)
But this has a big impact on another of my favorite areas: games and stories. There is a strong expectation that if a character in a game of story does something new, it was prefaced by either some effort to pick up the new thing, or a explanation of how it was taught to them. There is even a regularly used trope of a "training montage"! Having a character repeatedly show new competences without some effort or training is often viewed as unrealistic or a cop out.
I think i'll take a closer look at learning in games/stories in a bit.
This is also a prevalent attitude amongst most people I know or have heard about. There is a HUGE amount of emphasis on "certification" and "courses". You can only be recognized as knowing something if you have done the right courses or have the appropriate certification. Graduations, Degrees etc. The biggest horrors: home- or un-schooling. Heck, the process of getting this formal certification has become a massive industry, and even when the certification is seen as sub-par or unconnected to the real work, its often seen as still necessary.
Strange. There are a whole series of logical fallacies based around that one :)
But this has a big impact on another of my favorite areas: games and stories. There is a strong expectation that if a character in a game of story does something new, it was prefaced by either some effort to pick up the new thing, or a explanation of how it was taught to them. There is even a regularly used trope of a "training montage"! Having a character repeatedly show new competences without some effort or training is often viewed as unrealistic or a cop out.
I think i'll take a closer look at learning in games/stories in a bit.