Popper's Worlds - Issue 127 - Dialogic Learning Weekly

Welcome to the 127th edition of a newsletter stacked with provocations about Learning, Leadership and Innovation. A subscriber recently told me that it arrives at "just the right time in her week." Enjoy this edition's exploration of the philosophical worlds we live in, the impact of new school design and artefacts of cognition.

Sir Karl Popper's three worlds

Before we get into anything else, let me introduce you to a mental model to add to your cognitive repertoire. We can then connect the model to the other ideas today.

Sir Karl Popper was an Austrian scientific philosopher who used the three worlds concept as a way of looking at reality. It is a useful frame when we think about how a student experiences the whole school thing.

Popper split the world into three categories:
World 1: the world of physical objects and events, including biological entities
World 2: the world of mental objects and events
World 3: objective knowledge

Others have described these as the physical world, the subjective or mental world and the world of ideas. Read more about Popper's ideas in a transcript of his lecture.

Improving our Physical Learning Worlds

One of the significant weaknesses in our systemised march for better learning spaces and improved school environments are the inadequate measures we use to assess impact.

Specifically, the impact in this context is the change in behaviour. How have our core teaching and learning behaviours been affected? How has the physical world transformed the subjective world? How has the learning space affected the ideas we create?

Look at your learning space and consider the three questions above. What unspoken lessons are your students learning from the physical world they inhabit? Is there a stealth curriculum hidden in plain sight?

How do you know learning is happening?

Popper's mental model helps to explore the idea of noticing signals of learning. I have referred to this in a previous blog post as "Proxies for Learning" (see if you can explain the elements of the image in the blog post using Popper's model).

Take this explanation of classroom activity from a teacher's perspective:

I introduce a learning activity which we explore together (World 1: Physical) it is carefully designed to engage cognition and deepen personal knowledge (World 2: Subjective). However, I cannot see that effect. To make that recognisable, we need to produce artefacts of cognition or a proxy for learning (World 3: Objective knowledge or ideas). The outcomes are the vital signals to me, and I can use them to change what I am teaching and adapt my approach.

Perhaps a filter exists, that dilutes the signal strength, between the worlds. I think my activity aligns to learning something, but am I sure? Can I be sure? And what does the written outcome from the students signal to me?

A nice chunk of philosophy for your Friday afternoon. Thanks for sticking with that model as I explored it. The 'filter between worlds" idea feels like it needs a blog post to have a bit more room to breathe. Have a great weekend.

~ Tom
Dialogic Learning

Forward