What do you mean when you use the term 'learn'?

I am focused on tacit knowledge and this, from my point of view, is based on interaction. So, in this transfer process (interaction), there are two agents. The first one receives something and the second one transmit the knowledge, but can he learn more about the subject that is the reason of the interaction? Thanks for your interest.

Hi, this is my first message here and im surely not the one to teach somebody. But your terms of searching reminds me of the symbolic interactionism by George H. Mead. Particulary what he described as "conversation of gestures" and "usage of significant symbols". Symbolic interactionismn also includes the idea that "doing something with something" is not only a process of actualisation of the meaning of the specific object but a new interpretation of it even if there's "only me" doing "something with something". Maybe this is somehow a usefull association for you. Sincerely

I'm assuming that you mean the teacher learns more about the subject or concept he is teaching by interacting with the student. In that case I would say that it is a given that all interaction leads to some kind of learning on the part of the "instructor". However, in the classroom setting, this process may be more limited by the social roles of "learner" and "teacher." None the less, one would reasonably expect that the "teacher", in clarifying a concept, may acquire a deeper understanding of the concept itself, or be led by students' questions to consider aspects of the concept not considered before. I often find myself (in an indirect manner) researching something on the web because of a student's question in class. Ex. One of my students asked "Why does English have an "s" on the 3rd person singular form of the verb, but no other verb endings?"

I'm wondering about the content of the interaction. Ronaldo states that the second agent transmits knowledge. According to my way of looking at epistemology, we each transmit information, not knowledge, to others. Knowledge implies meaning but I am convinced that meaning is created by the receiver, i.e., knowledge is created and retained by the knower and cannot be transmitted.

In similar ways, to learn signals that changes have occurred in the learner's brain through the processes of assimilation and accommodation. The 'teacher' (I dislike this term as it implies a power structure and it also assumes, in most cases, that there is a delivery of information which cannot assume learning will occur) is responsible for presenting a context/situation to which the 'learner' (to me this term is preferable over 'student' because of the implied power situation mentioned earlier) responds. The response can take one of 3 different forms: 1. the learner rejects the event/phenomena, etc. as the perception of the event does not correspond to previous experiences and/or there are no cognitive structures in place regarding that phenomena, 2. the learner can assimilate the information, adding it to similar experiences and/or cognitive structures already in placed (essentially adding additional connections in the structure of the brain), or 3. the learner actively reorganizes cognitive structures or schema as the perception of the event requires a 'rethinking' of the connections that were previously created. Both 2 & 3 can be considered learning. This is essentially Piagetian theory.

All of this can be modified by the 'teacher' as it must be ascertained whether the information/event/phenomena is within the zone of proximal development (zpd) of the learner and therefore how much support or scaffolding is required by the learner as they learn in the Piagetian way. This is Vygotskian social constructivist theory.

I hope this is of some assistance.

Hi Roland!

You are right when you said that what is transmited in a interaction is information, not knowledge. I made a mistake with this concepts. I agree with your point.

My wife studies Pedagogy and I have some contact with Piagetian and Vygotskian theories. Perhaps I have to study these theories to understand a little bit about this interaction process.

Following the concepts that you used, maybe my question would be "Are the cognitives structures of the 'teacher' changed in the interaction process?" If the answer is 'YES', how it works? Is the result, for the 'teacher', something that he already knew adding something that he learns now?

By the way, thanks for your comments.

I have a Velcro model that is not in the Pedagogy literature. Your teacher will Velcro his new knowledge onto his existing mental material, and the top surface of that Velcro has more surfaces for him to add even more Velcro later!