...

Il
• ..

Structures and Modela: Curriculum Design

'J
b _

< /'

li

o
 .-- , . .. \
(1

Mooas AND STRUCTURES

AS BASIC CONCEPTS FOR THE -DESIGN OF

A CREATIVE CURRIEtJ[ M
,',\ /'
" by

Robert A. E. Myers'

,.

A dissértation submitted to the

Faculty of Grod,uote Studies and Research

in pa~tial fulfillment ôf the requirements

for the degr~ of Master of Arts (Educatton)

\
\

\
"
Facul ty of Education
Mc Gill University
Montrea'l
8' \. "
" ''r
. 1 ."dOC' t

(9 Robert A. E. Hyers 1974

,
 l' J

MODELS AND STRUCTURES AS BASIC CONCEPTS FOR TAE

,
DESIGN OF A CREATIVE CURRICULUM

L
Robert A. E. Myers

Facul ty' of Educatlon

McGi11 University
1
M. A. (Ed.) March, 1974

. study concerns the concepts of struct~re and model as

(

particuJar kinds of symbol s ems within the realms' of knowledge and thinking
,---- .., .
respectively. It also relates the~ two ncepts to ihtell7.nd suggests. that .

intellectual activity is one of the main areas .whe formai education in the.

form~f thè school can and should bring about distinct éhang

act.v

The main conc~rn of the study is curriculum design, and it con-

cludes With a proposai in the way of a conceptual guide for curriculu~design- ~

ers. This proposai involves establishing structure and model as fundamental

, \ , ,
concepts which should be a main con cern of designers of c~rriculum both prior
\' "I}~ ..

., to anet quring encount,rs with students as 'part of the curriculum in effect •

•

"
 ,

'. , .

R~SUME

Cette étude a trait aux concepts relatifs ci une structure ainsi

P t L
qu'à un mOd~I. qui s.rv.~t ici de symboles précis dans le )anaine de la

con na issance et de .Ia pensée respectivement. Cette étude établ it aussi le lien
... - p
qui existe entre ces deux concepts et ~ 'intellectotout en suggérant ~ue 1 'activité

intellectuelle est l'un des principaux secteurs où une formation conventionnelle,

~

dont l'école demeure le véhicule., peut et devrait apporter des changements

marqués au niveau de la pensée.

d .
},

Cette étude se préoccupe principalement de la planification au

,
. niveau du programme d'études et se termine en proposabt une sorte de g&ide
.
conceptuel à l'usage' des concepteurs de/.s mê~es ~ogrammes d'études. Cette
fil
proposHion entend établ ir une structure et un mod~le iII ustrant les idMs fonda-

mentales que les concepteurs

,
de,profils académiqu~s devraient pr-endre en
~

considération autant aV,ant que durdnt les rencontres avec les étudiants lorsque
•
le programme d'études est mis en vigueur.' \

, .
 . 1 •

9.
.' ..
TABLE"OF CONTENTS
i,

INTROOUCTION Il • , •••••••••••••••• , ••••••••••••••••••••••••

1. ' THE CONCEPT OF STRUCTURE AS AN ELEMENT

,Of THE' THINKING ACT ....................... Il Il Il Il •• Il Il ....
.
14

Purpose •••••• Il •• Il ••••• Il Il •• Il Il Il •• Il Il Il • Il Il Il •• Il •• Il • Il Il 14

The Nature of Structure .......... ! Il ••••• Il Il • Il •• ':! •••• 15

Structuring as Applied to Scientific and to, .+

Humanistic Problems ... Il' • • Il Il •••• Il Il Il 'l' Il Il Il Il ••••• 17

StructuringJ A Proce~ "

Gonnecting Knowledge 19

o
Vertical and Lateral StructUre - Il Il • Il Il • Il ••• Il ••••• Il Il •• Il 19
(

Thinking - Knowledge - Structure· Il • Il Il •• Il Il Il Il •• Il • • • Il 20

Logical and Psychological Structures 23

, Sorne Examptes of Structure 26
Il Il • Il • Il • • • Il • • Il Il • • • Il Il • Il •
.,.,
Structuring Knowledge in a Curriculum 28

Sumrnary ...... .................. , .... , ......... .

~ 30

References •• Il fi . . . . . Il Il • • • • Il Il • Il • • • • • • • • • Il Il • Il ...... Il 34
""

,
2. THE CONCEPT OF MOOB. AS A THINK ING DEVICE 36

Definition of M04jIeis • Il • • • Il • • Il •••••• Il ••• Il • Il • Il • • • •

36 '

The Use of Model'S - ......................... ...... . , 37

1
..
,'
l'

Five Aspects of Models ........... " .............. . 39

e.
 Sources ................... ,. ............. . 39
Faatures ·............................... .
-'
43

Functions ................................ 51

Forms ·..............,: ................... . 53

Types 54
'\
The Theoretical Nature of Models. 57
Applying Schwob's Thesis to Models j ••••••••••••••• 58

Summary ................ ............... ..... .

~ ; 60

, References' ·................................... . 63

3. ASSOCIATNE FACTORS'. Œ STRUCTURÉS AND MODELS 65

Introduction · .................................. . 65

The Influence of Models and Structures on

Intellect and Knowledge •• • •••• ••• • •• . • •. • • •• •• . 6P
Models and Structuring as Intelligence Indicators

Sunvnary •• f ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

References .....................................
'\
75

4. COMPÔNENTS OF THE EDUCATIONAL ÂCT ........ ....... . ' 76

Basic Processe; Within the EduCCJtional Act .......... 0 76

TMnking ·............................... . 76

Learning ·............................... . 77

\'
Transfer .................................. 79

The Intelligence Factor ..................... 81

(
 Structures and Modefs in Education 83

..... ... ....•...... ....;....... .

