Formal versus Informal Learning

Discuss literature (e.g. books, newspapers), educational studies (getting help or opinions on homework or an essay), and philosophy.

Re: Formal versus Informal Learning

Unread postby Shritzu » Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:10 pm

Shikanosuke wrote:Ok. I have to address this, but I hope to do it constructively. You're continuous statements about this subject are irrelevant to definite matters of this conversation. In fact, it sounds like a cute philosophical statements that you'd hear in high school which sounds nice but amounts to little.
Shikanosuke wrote:Shritzu wrote:

Strange...that sounds alot like everything everysingle american does everyday when they go to work...with all these time restraints beforehand-just how can we learn everything about a given topic?-We can't,thus it leads to the statement "nobody knows everything",of course because information is always changing-it does not pause time for you inside of a public educational facility

A) American? There is no such thing as an American, that is an illusion we've created to help prop up the societal systems in which we live.
B) I'm sorry, this is a poor argument. Before people, in America (and most industrialized nations) are employees, they are students. They learn how to operate under said conditions in school.
C) Of course nobody knows everything, nor has anyone in this thread attempted to make such claim.
D) Yes, things do typically change. However, learning in a formal education facility is not learning in vacuum. Nor, do the essentials of things like math,science, and history truly change enough to deter us from teaching them in a conventional classroom. I don't find your objection here to amount to much of anything.

A)Do you believe that or are you being imature and mocking me,American is the term we have allowed to describe ourselves,therefore,I use it for your understanding..
B)We are all students eveyday,(because we learn something),my argumet is not poor your response is,I state something and rather than prove me wrong you attack my statement(or grammer in one case) and state the obvious...
C)Nor did I say they did,however Formal learning does not have such a wide range of knowledge as informal...
D)Did not say it was in a vacuum,We teach what we have not what is best(is that how you describe any board of education in this statement?)
Shikanosuke wrote:think your sentence of 'authority is an illusion' is mostly overthetop dramaticsYou have used this kind of statment many times before...How so?


Please explain what this sentence means and I'll answer your question. When I have used said statements? You've used an overly-dramatic phrase to which this thread almost barely has no relation in definite terms. [/quote]

I have noticed in some of your arguments when you fail to disprove the validity of a statement you use this to escape
Shikanosuke wrote:. I have to address this, but I hope to do it constructively. You're continuous statements about this subject are irrelevant to definite matters of this conversation. In fact, it sounds like a cute philosophical statements that you'd hear in high school which sounds nice but amounts to little.

Please feel free to create a thread to discuss your assertion on it's own merit. However, the for the sake of this conversation..it doesn't really matter how you feel about authority. Anyone could easily continue this conversation by just changing the semantics. Teachers have authority over students (be it an illusion). There, I've indulged your views and we're still at the same place. The fact is that be it and illusion or not, we (and that means you, me, everyone else in America) bows down to it and changes our behavior accordingly. A teacher has the authority to discipline/instruct a student. A principal has the authority to expel a student. And so on. You can call this an illusion all you want, but in reality it matters not one iota..nor does it effect this conversation one iota.

It would seem you intend to use my age to your advantage...weak,You insisted that the"authority" taught in a formal setting,consituted to it's success,However I disagree.therefore it does matter to the arguement of which is more efficient or prefered,so I shall not retreat to another thread unless instructed by those with the proper....what was the word you use..."Authority"(they have control over this site as is justified,not the actions of those inside,unless they have mind control :shock: )Point being authority exist nowhere unless those it affects say it does
Shikanosuke wrote:Please see above. You can look at it two ways a) a teacher has no authority or b) a teacher has authority. At the end of the day the teacher will have the authority irregardless of which philosophical outlook you take and the student will still suffer the consequences of any bad actions (or benefits of good ones). I'm sorry, I find this back and forth about who has authority (especially in a country built on consent to authority via social contract) to be childish and unproductive. It is like arguing a philosophical matter of semantics just to see how far you can take it, only to realize it effects reality none.
You find It pointless because you can not prove your point or because you can not prove what I say is wrong?]You are simply manipulating the situation,you cannot prove your side so the argument is childish,I fail to see the logic in your statement other than an attempt to insult me
Shikanosuke wrote: But in the real world, people fail. If you don't learn to adapt and learn in certain ways, or learn certain things, just because you still learn something doesn't mean you still succeed. Butters points this out well. I don't walk into school or work and say 'don't worry i didnt fail because i still learned something'. That doesn't matter
Being human,mistakes are inevitable,however you learn more from your mistakes and success informally...
Shikanosuke wrote:Quite so. And those states take what they think are important from other scholars on school boards. But this isn't just relegated to text books. No no. This is all books. Books are always collections, usually thouroughly edited, of what someone wants you to learn. So it doesn't matter if you pick up a book at Barnes & Noble or at school, you're still learning at the discretion of another's wisdom. End of story
More words that I have not spoken I have also noticed that when you fail to find aproblem you conjure one from who knows where...
Shikanosuke wrote:Semantics. A complaint is an expression of displeasure which is set forth by a statement. Round and round we go.
I did not express displeasure,so here is where it stops...
Shikanosuke wrote:And no I did not stand in front of a room of people ,I made my existance known to the world by presenting to the people of the world just as what we are doing here on this site,I am sure more people view it than a classroom.

