Considering the distinction between well- or ill-structured knowledge domains is important for teaching and learning because it is one way of describing the differences in knowledge and abilities between novices and experts. Spiro et al. (1992) explained that a common pitfall in the acquisition of advanced knowledge — that is, in the long transition from novice to expert — is a tendency toward oversimplification, or “reductive bias” (p. 62). Approaches to introductory teaching tend to treat related concepts in isolation, and this leaves learners unable to effectively apply ideas in more complex problem situations. From a teaching perspective, therefore, it is important to keep the spectrum from well- to ill-structured knowledge in mind in order to adjust teaching practices to discourage oversimplification as learners gain experience. The question of how to adjust teaching practices, of course, is a question yet to be answered fully.
Relatedly, considering the difference between well- and ill-structured systems for learning is intimately connected to the appropriateness of teaching strategies and learning experiences for learners at different points along the novice-to-expert spectrum. Shapiro and Niederhauser (2004) highlight many research results suggesting that different designs of hyperlinked texts may be more or less beneficial for learners of differing expertise levels. These results were particularly interesting to me as a designer of curriculum materials. While Shapiro and Niederhauser focus mostly on students as those learning from hyperlinked texts, I found myself wondering how this research could inform the design of teacher-facing curriculum materials appropriate for novice versus experienced teachers.
Hi Katie –I agree that even though these readings focus mostly on digital environments, there are important implications for design and instruction. Shapiro and Niederhauser (2004) note that subjects like history and psychology are inherently more ill-structured and do not necessarily benefit from rigid structure. Perhaps instead of thinking as classroom instruction as progressing in a linear or hierarchical way, educators could use the flexibility of digital spaces as inspiration for their classroom instruction allowing for more exploration. It still might not mimic the ill-structuredness of hyperlinked texts, but it could be moving along the continuum in that direction and allow for advanced students to make deeper connections.
Hi Katie, I appreciated your discussion of how understanding a spectrum of structured and ill-structured domains informs teaching practices for different students. One thought/question I had during our readings was how teachers can address both structured- and ill-structured domain-needs for a heterogenous class. If I need to scaffold down for low-achieving students, is not that structured domain then an obstacle for my high-achieving students’ ill-structured-domain needs? To scaffold down often implies simplifying content, but Spiro et al. (1992) call over-simplification a “learning deficiency” (p. 62). Traditionally, teachers are taught that scaffolding down for struggling students isn’t inherently bad (and is, in fact, an extra benefit) for advanced students’ learning, but I wonder if this is false. This is an area of research I am anxious to learn more about.
Kimberly — Good point. Your comments about allowing more exploration leave me wondering whether less-structured subjects might be good places for teachers to start if they are considering implementing more open-ended instructional techniques like problem-based learning.
Sarah — I also thought about the relationship between structuredness as discussed in this week’s readings and the idea of scaffolding. One thing I think is often misunderstood about scaffolding is that it is called such precisely because it should be temporary and intended to be removed, like how scaffolding comes down after a building is complete. So scaffolding isn’t meant to be simplifying content but rather just adding extra supports to help students reach the same content. It’s a powerful idea, but very tricky to implement in practice, which is why I think it often does end up just simplifying content. I, too, would like to know more about the ways in which CFT could be used as tools to better guide scaffolding techniques.
albertsk said
Hi Katie –I agree that even though these readings focus mostly on digital environments, there are important implications for design and instruction. Shapiro and Niederhauser (2004) note that subjects like history and psychology are inherently more ill-structured and do not necessarily benefit from rigid structure. Perhaps instead of thinking as classroom instruction as progressing in a linear or hierarchical way, educators could use the flexibility of digital spaces as inspiration for their classroom instruction allowing for more exploration. It still might not mimic the ill-structuredness of hyperlinked texts, but it could be moving along the continuum in that direction and allow for advanced students to make deeper connections.
Hi, Kimberly. You imply here that design and instruction are never digital. How do your points change when you consider digital design and instruction?
galvins1 said
Hi Katie, I appreciated your discussion of how understanding a spectrum of structured and ill-structured domains informs teaching practices for different students. One thought/question I had during our readings was how teachers can address both structured- and ill-structured domain-needs for a heterogenous class. If I need to scaffold down for low-achieving students, is not that structured domain then an obstacle for my high-achieving students’ ill-structured-domain needs? To scaffold down often implies simplifying content, but Spiro et al. (1992) call over-simplification a “learning deficiency” (p. 62). Traditionally, teachers are taught that scaffolding down for struggling students isn’t inherently bad (and is, in fact, an extra benefit) for advanced students’ learning, but I wonder if this is false. This is an area of research I am anxious to learn more about.
Hi, Sarah. Do you think this would be an opportunity to cite Vigotsky on zone of proximal development and how that may relate to cognitive flexibility theory, or not?
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:
2 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)