Cognitive flexibility hypertext: Difference between revisions
m (using an external editor) |
m (using an external editor) |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
The Spiro et al. ground their model on 2 issues: Firstly a lot of knowledge to be taught is both complex and ill-structured and and second that such teaching remains a challenge. {{quotation | Cognitive and instructional neglect of problems related to content complexity and irregularity in patterns of knowledge use leads to learning failures that take common, predictable forms. These forms are characterized by conceptual oversimplification and the inability to apply knowledge to new cases (failures of transfer). For learners to develop cognitively flexible processing skills and to acquire contentive knowledge structures which can support flexible cognitive processing, flexible learning environments are required which permit the same items of knowledge to be presented and learned in a variety of different ways and for a variety of different purposes (commensurate with their complex and irregular nature).}} (Spiro, 1992) | The Spiro et al. ground their model on 2 issues: Firstly a lot of knowledge to be taught is both complex and ill-structured and and second that such teaching remains a challenge. {{quotation | Cognitive and instructional neglect of problems related to content complexity and irregularity in patterns of knowledge use leads to learning failures that take common, predictable forms. These forms are characterized by conceptual oversimplification and the inability to apply knowledge to new cases (failures of transfer). For learners to develop cognitively flexible processing skills and to acquire contentive knowledge structures which can support flexible cognitive processing, flexible learning environments are required which permit the same items of knowledge to be presented and learned in a variety of different ways and for a variety of different purposes (commensurate with their complex and irregular nature).}} (Spiro, 1992) | ||
{{ | {{quotationbox | Any effective approach to instruction must simultaneously consider several highly intertwined topics, such as: | ||
# the constructive nature of understanding; | # the constructive nature of understanding; | ||
# the complex and ill-structured features of many, if not most, knowledge domains; | # the complex and ill-structured features of many, if not most, knowledge domains; | ||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
(Spiro, 1992) | (Spiro, 1992) | ||
}} | }} | ||
In particular, Spiro et al. a are concerned by ''oversimplification'' for which they identify several forms, e.g. the ''additivity biaas'' (learners think that parts integrated into a whole retain the same characteristics), the ''discreteness bias'' (continuous processes are segmented into discrete steps), and the ''compartimentalization biais'' (highly interdependent conceptutal elements are trated in isolation with taking into account interaction effects). | |||
{{quotation | The remedy for learning deficiencies related to domain complexity and irregularity requires the inculcation of learning processes that afford greater cognitive flexibility: this includes the ability to represent knowledge from different conceptual and case perspectives and then, when the knowledge must later be used, the ability to construct from those different conceptual and case representations a knowledge ensemble tailored to the needs of the understanding or problem-solving situation at hand.}} (Spiro, 1992) | {{quotation | The remedy for learning deficiencies related to domain complexity and irregularity requires the inculcation of learning processes that afford greater cognitive flexibility: this includes the ability to represent knowledge from different conceptual and case perspectives and then, when the knowledge must later be used, the ability to construct from those different conceptual and case representations a knowledge ensemble tailored to the needs of the understanding or problem-solving situation at hand.}} (Spiro, 1992) | ||
Line 33: | Line 35: | ||
for example in the [[direct instruction]] model. | for example in the [[direct instruction]] model. | ||
A few constrasts of design features: | |||
<table style="text-align: left; width: 100%;" border="1"> | |||
<tr> | |||
<td></td> | |||
<td>introductory learning<br> | |||
and well-structured domains</td> | |||
<td>avance learning<br> | |||
and ill-structured domains</td> | |||
</tr> | |||
<tr> | |||
<td>knowledge organization</td> | |||
<td>compartmentalization</td> | |||
<td>knowledge interconnectedness</td> | |||
</tr> | |||
<tr> | |||
<td>generalization</td> | |||
<td>general principles with wide scope | |||
of application<font face="Palatino"> </font></td> | |||
<td>across-case variability and case-sensitive interaction | |||
of | |||
principles</td> | |||
</tr> | |||
<tr> | |||
<td>representation</td> | |||
<td>single unifying representational basis</td> | |||
<td>multiple representations </td> | |||
</tr> | |||
</table> | |||
Since it is impossible to teach each occurence of ill-structured knowledge, Spiro et al. (1992) argue that {{quotation | emphasis must be shifted from the retrieval of intact knowledge structures to support the construction of new understandings, to the novel and situation-specific assembly of prior knowledge drawn from diverse organizational loci in preexisting mental representations.}} | |||
== References == | == References == |
Revision as of 15:42, 4 October 2006
Definition
Cognitive flexibility hypertext is a learning environment designed according to cognitive flexibility theory.