I do equate what we do here as Socratic dialogue on par within a classroom. If you've ever been engaged in a heavy debate in a classroom full of peers and mediators/teachers you know it is entirely different from what we engage in here. Here we have time to prepare our answers, we can sit behind a computer screen devoid of emotion, we have absolutely no time constraints, the ultimate ability of being able to type our answers/formulate our thoughts and look up things on the internet. Speaking in a Socratic dialogue with a teacher and your classmates is on an entirely different level. If you think this is the same as what occurs in a classroom with knowledgeable teachers (and sometimes knowledgeable students) you either don't understand the Socratic method or have never experienced it.
Oh I see it is a matter of time, something most likly given before your classroom presentation anyway...Emotion does not matter,it is simply color on a tv screen used to sway the majority of your "classmates to your side" so I still fail to see any other difference other than peer pressure, which will always exist
Shikanosuke wrote:Ok, again I think you've take my statements a bit too personal. And for that, I apoligize. But there is still merit in my claim. You were born into the workforce with prior knowledge. When you started K-12, how much knowledge did you possess? Considering you and I are both humans, were both born from infancy knowing little, and are probably both Americans I can assume that my experiences as a human being in America are vaguely similiar to your own. So no, I don't know exactly what your experiences are. However, I do know at multiple times in your life (as well as my own and all others) that there are teachers with more experience than our (which at the beginning, is none). Therefore, we have much to learn.

So unless you're going to prove to me that there hasn't been a time in your educational career (K-12) (12-?) where you couldn't have benefited greatly from a teacher's experience in his/her concentration I think you're merely taking this argument personally and not understanding it.Shirtzu, while I find the reasoning of your arguments weak, I also think perhaps I did a unfair job in relation my usage of the word 'you'. Since this is a general topic, not related to just you or I, I was speaking a lot of the time about students in general. Students being of course from the grades of Kindergarten till whatever.

Shritzu wrote:
Strange...that sounds alot like everything everysingle american does everyday when they go to work...with all these time restraints beforehand-just how can we learn everything about a given topic?-We can't,thus it leads to the statement "nobody knows everything",of course because information is always changing-it does not pause time for you inside of a public educational facility


A) American? There is no such thing as an American, that is an illusion we've created to help prop up the societal systems in which we live.
B) I'm sorry, this is a poor argument. Before people, in America (and most industrialized nations) are employees, they are students. They learn how to operate under said conditions in school.
C) Of course nobody knows everything, nor has anyone in this thread attempted to make such claim.
D) Yes, things do typically change. However, learning in a formal education facility is not learning in vacuum. Nor, do the essentials of things like math,science, and history truly change enough to deter us from teaching them in a conventional classroom. I don't find your objection here to amount to much of anything.




Shikanosuke wrote:I think your sentence of 'authority is an illusion' is mostly overthetop dramatics
You have used this kind of statment many times before...How so?


Please explain what this sentence means and I'll answer your question. When I have used said statements? You've used an overly-dramatic phrase to which this thread almost barely has no relation in definite terms.


