It seems that there needs to be some sort of resistance - or friction - so that learning of new concepts and the formation of new schemata can happen.

That reminds me of Paulo Freire's banking education, in which knowledge is simply "deposited" in the learner's mind. It also assumes that learner's are what John Locke called "tabula rasa", a blank slate - or an empty hard drive waiting to assimilate new information.

The concept of pure assimilation reminds me of the Freirean idea of a Banking education.

The theory makes me think that learning is also about some sort of resistance to new ideas, in a sense that simply assimilating new objective information into previously formed schemata is not sufficient to attain what Piaget called equilibrium. Conversely, it's fundamental to challenge and form new schemata (i.e. accommodation). As a teacher of adults for two decades, that makes me think in the kind of activities I should have conducted in order to challenge my student's views and beliefs.

That passage seems to directly contradict B.F. Skinner's utopian model, that postulates that we, as organisms, have our behaviors determined solely by external variables (i.e. "recording of information and objects") and lack any type of will (i.e. acting upon the object).

I would add a sixth field, one that deals with the administration of education and public policies and, therefore, uses an econometric approach to research.

I really appreciate how the author played with these two words. Learning is indeed not only a biological feature but rather a social process.