Principles of Learning

From Kelly (1963): "A range of convenience is that expanse of the real world over which a given system or theory provides useful coverage." [p. 17] "There are, of course, various psychological construction systems. These systems differ primarily because the people who developed them were focusing their attention upon somewhat different events ." [p. 18] "Psycological systems have not only ranges of convenience but also characteristic foci of convenience: points at which they are particularly applicable." [p. 18]

From Kelly (1963): "If it were a static world that we lived in, our thinking about it might be static too. But new things keep happening and our predictions keep turning out in expected or unexpected ways. Each day's experience calls for the consolidation of some aspects of our outlook, revision of some, and outright abandonment of others." [p. 14] I'm calling for the abandonment of the pursuit of a generic learning theory. "A scientist formulates a theory --- a body of constructs with a focus and a range of convenience. If he is a good scientist he immediately starts putting it to test. it is almost certain that, as soon as he starts testing, he will also have to start changing it in the light of the outcomes. Any theory, then, tends to be transient. And the more practical it is and the more useful it appears to be, the more vulnerable it is to new evidence. Our own theory, particularly if it proves to be practical, will also have to be considered expendable in ...

- predictive efficacy (support more precise and more accurate predictions about more events) (Kelly, 1963)

From Kelly (1963): "The same events can often be viewed in the light of two or more systems [theories]. Yet the events do not belong to any system." [p. 12] In my case I'm proposing a system that spans both learning and instruction, rather than focusing on one or the other.

From Kelly (1963): "In general man seeks to improve his constructs by increasing his repertory, by altering them to provide better fits, and by subsuming them with superordinate constructs or systems. In seeking improvement he is repeatedly halted by the damage to the system that apparently will result from the alternation of a subordinate construct . Frequently his personal investment in the larger system, or his personal dependence upon it, is so great that he will forego the adoption of a more precise construct in the substructure. It may take a major act of psychotherapy or experience to get him to adjust his construction system to the point where the new and more precise construct can be incorporated." [p. 9]

In his introduction, Kelly introduces some interesting ideas about the presentation of a new theory: "...it is only fair to warn the reader that he will find missing many of the familiar landmarks of psychology theory." [p. xi] "...this new way of thinking about psychology..." [p. xi] "It is not only these terms that are abandoned; what is more important, the concepts themselves evaporate." [p. xi] "...a different approach calls for a different lexicon." [p. xii] "It may be unreasonable, merely on the basis of a few pages of academic prose, to ask a reader to reconsider his notions of why man does what he does. yet that is the burden of this invitation. To respond, one should prepare himself as best he can to surmount some formidable barriers---bariers raised high by more than two thousand years of constructive thought and held rigidly in place by the only languages we speak aloud." [p. xii] "...this may come as a frightening invit...

I think this blog post by Seth Godin is relevant to theory development: "Just got some work back from a new copyeditor hired by my publisher. She did a flawless job. She also wrecked my work. Totally wrecked it. "By sanding off every edge, removing every idiom, making each and every fact literally correct, she made it boring and dry and mechanical. "If they have licenses for copyeditors, she should have hers revoked. "I need to be really clear. She's not at fault. She did exactly what she was supposed to do. The fault lies in the job description, not the job. If the job description of your lawyer or boss or editor or client is to make sure everything is pure and perfect and proven and beyond reproach, they are making things worse, not better. (Unless you're in the vaccine business). "Almost everything you do has some sort of copyediting filter. It might be the legal eagle or the graphic supervisor or the customer service police. They're excellent at...