Nobody has authority...it is an illusion we have created to benefit the organization of mankind's social structure


:roll: Ok. I have to address this, but I hope to do it constructively. You're continuous statements about this subject are irrelevant to definite matters of this conversation. In fact, it sounds like a cute philosophical statements that you'd hear in high school which sounds nice but amounts to little.

Please feel free to create a thread to discuss your assertion on it's own merit. However, the for the sake of this conversation..it doesn't really matter how you feel about authority. Anyone could easily continue this conversation by just changing the semantics. Teachers have authority over students (be it an illusion). There, I've indulged your views and we're still at the same place. The fact is that be it and illusion or not, we (and that means you, me, everyone else in America) bows down to it and changes our behavior accordingly. A teacher has the authority to discipline/instruct a student. A principal has the authority to expel a student. And so on. You can call this an illusion all you want, but in reality it matters not one iota..nor does it effect this conversation one iota.



There are two sides to everything... so yes it is,how you look at things determines how much you see..


Please see above. You can look at it two ways a) a teacher has no authority or b) a teacher has authority. At the end of the day the teacher will have the authority irregardless of which philosophical outlook you take and the student will still suffer the consequences of any bad actions (or benefits of good ones). I'm sorry, I find this back and forth about who has authority (especially in a country built on consent to authority via social contract) to be childish and unproductive. It is like arguing a philosophical matter of semantics just to see how far you can take it, only to realize it effects reality none.


people would not fail if they are there to learn(and thier teacher is competent)Failure does not exist in true learning-so BSing would never be a requirment(if only)


Which is why formal education is so useful. True, you always learn something! But in the real world, people fail. If you don't learn to adapt and learn in certain ways, or learn certain things, just because you still learn something doesn't mean you still succeed. Butters points this out well. I don't walk into school or work and say 'don't worry i didnt fail because i still learned something'. That doesn't matter.


And they know what is important to you?NO...they know what the state thinks is important..


Quite so. And those states take what they think are important from other scholars on school boards. But this isn't just relegated to text books. No no. This is all books. Books are always collections, usually thouroughly edited, of what someone wants you to learn. So it doesn't matter if you pick up a book at Barnes & Noble or at school, you're still learning at the discretion of another's wisdom. End of story.

IT was not a complaint but a statement...


Semantics. A complaint is an expression of displeasure which is set forth by a statement. Round and round we go.



And no I did not stand in front of a room of people ,I made my existance known to the world by presenting to the people of the world just as what we are doing here on this site,I am sure more people view it than a classroom.


I do equate what we do here as Socratic dialogue on par within a classroom. If you've ever been engaged in a heavy debate in a classroom full of peers and mediators/teachers you know it is entirely different from what we engage in here. Here we have time to prepare our answers, we can sit behind a computer screen devoid of emotion, we have absolutely no time constraints, the ultimate ability of being able to type our answers/formulate our thoughts and look up things on the internet. Speaking in a Socratic dialogue with a teacher and your classmates is on an entirely different level. If you think this is the same as what occurs in a classroom with knowledgeable teachers (and sometimes knowledgeable students) you either don't understand the Socratic method or have never experienced it.IT WOULD SEEM THAT WHEN A POST IS TOO LONG IT STARTS TO MESS UP AND EVEN DOUBLE POST,ALONG WITH THINGS IT JUST THROWS IN THERE...
Bleh
User avatar
Shritzu
Master
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 10:54 pm
Location: Tennessee, United States

Re: Formal versus Informal Learning

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:01 pm

Shirtzu, I understand you're having problems with the quoting. However, I would suggest you just delete the last post and edit it into the end of or your last double-post as you've now reproduced our quarrelx3. Anyway, I await your response.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4311
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Formal versus Informal Learning

Unread postby Butters » Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:25 pm

Shritzu wrote:
Butters wrote:The reason why we have a functional workforce is because of formal education

Prove it...


Shikanosuke already used the example I was going to use. Consider places like sub-Sahara Africa, where formal education is largely in shambles due to the horrendous poverty. Almost all of these nations are considered peripheral nations, because of their inability to get a powerful, efficient workforce going. If you don't buy that example, then consider the inner city schools of the United States in comparison to the schools in better areas. People who go to better schools have better opportunities than people who go to worse schools, where formal education is deteriorated.

