Last week I watched the film “Free Solo.” It is a documentary about the preparation and eventual execution of the first ever free solo climb of Yosemite’s 3,000ft wall “El Capitan.
In the film, we follow Alex Honnold as he prepares and eventually succeeds in this never before attempted act of sheer madness (if you ask me). And yet, it is beautifully compelling. Watching him – the way he practices, prepares, and learns the climb, I was thinking about Siemens and Kolb’s theories, and about how in some ways this modern feat illustrates why we need a blend of learning methods for most things we take on in life, and that there is no replacing experience as a key element in any human beings learning and development. Kolb says he seeks not an alternative to behavioral or cognitive, but rather a “holistic integrative perspective on learning that combines experience, perception, cognition, and behavior”. All of these elements seem vital to Honnold eventual success.
I was surprised by just how much it seemed like cognitive learning was a key element to learn the climb. He is literally mapping the wall, and memorizing every grab, hold, and step. Using trial and to memorize roots. There is a sequence he can repeat to you perfectly of what he has to do on almost any section of the nearly four-hour climb. “Thumb here, left foot here, finger roll, switch feet, scissor kick.” He is driven by his purpose, a perfect performance, and by choosing to free climb he has raised the stakes to life or death. However, none of this happens in a bubble. His complex social network, his working out of experiences through dialogue with others to frame his thoughts, feelings and struggles, is clearly a key element in the process. After each climb he reflects in his journal, taking a moment to remember and record elements of the experience (and humorously pointed out by his friend, they are merely technical refelctions – never “saw the most beautiful tree”). When a known route in one section just isn’t working for him, he experiments with new routes, and then after choosing one that feels more comfortable for him, he repeats it over and over again to commit it to memory. Perhaps there still is value in memorization!
Siemens and Kolb both call for a more complex theory of learning than constructivism, behaviorism, or cognitivism. There is certainly agreement in the idea that people learn through interactions with their environment. The two theories do connect in that they view similar limitations in the view of learning theories that focus on “acquisition, manipulation, and recall” or behaviorists models that ignore “subjective experience”. (Kolb) But they differ greatly in the way they approach their definitions, and in this I could connect more with the Kolb piece than Siemens.
Kolb begins by explaining the different learning models of Lewin, Dewey, and Piaget and identifying some common characteristics. In all three models it seems common that in order to form new ideas or rethink old ones…to learn, there is an individual’s interaction with experiences, reflection on that interaction, and then they act again. In the three different models of Lewin, Dewey, and Piaget, you can see this definition, and the overlap in their theories.
“It is in the interplay between expectation and experience that learning occurs” Kolb says, ultimately defining learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience.”
In Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, Siemens says he is presenting a theory based on chaos, network, complexity, and self-organization theories, and goes on to say that learning can reside in a place – like a database or an organization. I could see the argument for knowledge, and even an archive or map of others learning, but I don’t see how “learning” has been defined in a way that it can be interchanged with “knowledge”, which is what I believe he does here.
Siemens also says, “Learning is a continual process, lasting for a lifetime. Learning and work-related activities are no longer separate. In many situations, they are the same.” Our understanding of this type of experiential learning is perhaps new in academic philosophy, but were learning and work-related activities ever really separate? As farmers, we were constantly acquiring new knowledge based on weather patterns and experiences, and shared knowledge was accumulated from generations and local community, documented in places like the farmer’s almanac or in oral histories. We would then learn from that experience, and try out new methods. This is what has driven humans to create new approaches and technologies for ages. Additionally, many skilled trades like blacksmithing or printing were taught through apprenticeships, a work while you learn model, that had to adjust and continue learning as technology changed. It’s true that the daily grind of factory work may have lessened this learning/work relationship, and that technology and globalism have certainly accelerated it, but I think we are mistaken to think of it as if it did not exist all along, particularly in different times, jobs, and cultures.
Additionally, he asserts that “knowledge is no longer acquired in the linear manner,” again I wonder exactly which learning he refers to. Perhaps traditional models of in school learning of subjects like math and grammar? But learning to paint, or sing, or build a house, or hunt, or discover how to melt metal, I would argue that much of this has never been approached in a purely linear manner. We draw from our communities and our environments. In the past it was harder to find knowledge beyond the walls of those specific places, but even then, the drive for knowledge is what caused many to seek beyond those walls for centuries.
Works Cited
Kolb, D.A. (1984): Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development
Siemens, G. (2005) Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age
Melissa's TC Reflections 