Well-structured domains usually follow a linear or hierarchical progression, whereas ill-structured domains are defined by “various forms of conceptual complexity and case-to-case irregularity” (Spiro et al., 1992). These distinctions are important because research has found that well- and ill-structured domains are differently appropriate for learners at different levels. Specifically, Shapiro and Niederhauser (2004) found that well-structured domains better served beginners. However, ill-structured domains were essential to moving advanced learners from shallow to deep knowledge and are more representative of how experts apply knowledge (Spiro et al., 1992; Shapiro & Niederhauser).
These distinctions have important implications for teaching and learning. Since domain types are differently appropriate for beginner and advanced learners, teachers should assess the prior knowledge of their students to determine if a well- or ill-structured domain is needed. Furthermore, this suggests that it may be better for teachers to first present concepts within a well-structured domain – in a linear or hierarchical fashion. However, instead of stopping here (as most standardized assessments would allow) learning can be continued in an ill-structured domain to allow students to “embody the knowledge” and apply it in different ways (Spiro et al, 1992). Additionally, this has implications for differentiation. Instead of giving advanced students more assignments or “harder” assignments, perhaps teachers could use ill-structured domains to challenge these students and allow them to use the content they already know in different ways. In other words, instead of making students learn more, teachers can afford advanced students opportunities to learn better.
Kimberly,
I like your more versus better distinction for advanced learners, but it got me thinking about “step size” (for lack of a better term). In the curriculum materials I used to work on, we wrote an enrichment activity for every lesson, intended to help teachers differentiate. It bothered me that these tended to do the same thing as the main lesson, but use bigger numbers or more complex shapes. In the context of today’s readings, that basically meant taking a step further along the structure rather than breaking down the structure. I would have liked to see more enrichment activities that became less structured. But is that feasible for differentiation within a lesson, or does it only work when the advanced students are several steps ahead?
Hi Kimberly – You make a wonderful point about “teaching better.” Your post got me thinking about the impact of cognitive load when students are introduced to challenging concepts while also using an ill-structured approach. As Shapiro & Niederhauser (2004) state “too little guidance can paralyze learners with an overwhelming cognitive load” (p. 613). This makes me believe that by teachers experimenting with ill-structured practices with “mastered content” may be an effective way of helping them gain new skills. I think this is especially important given our increases in technological advancement. Teachers are at the forefront and have the ability to make positive changes in students. My only concern is teachers not being able to cover as much content if they are using these strategies too.
richkat3 said
Kimberly,
I like your more versus better distinction for advanced learners, but it got me thinking about “step size” (for lack of a better term). In the curriculum materials I used to work on, we wrote an enrichment activity for every lesson, intended to help teachers differentiate. It bothered me that these tended to do the same thing as the main lesson, but use bigger numbers or more complex shapes. In the context of today’s readings, that basically meant taking a step further along the structure rather than breaking down the structure. I would have liked to see more enrichment activities that became less structured. But is that feasible for differentiation within a lesson, or does it only work when the advanced students are several steps ahead?
Hi, Katie. Your response is anecdotal only, but it raises a good question. Can you draw more evidence or information from the readings to support your points?
liraamal said
Hi Kimberly – You make a wonderful point about “teaching better.” Your post got me thinking about the impact of cognitive load when students are introduced to challenging concepts while also using an ill-structured approach. As Shapiro & Niederhauser (2004) state “too little guidance can paralyze learners with an overwhelming cognitive load” (p. 613). This makes me believe that by teachers experimenting with ill-structured practices with “mastered content” may be an effective way of helping them gain new skills. I think this is especially important given our increases in technological advancement. Teachers are at the forefront and have the ability to make positive changes in students. My only concern is teachers not being able to cover as much content if they are using these strategies too.
Hi, Crystal. Your writing here is a little unclear. When you speak of “helping them learn new content,” are you talking about the teachers or the students? Thank you for clarifying.
Administrators:
Christine Greenhow
Diana
Rand
cainwil1
Ming
Top Posters:
galvins1: 51
richkat3: 50
albertsk: 43
moudgal1: 43
schellma: 41
liraamal: 39
Emilia: 35
zhumengd: 34
Forum Stats:
Groups: 6
Forums: 19
Topics: 97
Posts: 339
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 0
Members: 77
Moderators: 0
Admins: 5
Most Users Ever Online: 58
Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)