Shritzu wrote:
Butters wrote:People were taught both academics and socialization in a reasonably standardized way. If people waited until the workforce to get taught basic socialization, such as respecting authority and how to manage time, we would have a completely inefficient labor system.
Standards vary place to place,these skills can be picked up just as easily anywhere :roll:


The Industrial Revolution changed how we live. Your argument may have held water, albeit barely, two hundred years ago, but since things such as corporations, assembly line manufacturing, globalization, and bureaucracy in business have come into existence, the economy cannot rely on people to just pick up various basic skills wherever, and otherwise wing it (In other words, I'm not talking about not knowing a particular arcane fact or not knowing how to do a particular specific process, but rather something we all take for granted that most twelve-year-olds know how to do.). There is a necessity for consistency. Formal learning is necessary to make sure that everyone has a similar education, so employers don't have to worry so much.

Shritzu wrote:
Butters wrote:Also, we don't live long enough to know everything about some topics, let alone spend long enough in school to do so. That doesn't mean there is no purpose in trying to learn what you can. Moreover, in most professional fields, you still have to continue learning after you finish college, or in some cases, high school.
I never said that we did have enough time(just that we have more to learn informally)I did not say that you didn't,It is starting to sound like you are reading out of a textbook...


Well, of course we have more to learn informally. That's obvious. That also doesn't give any argument against formal learning. As for my sounding like I am reading out of a textbook, it's probably because I'm learned, and can actually articulate my arguments.

Shritzu wrote:
Butters wrote:Um... Do you intend to ever get a job in your life, assuming you don't already have one? Authority is very real. If you actually have to work to survive, you should already understand this concept well. If you don't do what the boss wants you to do, or if you get combative with the boss, you may find yourself out of a job. That means you will find it drastically more difficult to eat, pay your bills, and fulfilling other basic needs.

Putting my life aside,again you are just repeating shikanosuke(to an extent)"Authority" has nothing to do with this situation-You do as you are told because you are paid not because of some invisible force called authority...


Allow me to use the sociological theory of Max Weber to explain this to you. Authority, according to Weber, is legitimate power. In other words, the power is recognized as true by those who are subjected to it. The bureaucracy of a given business is an example of rational-legal authority at work. An employer is given power by the state to fire an employee who does not perform to the standards necessary to stay employed (as allowed by the state). In the case of the United States, the state's power is legitimized by the U.S. Constitution and our brand of democracy. In other words, we have legitimized the power that we are subjected to, hence it exists.

Shritzu wrote:
Butters wrote:Even if you don't ever intend to be employed by someone else, others still have very real authority over you. If you own your own business, you are subject to the authority of banks or investors who will finance your venture. If you're lucky enough to start out with lots of money and don't require others to finance you, you are still subject to the laws of your area.
You have just helped to prove my point there is no Authority just various situations in which you must do as someone wants because they have something you need,This invisible force being defended is starting to sound like a pretty word to hide the fact that the only reason our society is working is because capitalism takes advantage of our greed,Oh wait it does,Are you saying that it does not?(there is nothing wrong with capitalism IMO,but that will not stop me from stating the obviuos..)


Society works, because most people play by the rules. Our society has set up values, norms, and such, as well as the accepted means to attaining what society considers success. The law you are told to follow are nothing but codified norms. For instance, our society considers murder to be in violation of what we feel is functional to society. Hence, murder is deviance from our societal norms. Then, those with authority, in our society, rational-legal authority, such as the legislature and the criminal justice system, codify those norms and are charged with ensuring people follow them, respectively. In this circumstance, the legislature in your state creates a law for their criminal code stating that murder is a felony, and the maximum (and sometimes minimum) sentence for committing the crime. The criminal justice system, from police to judges to juries, enforce the laws made by the legislature. And, all of this is done as a result of rational-legal authority that we give all the people involved. Our society works, because we agree upon the rules and follow them.

Shritzu wrote:
Butters wrote:If you think that authority is just an illusion, try breaking those laws. I think people like Bernard Madoff can tell you that the state's authority is rather real.

Like many things in life, authority is real because society says it is.

We create Laws,We enforce them,we create Authority-everyone of us,


That's the first thing that you've said in this entire thread I agree with. That being said, just because we create authority doesn't make it any less real.

