Bio not provided
Intéressante, et pertinente, vision des listes Twitter, Autom. La liste comme antichambre d'une relation de confiance... A laquelle j'ajouterais quand même deux autres éléments de réflexion. D'une part, depuis ton article original, des services comme Formulist se se créés permettant de créer des listes de manière arbitraire. Quelle est pour ceux qui les utilisent la valeur qu'ils y trouvent ? D'autre part, la liste possède une autre utilité: elle transforme Twitter d'outil de conversation plus ou moins synchrone en un outil asynchrone: le contenu des listes est accessible en-dehors du flot des messages, permet de se concentrer sur le contenu créé par telle ou telle personne. La liste prend alors plus de valeur en tant qu'outil de connaissance, tout en en perdant en tant qu'outil conversationnel. De plus, cette utilité peut se transformer en in-utilité, lorsque l'on créée trop de listes et finit par ne plus les lire, un peu comme lorsqu'un lecteur de flux rss remonte trop d'articles à la fois. A mixed blessing... Cordialement, Thierry
2 years, 11 months ago on Les listes de Twitter : la courtoisie, la classification, la confiance
@simbeckhampson Please don't call me an expert, Paul :) The only expertise I might be able to claim is that of... learning. I am rather an amateur trying to look under any hood I am in front of, to recognize some patterns there and to connect a few dots!
3 years, 7 months ago on The Purpose of Education
@ToughLoveforX Thanks for pointing me to @graingered 's work, Michael. His notion of resilience in education is really appealing, as it allows for constant emotional feedback in the learning process. I don't think emotion or cognition could work without the other.
Hi Paul, that's a great post and an overwhelming insightful conversation going on here :)
You asked me to add my two ¢, and that would have been much easier if I hadn't read your post and a bunch of comments! Well... Trying to make sense of what I learned here, I would summarize that the purpose of education, for me, is giving people a set of skills to allow them tackling most life situations with positive outcomes.
Some elements which helped me in that thinking:
First, I agree with frogphilp's reminder of Vygotsky's work: any education takes place in a socio-cultural context. Not only, for me, does that context is a starting point of education, but it provides a framework of values to be transmitted. People deal with evolution, and these values, whether being religion, social behaviors, class belonging, cultural know-how, helped them to drive their life, and transmission of these values gives education a global skeleton upon which individual learning can happen.
Then, most of the discussion here is about cognitive learning, if not about the school system. I agree that school is important in education, but I think that the main purpose of cognitive training (improperly approximated to knowledge transmission) is to teach people how to learn. If it succeeds or not in this mission is a bit beyond the scope of your question :)
My third point is that you quite all discuss about education as a whole, not taking into account the evolution of the learner. From prime infancy to adult age, scope and tools of education vastly change, and involve a different mix of learning (formal, informal,...) as well as of knowledge acquisition (cognitive of course, but also memetic, emotional,...). So, even if we might come along with a global "purpose" for education, each age, each stage, fits a somehow different purpose by itself, from physical mastery to critical thinking.