Como sabemos, las nociones de "sistema" y "estructura" tienen que ver con los términos organizativos (no siempre fácilmente visibles) que los asuntos reales, cognitivos, lingüísticos, etc. llevan consigo para diferencialmente existir. Bien; en este artículo tratamos la pertinencia que tales nociones poseen precisamente con el proceso de conocer, de aprender.

As we know, the notions of "system" and "structure" have to do with organizational terms (not always easily visible) than real, cognitive, linguistic, etc. matters. they carry with them to differentially exist. Well; In this article we deal with the relevance that such notions have precisely with the process of knowing, of learning.

If in the 1950s significant births on the specific topic of the philosophy of scientific knowledge were registered in the academic milieu, there is no doubt that there is a very special, very outstanding one. This important contribution that from philosophy is made to the environment of science, is the one given in denominating general theory of systems (GTS). It is somewhat adventurous to specify that the author of such theoretical work is this or that person; However, it is good to recognize that such a transcendent childbirth has a lot to do with the efforts of the Austrian biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901-1972). His most recognized work is titled "General Systems Theory". We note that the approach made letter in this text (and in others) is based on the conception that reality and the rest of the objects of scientific work trace systems in their movement; carrying this with it not only a constant but the surest clue so that with investigative and creative work, such objects are effectively understood and even tamed. Of course ... these systems that dynamically move in reality, in thought itself and in the rest of the objects of scientific work, are open, they intersect. Systems embody structures. Yes; structures that include each other; in a dynamic and open way.

Paradoxically, the COGNITION object has been treated over time and in the context of academia (universities and other corporate entities) with very little seriousness. Perhaps they are the centers that train teachers, the ones that carry such a decadent tradition on their shoulders to a greater extent. The "anything goes" that usually exist without virtue in their curricula, make it possible for this very fundamental issue, COGNITION, to be assumed chaotically (and issues - such as GTS - are seen in a flattened, simplified, decontextualized way).

Jerome Bruner was an American psychologist born in 1915; He recently passed away over 100 years (2016). Benjamin Bloom was also an American pedagogue; 1913-1999. At the beginning of the '70s, the Spanish version of Bruner's fundamental book "El Proceso de la Educación" came into our hands (in the context of the Venezuelan institution today called Universidad Pedagógica Experimental Libertador, UPEL); and a little later we also get Bloom's fundamental book "Taxonomy of the Objectives of Education".

Bruner's book focuses on making explicit the criterion that COGNITION is associated above all with the uptake by the subject of the terms of the structure of the learning material. In such an understanding of the structure of the material under study, the understanding of the principles according to which the respective structure moves is decisive. This, in order to make transfers possible. Yes; transfers to other materials with their corresponding principles. He argues that if the learner appropriates knowledge about the principles of the structure of the material he studies, then he can transfer. In such a transfer you can even go from the simple to the complex.

Bloom's book, while endorsing Bruner's criterion on the importance of grasping the structure of the learning material (preponderance of principles), adds that then an additional step is imposed for COGNITION to be effective. This additional step is the evaluation of the studied material ... Yes. The establishment of evaluations, the approach of evaluations.

There is no doubt, then, that in the fateful university tradition that exists both in developed countries and in those with internal and externally mediated development (and which we have recently mentioned here), the ideas of Bertalanffy, Bruner and Bloom constitute a beacon that it illuminates the necessary path to construct a scientific theory of cognition.