Shritzu wrote:
Butters wrote: Like I've said before, the dreaded "S" word, socialization, is the key to formal learning. For example, BSing is a part of learning how to mitigate the consequences of your actions, something that's a very key skill when you get out into the real world. Moreover, BSing is not only a skill learned in response to an inability or a choice to not learn particular material, but it is also in response to an acceptance of a teacher's authority and a desire to still gain some benefit. In the workforce, there will be times when you have to fudge things a little, because you feel what is asked of you is unreasonable. Still, you will be willing to do enough to make your employer happy, because you still enjoy getting paychecks.
Authority like Time(to an extent)is an illusion created by us to construct our ideal society)We Bs because our society is not perfect or the person doing so has proven less than competent,This "reason" you have given for BSing is less than satisfactory,we don not need to bs we need to do what we are being paid to do,if what is asked is indeed unreasonable,then quit or don't do it,or better yet try your best don't try to BS your boss like you are me with this authority is real crap...


I think what Shikanosuke said in his response to this part of the argument was sufficient.

Shritzu wrote:
Butters wrote:As for the state knowing what's important for you to study, that's only true for the most part when it comes to public grade schools, and not in private schools and higher education. In private schools, the teachers pretty much teach what the board of directors or trustees feel is important, as well as any accrediting institutions. In colleges and universities, teachers have a wide degree of discretion what gets wider depending on tenure. Basic lecturers and instructors are mostly at the mercy of the college (and student evaluations) as to what they can teach. But, once a professor gets on a tenure track, the freedom expands. Once a teacher is fully tenured, he or she can teach whatever he or she feels like teaching. As a matter of fact, a fully tenured professor is practically the emperor of his class, and he can do virtually anything he wants, outside of breaking the law, and get away with it. There are exceptions to this, but not many
You have stated the obvious,I did not intend to go in to detail on an example..
Butters wrote:Moreover, books are simply a compilation of what the publisher and the market feel is important. Unless someone is willing to self-publish and likely take a loss on publishing expenses, publishers and customers have the final say on what goes in an out of books, and what continues to be in print. Even old books that didn't begin this way have that problem now. Take The Art of War, for example. Do you think that book would still be in print if publishers didn't want it to be, and people still didn't buy it? Moreover, I'm sure some versions of it are in far greater availability, such as versions with particular notes or prefaces. That's a prime example of the market and publishers deciding what is important to you. Although it is up to you ultimately to buy or check out the book, your selection is already dictated to you.
You are contradicting yourself ,you say yourself in the above quote that you can do it yourself if you have the money,if you don't then you must do as someone says for what you lack,not because of some invisible force that you have to follow...


Um... No. Firstly, you're being intentionally vague, when I made a very clear argument. Moreover, your assertion is ridiculous. The entire economy is based on authority. What you do is directly or indirectly impacted by what authority allows you to do. In the case of self-publishing, you are limited by the resources authority lets you have. For example, the law doesn't allow you to rob a bank or sell crack to make more money, and you should not realistically expect a tenfold raise from an employer, simply because you ask for it. So, yes, you do have to follow this legitimate power, regardless, and it has an effect on everything we do.
"Oh, boy! He's cheesed out of his mind!"
My YouTube channel | Megavideo backup
User avatar
Butters
Master
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 3:49 pm
Location: Norfolk, VA

Re: Formal versus Informal Learning

Unread postby Shritzu » Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:06 am

Shikanosuke wrote:Shirtzu, I understand you're having problems with the quoting. However, I would suggest you just delete the last post and edit it into the end of or your last double-post as you've now reproduced our quarrelx3. Anyway, I await your response.

