The distinction between “well” and “ill” structured domains is central to understanding how people learn, particularly from a cognitive constructivist perspective. The ability to discern the level of “structuredness” in a particular domain helps us to see a task/activity in terms of its context (situation-specific or transferable across various situations), parameters (closed systems or open systems), process (linear or nonlinear), and complexity (close-ended, single solutions or ambiguous, multiple solutions). Traditionally, instruction has tended towards teaching in a well-structured manner by creating artificial, constrained problems and activities or by reducing complex concepts into simplistic, “well-defined” knowledge structures and learning strategies.
Researchers such as Spiro and Shapiro are recognizing technology’s potential to create ill-structured domains and tasks that are a more accurate representation of the complex, nuanced phenomenon and problems faced in “ill-structured” real, world settings—a world that wrestles with issues and challenges beyond the scope of textbook solutions and strategies. The value in being able to appreciate the distinctions between “ill” and “well” structured knowledge domains extends beyond hypertext literacy practices—as mentioned in the Spiro et al. reading, learning at very advanced levels occurs in “ill-structured” problems and environments in professional domains such as medicine, history, law, and beyond. Technology enables educators to design and model “ill-structured” problems and environments that embody the complexity of these knowledge domains.
Hi Marissa,
I especially appreciate what you say about how “ill” and “well” structured knowledge domains extend beyond hypertexts and into real-life areas. I often have thought that this causes problems in ‘transfer’. For instance, we often need well-structured systems when we are new to learning something. But when we need to apply it in practice, we may feel lost as all the complexity is new to us. Given this, I wonder if you know of strategies for novices who may have experienced only well-structured systems for learning but need to apply something in a complex world. What would ease their transfer, I wonder…
Hi Marissa, Your comments about technology facilitating ill-structured domains in the classroom made me think that the remaining problem is determining what type of domain is best suited for different students. As Shapiro and Niederhauser (2004) detail, we are still unsure of how/when to use ill-structured domains beyond understanding novices’ need for more structure (p. 610). Many teachers struggle with this: they are either conservative with implementing ill-structured domains because they are uncomfortable or cling to the overly-simple “artificial” environments you describe, or they push novices into ill-structured environments without the required supports to have productive experiences. Either of these situations leads to poor outcomes, which then discourage continued tech use. We need research to clarify best-practices for ill-structured domains before we see the full potential of those environments utilized.
moudgal1 said
Hi Marissa,I especially appreciate what you say about how “ill” and “well” structured knowledge domains extend beyond hypertexts and into real-life areas. I often have thought that this causes problems in ‘transfer’. For instance, we often need well-structured systems when we are new to learning something. But when we need to apply it in practice, we may feel lost as all the complexity is new to us. Given this, I wonder if you know of strategies for novices who may have experienced only well-structured systems for learning but need to apply something in a complex world. What would ease their transfer, I wonder…
Hi, Sukanya. Please provide a citation for the main point you’re making here. Also, if possible, try to avoid repeating points that have been made by others in the same thread. This is very challenging in this kind of discussion situation.
galvins1 said
Hi Marissa, Your comments about technology facilitating ill-structured domains in the classroom made me think that the remaining problem is determining what type of domain is best suited for different students. As Shapiro and Niederhauser (2004) detail, we are still unsure of how/when to use ill-structured domains beyond understanding novices’ need for more structure (p. 610). Many teachers struggle with this: they are either conservative with implementing ill-structured domains because they are uncomfortable or cling to the overly-simple “artificial” environments you describe, or they push novices into ill-structured environments without the required supports to have productive experiences. Either of these situations leads to poor outcomes, which then discourage continued tech use. We need research to clarify best-practices for ill-structured domains before we see the full potential of those environments utilized.
Hi, Sarah. Nice job including citation, advancing the argument.
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:
5 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)