Affective Learning Systems
I have characterized Affective Learning Systems over the years in many different ways, but my message is always the same. We have to find our commonalities before we can appreciate our differences.
I have always marveled at the human desire to be unique. It seems that we all want to be our own person and have our own identity. This desire drives both the good and the bad in us. It is a two-edged sword.
However, as an educator, I came to see the ways in which we are the same. I think this is what changed my concept of teacher education from disciplinary to a profession or a craft.
When I did my teacher training, it had some operational courses about writing objectives, giving assignments, and assessment, but very little in the way of enabling learning. Teachers are educated as disciplinarians and our practice is disciplinary - passing on the disciplines. This type of teacher training was designed for authoritarian society and even democratic countries still use the same approach and even seeing democracy as disciplinary. There is no wonder that democracy is failing by our own hand.
But we now live in a world where, whether we like it or not, technology is making us all equal in terms of disciplinary information. We are the information society. Everybody knows everything to the extent they want. So we can’t be unique in what we know anymore. In today’s society , we can only be unique in what we do.
How can we bring modern education in line with this new reality? In democracy, the system overrides its components. The system is the same for everyone and we function uniquely within the system appreciating everyone’s contribution.
But what is the system? The system is us. It is the way our minds work. It is what our minds have in common. And it is what we do with our minds. We all have common minds from an operational perspective, but we use them in different ways.
Knowing the system, knowing our own minds, is the way forward to maintain democracy. Education must become a craft that uses human commonality to reinforce and proliferate well being for everyone. As long as we see ourselves as only being different we cannot find the thread that holds us all together.
Teaching must become a systems craft like all other professions and crafts. It is the only way we can save it.
The Phenomenon of the Mind
Seeing the mind as mathematical will probably be a big jump for many. However, our minds are multi systems and, consequently, complex and dynamic with many variable learning and thinking entities. So if we are to be able to use them to full capacity, we need to know a little bit about how they work.
When Einstein was developing what would become the general theory of relativity, he hit a wall. The physics he imagined was revolutionary (it curved time and space), but he didn’t have the math he needed to describe it. When he was a young physics student in Zurich, he skipped many of his advanced math classes. He thought they were unnecessary, just theory without practical use. His colleague, Marcel Grossmann, introduced him to tensor calculus and Riemannian geometry and helped him develop the math he would use to transform our understanding of the universe.
Essentially tensors can be thought of as multi-dimensional arrays that transform according to specific rules under coordinate changes. The framework manifold creates the rules or parameters for the given array.
Now the math for this is way over my head, but the concept is alive and well in my idea of systemism. Although systemism is mathematical, we can know how it works in general by knowing the general gist of the math.
The constant in learning and thinking is the biological brain structure. We also know the brain is plastic which means it adapts itself to learning by creating neuron structures. But once created those structures also become the memory constants of the brain. We can create tools for learning and problem solving such as graphics and print materials and computer programs. Like neuron configurations, those creations become constants once they are created. Consequently, no book or computer program can replace the teacher in the teaching / learning process because they don’t have the dynamics of interacting minds.
Knowing that our minds are dynamic variables, we can understand the consequences of learning / problem solving without considering the continued dynamics of applying the solution. We can’t predict the future, but we can see learning / problem solving as a process of continuous improvement. We need a way to look at the big picture in learning in the same way Einstein needed a way to look at the big picture of the universe. In fact, learning itself is the big human picture.
Fortunately, like the universe, which is a system, so too is our minds. Systems are about dynamic frameworks. We can know the manifold of the universe and we can know the manifold of our minds.
Our brains are very complex and yet they are very simple in what we think. In fact our thinking is completely transparent. We think without having any idea of the process of thinking. We take it for granted.
1. We sense information from the environment and the life it supports.
2. Our brains process the experience.
3. Our minds create words from our experiences.
4. Words create mental structures.
5. We build our careers on those structures.
6. We enable others.
7. We develop memory systems.
8. We proliferate knowledge.
9. We speculate.
It is through the process of thinking that we learn. Like thinking we learn without having any idea of the process of learning. We take it for granted as well. But in contrast o thinking, we do speculate on the process of learning.
Thinking drives learning. Learning is the holistic function of thinking. Learning is knowing. Learning is activity. Learning is imagery. There are no types of learning. Learning is affective. That means it is driven by what we think we want or need to know.
As a science teacher in a trades school, I was continuously asked the question, “What do we need to know that for, sir?” My answer to that was always a meaningful explanation of why. I think the explanation was just as important as what I was teaching. If we don’t know why we are learning, chances are we won’t learn it.
I could have said you have to do it to pass the test and they would live with it as long as the credential was important to them, but no real learning or attachment or the knowledge would come from it.
So what do leaders need to know why the people they teach or mentor need to know why. I believe that leaders need to appreciate the systemism of learning. We can know ourselves better and we can know our job better.
Systemism is not an invention. It is the organization of what we know about thinking and learning into a meaningful system. It makes us realize that we rely too much on emergent imagery and we need to focus more on the nitty gritty of the process.
How do we apply systemism? It depends on the need or want. It is not a recipe. It is an understanding of learning. It won’t change what we do, but it will give us a greater appreciation of how to do it. Everyone can create their own applications of it. Just use the appropriate guidelines from the infographic.
In this context, we can have a better perspective on the use of computers as educational tools. We have to embrace the technology wisely.
The human mind is an energy system. The energy of quantum mechanics drives the energy of neuron connectivity which drives the energy of the brain lobes. It is a structure of integrated energy levels rather than mutually exclusive functions.
Consequently, trying to pair the function of the brain exclusively in terms of its physical structure is not an exact science. We know that certain mental functions are generally associated with certain parts of the brain, but we also know that any part of the neo cortex can take on the function of any other part. The basal ganglia and the Limbic System seem to have designated functions that are innate evolution. The function of the neo cortex is energy storage and communication, so there is a lot of integration and cross-function.
I think that it is reasonable to assume that we mold our neo cortexes to suit our own needs. Consequently it is impossible for the lobes of the brain to be associated with specific information. However, it is possible for the lobes of the neo cortex to have similar general functions, which is why agreement in principle is different from agreement on details.
We can see from the infographic that the relationship between systemism and the way we use it is a generality. The purpose of systemism is not to engineer the knowledge of the brain, but to provide a way of communicating about the function of the brain.
Our brains have the same processes. We sense information in the same way. We use information in the same way. And we remember in the same way.
What we sense is different in detail. How we use it is different in detail. And what we remember it is different in detail.
The usefulness of systemism is understanding mental process. It allows us to look at generalities such as intelligence, learning, knowledge, and motivation as process rather than content.
The advantage of this is that we can teach and mentor and coach and facilitate and manage from a more informed perspective. It also allows us to use imagination and metaphor in terms of the greater context of holistic brain function.
Systemism is interdisciplinary. It is not associated with any particular style of thinking. It encompasses all knowledge styles and sectors. It is, above all, humanistic.
Systemism Table of Contents
Chapter One: A Context for Educational Change
Chapter Two: Assessing the Challenge of Educational Change
Chapter Three: Perspective Transformations
Chapter Four: Education as Personal Growth
Chapter Five: Affective Learning Systems
Systemism
Affective Learning Training Program
Optologics
Language
Values
Projects
Programs
Administration
Generic Education
Organizational Knowledge
Human Systems
Chapter Six: Systemic Evolution
Appendix A: Learning Systems Portfolio
Bibliography