For the record...I dropped from this debate due to technical difficulties
However for the sake of it's completion(One must review thier own words to know thyself)I will follow up with the following statement-
Shikanosuke, It would appear from reviewing our debate That the fromal learning you have debated for is best for the state and the informal learning I debate for is best for the individual,It is because of this that our debate cannout be concluded under the circumstances(that and not having finished it bugged me, "worthy" debate is a needle in a haystack here, That is of course unless you also have more to add).
Bleh
User avatar
Shritzu
Master
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 10:54 pm
Location: Tennessee, United States

Re: Formal versus Informal Learning

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:35 pm

Shritzu wrote:Shikanosuke, It would appear from reviewing our debate That the fromal learning you have debated for is best for the state and the informal learning I debate for is best for the individual


I'm not sure what you mean 'best for the state'. I think structured formal learning is the cornerstone of most individual's educations. Many individuals aren't even suited for informal non-structured learning.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4311
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Formal versus Informal Learning

Unread postby Shritzu » Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:41 am

Civilization as a whole advances through it's own enforcment of formal learning(a country is as smart as it's people-so to speak).Where as we as organisms learn informally(for the most part)what is needed for our survival.
Ex.1)Students(of a country) are required to learn math(from that point on the country or "state" benefits as a whole)
Ex.2)However as entities we naturally learn through observation,how to speak,how to eat thus the individual entity benefits
Bleh
User avatar
Shritzu
Master
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 10:54 pm
Location: Tennessee, United States

Re: Formal versus Informal Learning

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Sun Apr 18, 2010 2:44 pm

Shritzu wrote:Civilization as a whole advances through it's own enforcment of formal learning(a country is as smart as it's people-so to speak).Where as we as organisms learn informally(for the most part)what is needed for our survival.
Ex.1)Students(of a country) are required to learn math(from that point on the country or "state" benefits as a whole)
Ex.2)However as entities we naturally learn through observation,how to speak,how to eat thus the individual entity benefits


The latter example is not really applicable to what we were discussing. All of those things can be learned both in an informal setting as in a formal setting. From what I remember of our discussion, we basically drew a dichotomy between public education and "independent learning". The OP threw in youth groups and the like into the "informal setting" category. I mean, on the surface I have no quarrel with your statement or your examples, the question is what conclusion are you drawing from it. I still maintain that people benefit immensely more from formal and structured learning than they do from any kind of independent learning. At least not until they've been fully immersed in the former for a sufficient amount of time.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4311
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Formal versus Informal Learning

Unread postby Shritzu » Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:37 am

Shikanosuke wrote:At least not until they've been fully immersed in the former for a sufficient amount of time.

That was the point of my most previous post....However as far as education need be concerned Authority serves only civilization not the individual student as it is a conjured socialogical aspect of society ,I believe that to be my arguement(not that society does'nt need an authority figure)Authority and formal education run together as they have key simularities these are
1)They both further society and the currently established social structure
2)They both vary place to place
3)They vary depending on who is involved most in it's development
4)They exist only as long as we allow them to...
My following statements were intended to explain to that extent that informal learning will always exist as long as thier is learning period,therefor we should not view informal learning as a "vocational school to a college" but from
"what we hear to what we see"It was in this manner we must consider the importance of both but remember in most cases people trust thier eyes more than thier ears,This was my intended expression...(By the By,from one tennessean to another did you see the conservative governer advertisment wheir half of the commercial was showing the canadite in cowboy boots as if to express simularaties with tennesseans that way... :lol: )
Bleh
User avatar
Shritzu
Master
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 10:54 pm
Location: Tennessee, United States

Re: Formal versus Informal Learning

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:22 am

Shritzu wrote:
Shikanosuke wrote:At least not until they've been fully immersed in the former for a sufficient amount of time.

That was the point of my most previous post....However as far as education need be concerned Authority serves only civilization not the individual student as it is a conjured socialogical aspect of society ,I believe that to be my arguement(not that society does'nt need an authority figure)Authority and formal education run together as they have key simularities these are
1)They both further society and the currently established social structure
2)They both vary place to place
3)They vary depending on who is involved most in it's development
4)They exist only as long as we allow them to...
My following statements were intended to explain to that extent that informal learning will always exist as long as thier is learning period,therefor we should not view informal learning as a "vocational school to a college" but from
"what we hear to what we see"It was in this manner we must consider the importance of both but remember in most cases people trust thier eyes more than thier ears,This was my intended expression..


Fair enough.

.(By the By,from one tennessean to another did you see the conservative governer advertisment wheir half of the commercial was showing the canadite in cowboy boots as if to express simularaties with tennesseans that way... :lol: )


:D Haven't been able to see any commercials yet (I'm in school in Boston at present, returning for the summer thank god). I'm not surprised at all though!
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4311
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Previous

Return to Literature, Academics, and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved