The reference looks interesting, Mike, and sounds on track to me. I also
want to echo the idea that the implicit does _not_ have to be made
explicit for learning to take place. In fact, I wonder if learning ever
really takes place "explicitly". The model of teacher to disciple or
student from the eastern and native traditions certainly builds upon
learning at implicit or tacit or internal levels.
It may be more of a modern (Plato onward) "western" mind set that puts the
emphasis on making things explicit in order to document learning has
occured. The trouble with this perspective is that the inner work of
learning which goes on underneath the interaction with the worlds of
people, ideas, and things is discounted unnecessarily. Without the inner
"wrestling and wrangling" that learning involves, that which is explicit
remains shallow, insubstantial, and impermanent.
I think we each have to move through the "mysterious" to find "reality".
That is one of the challenges of an organizational "memory". How can we
keep it _in_complete enough to make it useful, useable, and rewarding to
access....
On Tue, 17 Oct 1995, Michael McMaster wrote:
> Rick, to add a related by quite distinct source to this approach to
> learning, I recommend a book from John Seely Brown's Xerox group
> called "Situated Learning". I'll dig up the author's name if you
> can't locate the book and want the reference. (I'm travelling right
> now.)
>
> The book locates learning within social systems - situated - and
> locates learning as occurring "at the edges" and by means which will,
> I think, expand the idea of implicit. For instance, it is not
> required in this approach that the implicit be made explicit for
> learning to take place. It is a much more emergent approach to
> learning.
-- Tobin quereau@austin.cc.tx.us