Models are very important as they enable aspects of the system, i.e., objects, events, or ideas which are either complex, or on a different scale to that which is normally perceived, or abstract to become either visible or more readily visible.
Models are also very important in scientific research in formulating hypotheses to be tested and describing scientific phenomena.
Recently, the need of a theory of model-based teaching and learning (MBTL) came out due to the cognition of the importance of models in physics education and research.
One of the challenges up to now is that there is no coherent theory that outlines the cognitive processes involved in model-based learning and even there are no any coherent theories of how model-based teaching should be approached.
Agnes:
You appear to be breaking new ground, and I commend you for taking up the challenge. I have tried integrating models to arrive at a suitable one to better accommodate the context of international students as I could not find one like you. This article may be helpful:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45724244_Integrating_Cross-Cultural_Elements_Into_Workforce_Education_Curriculum_Design?ev=prf_pub
Many thanks,
Debra
Article Integrating Cross-Cultural Elements Into Workforce Education...
Hattie's synthesis of all things that impact on teaching and learning would be invaluable here as it has fantastic summaries.
Visual learning by Hattie.
It is an epistemological problem relative to the knowledge field. but it is possible to find a commun factor involved in teories. (The substance)
EG The commun substance of Philosopphy, experimental science and medicine is the truth, but the final causes (Aristotle) degfning their meanings are different Only on these basis knowlefge objects and methods could be defined.
Motivation to learn, (antrhropic dactor), is related to the affective value given
a to the substance
b to the final causes
c to the meaning
Giusepper R.Brera
Answer to
in Reseacrh Gate 20 October 2015
on the question " What should we know in order to develop coherent theories of model-based teaching and learning?"
What should we know in order to develop coherent theories of model-based teaching and learning?
Unless you have already come across some of these resources, I hope you'll find at least some of them helpful:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/095006900416839?journalCode=tsed20
http://simscientists.org/downloads/Buckley_Model_Based_Teaching.pdf
Models and Modeling: Cognitive Tools for Scientific Enquiry by Myint Swe Khine, Issa M. Saleh 2011
http://www.myread.org/scaffolding.htm
Professor Robert Burden's whole school approach to teaching and learning:
http://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/education/research/centres/teachingthinkingdialogue/cedu/
http://www.thinkingschoolsinternational.com/focused-implementation/
Return to systems theory. Systems theory (Cybernetics} was explored for a brief time in the 1950s but educators typically do not have the context or background for it. I am talking about CyberneticsII, not computers or other technology. CyberII is a way of thinking about processes. Education, as it typically does, adopted a couple of terms from CyberII without understanding the context originally intended. One example is the use of the word, "feedback," that in CyberII is part of a system. How many educators have ever heard of the counterpart, "Feedforward," that his the theory of instruction?
We are now at a point at least 50 years after the original attempts were made to place education on a CyberII foundation. Can social CyberneticsII make a difference now? Search for "Instruction theory" sites for background also.
Example of one aspect of cybernetic context that was misunderstood during the 1980s: thinking of input to the student as questioning. Asking a question is an input cue, but it is an executive function, not a content function--a difference never understood and thus a blind alley occurred. Questioning as a cue leaves open the possibility that other cues can be employed. Try this: Go and entire day without ever asking a question. How? Use directives, invitations, situation explanations etc., and responses will follow. Questions are too often interpreted subconsciously as interrogation-- terrifying in the classroom! This context of questioning fits into the cyberII modeling as quality of climate (level of stress and intimidation that has an effect on the autonomic nervous system). Can we restart a systems analysis basis for education?
Ausubel is a good source for that piece in regard to previewing ("(priming" in behavior theory, "activation" in neuroscience). Previewing can be a stage/tool in the input stage of a system (increase in receptivity/relevance to curriculum). A point here: as much as possible make the analysis and discussion generic, and separate diligently the topics of instruction (process and process tools) vs. curriculum (content). Generic language may seem abstract at first but exemplary specific content can be used in your subject area. Generics apply to all teachers and content at every level. Be clear at the outset about the context of your inquiry: instruction or curriculum, but not both. Instruction theory applies to any and all processes used to convey curriculum content, but curriculum theory applies only to content understanding.
A good second-order Cybernetics article is:
Second-Order Economics as an Example of Second-Order Cybernetics Cybernetics and Human Knowing. Vol. 18, nos. 3-4, Cybernetics and Human Knowing. Vol. 18, nos. 3-4, pp?
The "First principles" thread is also very good in education:
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.
Merrill, M.D. (1994). Instructional design theory. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publica- tions.
Reigeluth, C.M. (1999). The elaboration theory: guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II) (pp. 425–453). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Typical courses on "Learning," "education" and "teaching" deal with curriculum and almost never on "instruction" per se. This confusion leads to thinking that each curriculum area has its own way of teaching, but the deep structure of principles are the same. Once one understands the deep structure framework then any curriculum can be hung on that framework. A kindergarten teacher and a teaching neurosurgeon us the same cybernetic framework for instruction.
Please see some papers that were published recently. Feel free and contact with me if you want.
Kind regards
NP
I'd recommend looking up peircean abduction (CP 5.189) and model based reasoning.
Peirce organizes a complete thought, a persuasive argument, as requiring triadic relations (C, A, B).
The inquiry starts with some surprising phenomenon C, which is a perceptual judgment about the object (problem situation/context), then selecting a satisficeable model A (part of inference to the best explanation) and then mediating the two to figure out the next course of action. Mediation is between members in the commens (you and someone you're trying to persuade; together, the invisible B, http://www.commens.org/about).
The philosophy is a lot more involved than that but it should give you a nice start.
- Badges
- Science topic