Foundations of the model
The Spiro et al. ground their model on 2 issues: Firstly a lot of knowledge to be taught is both complex and ill-structured and and second that such teaching remains a challenge. “Cognitive and instructional neglect of problems related to content complexity and irregularity in patterns of knowledge use leads to learning failures that take common, predictable forms. These forms are characterized by conceptual oversimplification and the inability to apply knowledge to new cases (failures of transfer). For learners to develop cognitively flexible processing skills and to acquire contentive knowledge structures which can support flexible cognitive processing, flexible learning environments are required which permit the same items of knowledge to be presented and learned in a variety of different ways and for a variety of different purposes (commensurate with their complex and irregular nature).” (Spiro, 1992)
Any effective approach to instruction must simultaneously consider several highly intertwined topics, such as:
- the constructive nature of understanding;
- the complex and ill-structured features of many, if not most, knowledge domains;
- patterns of learning failure;
- a theory of learning that addresses known patterns of learning failure.
In particular, Spiro et al. a are concerned by oversimplification for which they identify several forms, e.g. the additivity biaas (learners think that parts integrated into a whole retain the same characteristics), the discreteness bias (continuous processes are segmented into discrete steps), and the compartimentalization biais (highly interdependent conceptutal elements are trated in isolation with taking into account interaction effects).
“The remedy for learning deficiencies related to domain complexity and irregularity requires the inculcation of learning processes that afford greater cognitive flexibility: this includes the ability to represent knowledge from different conceptual and case perspectives and then, when the knowledge must later be used, the ability to construct from those different conceptual and case representations a knowledge ensemble tailored to the needs of the understanding or problem-solving situation at hand.” (Spiro, 1992)
Rephrased by Godshalk et al (2004:211) Cognitive flexibility theory
as conceived by Spiro et al. (1987) suggests the following:
- Using multiple case studies to insure that a variety of possible situations are presented.
- Focusing on cross-case differences in how concepts and principles are applied.
- Consideration of multiple perspectives (individual points of view) as an aid to understanding the connected nature of the domain concepts and promoting flexible knowledge building.
“In summary: Ill-structured aspects of knowledge pose problems for advanced knowledge acquisition that are remedied by the principles of Cognitive Flexibility Theory. This cognitive theory of learning is systematically applied to an instructional theory, Random Access Instruction, which in turn guides the design of nonlinear computer learning environments we refer to as Cognitive Flexibility Hypertexts.” (Spiro, 1992)
The architecture of a cognitive flexibility hypertext
Spiro et al. (1992) claaim that good strategies for advanced teaching and learning in ill-structured domains are in many ways the opposite of what works best for introductory learning and in more well-structured domains as for example in the direct instruction model.
A few constrasts of design features:
introductory learning and well-structured domains |
avance learning and ill-structured domains |
|
knowledge organization | compartmentalization | knowledge interconnectedness |
generalization | general principles with wide scope of application | across-case variability and case-sensitive interaction
of principles |
representation | single unifying representational basis | multiple representations |
Since it is impossible to teach each occurence of ill-structured knowledge, Spiro et al. (1992) argue that “emphasis must be shifted from the retrieval of intact knowledge structures to support the construction of new understandings, to the novel and situation-specific assembly of prior knowledge drawn from diverse organizational loci in preexisting mental representations.”
References
- Godshalk, Veronica M., Douglas M. Harvey, Leslie Moller (2004). The Role of Learning Tasks on Attitude Change Using Cognitive Flexibility Hypertext Systems, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (4) 507-526. [1] (Access restricted).
- Coulson, R.L., P.J. Feltovich and R.J. Spiro. "Cognitive Flexibility in Medicine: An Application to the Recognition and Understanding of Hypertension." Advances in Health Sciences Education, 1997, 2, pp. 141-61.
- Harvey, D., Jonassen, D., & Clariana, R. (2000). Cognitive Flexibility Hypertext and the Role of the Learning Task. In Kommers, P., & Richards, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2000 (pp. 423-428). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. HTML/PDF (Access restricted).
- Jacobson, M and A. Archodidou. " The Design of Hypermedia Tools for Learning: Fostering Conceptual Change and Transfer of Complex Scientific." The Journal of Learning Sciences, 2000,9, pp.149-199.
- Jonassen, D., D. Dyer, K. Peters, T. Robinson, D. Harvey, M. King, and P. Loughner. "Cognitive Flexibility Hypertext on the Web: Engaging Learners in Meaning Making," B. Khan, Web-Based Instruction. Englewood, Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publishing, 1997.
- Spiro, R. J. & Jehng, J. C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163-205). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 57-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates. HTML reprint