I’m having trouble with learning theory. It looks good on paper, and then I think about what it means in practice and it often seems to unravel very quickly.

For example: learning is ‘a community process of transformation of participation in sociocultural activities’ (Rogoff , Matusov and White 1996). Sounds good, doesn’t it? Learning as participation, learning as community, learning as verb.

So, if I go out into a field and observe ants for six hours, that’s not learning (CF My family and other animals), but if I go into a pub and am initially quiet but then hit the man next to me, that is learning?

What I find particularly strange about this is that I was watching My family and other animals with the kids at Christmas and discussing why Gerry’s mother can’t recognise how much he is learning on Corfu. She sees him learning Greek and biology and taxidermy and feels he’s running wild and must be put in a classroom with a tutor and a book of problems in mathematics in order to gain an education. Her definition of learning ruled out sitting for hours on your own in a field, and I think Rogoff and White’s does too (though for different reasons).