••••••••• If •••••

The Leorner 83
1

The Psychological Factor ...... ....' 85

Curriculum ..................................... 87

Summary ............. 94

. References ............................ 96 , Q

5, THE ROLES OF MODELS AND STRUCTURES IN

DESIGNING CURRICULA ,", , , '" , , , ., • " •••••• 98

Intellect ................................. 98

Curriculum ................... ,. ..... o

100

Planning Encounters · ..................... . 100

Mode.ls and Creativity

1
.................. 103

Creative Power ·....................... . 104

Creative Process ......... ............ .

~ 105

Creative Product ·..................... . 106

A Po int of Departure ............................ 107

Deduction ·.............................. . 109

Induction ·.............................. . 110

Intltition
l\
.................................. 1.10

Design of the CJ.eative Curriculum ............. , .... 111

A Cross-Section of the Creative Curriculum ..... 112

Elements of the Creative Curriculum t •••••••••• 113

The Ideal Encounter ......................... 115,

References • • ft • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 117
 Il

•\

.
CONCLUSION .... " .. -, ............ . ............. . 118

BIBllOGRAPHY ......... ... ..............................

1
• 1• 125
\

"

c
 ., ., • •

INTRODUCTION

Intellect - An Educational Concern

The process c:l education in a broad sense is not restricted to the

institution of the school. Many institutions seek to educate, cwnong which are the
\

Church, the Family and Goverrvnent. In countries. where schooling is sCarce or

e'ven non-existent, these institutions arnong others, c:lten compete for authority.

ln some societies, this results in'\chools being establish.ed as indoctrination fdeilities

designed to controJ the enculturation of the children befonging to that society. In

such case~e motivating factor behind the school, is often the preservation c:l ari

already existing institution such as a particular form of goverrwnent, the church Of a

military organization.

It may even be argued that 011 schoo's originate as sotell ites c:l other

institutions. h· is olso evident, however, thet in many coontries the schoo' has

accepted responsibility for taking the student beyond indoctrination, and its function
" .
has evolved into sanething more idealistic thon enculturation.
"
ln such cases, where education is directed towords improving the

quai ity of intellectuel response rather thon fostering a prescribéd responSe, the think-
1
ing act itself becomes a dominant concem. When this occurs, the educational func-
.
tion bf the school becomes onique as compared to the educational function of other"
v
.-
 /.

.. /'J

-2-

e-
institutions. At this point, the intellectual welfare ~ the ihdividual becomes the

primary concern of the school and a n~w kind c:J education comes into being. It is
. .
this form of education which will be the topic referred to from this point forword~

since it is education of this kind which is most evident in the scbools c:J North
•
..
J

Americ;an society.

Before enterine into the next phase of,the':lintroductory rernorks, it

sh"'ould be mentioned t~at -even when thè school's primory fÙnction is an intellectuel
, '
one, theré mey be any number of secondGry activities which an educotional system

creates or adopts. It may, indeed, administer: to every wont and whim c:J every

individual 'iotnder its ~fluence, but there are other agendes designed to deal wifh

,
..
ge r\era 1 health, moral

the institution ~
de~opment,
, .
social relat,ionships and so on. However, only

education (th'e school, in this case) is designed to acIminister

directly to the intellectual needs ~ individuals •

.
Education as a Discipl ine

The;e is a basic misconception about education as a"')study, wbich

presents it CH a quasi-discipline - this has preventad educat~on,from asswning its

1
proper position among the recognized disciplines such as biology, physics, or even
. "
such obscure di,cipline$oas zetetics or philology. This same m'sconception leods to

educators bein~egarded as para-prc:Jessionals.

.
The emergence in this century cl inéreasing nwnben cl teach.-train-
,

ing institutions, Încluding the faculti.s cl eduCation within à numb.- cl prestigious

• . '

, '
•
"
.. .
~ ~ . I~

.. .
, '" .
- 3-

" ...
~niversities, attests to the façt that someone recognizes that there ore ski Ils ~
•

(J'

teaching and learning impl ied withtn the educotional oct. There'is still a large
.. 1 _ ... ) ,

amount of controversy, howe~er, over such matters os the differences between the
, "

,purpdse which society has for ed",c3tiol'\ and ,the gools .which an educEtor establ ishes

for a given system of education.

The quesfio'n of educational 9bjectives is ~e direct concern r:J

this studYi hor is it ass~med tha' the problem ha~ not, heretÔfore been amply discussed.
1

Sûch eminent ~~'Igrs as John Dewey and Marc Be.lth have' de~onstrated the
1
.
2
, ,
e';'ergence r:J contemporary education as a discipline per se. This work merely
~ ---....
qttempts 1.,0 propose one way in'which educ::ation May begin to produce curricula
.
which are more characteristically ~ucational by ~r;.t~e of both their desigrr.and
.

their content.

,One of ;he most distressing fti~tures r:J 'education is thet in terms cl

\
•
" objectives.and procelses it appears to..be nothing more than a gossamer. In spite Qf
.
innumerob~ attempts to draw analogies between teachérs and doctors" teac'hers and
, . .
parents, and so OA, tne paraUels themaelves always seem t~ becom~ fi imsy and the ,
,

'a new round of .confusing metaphoric analogies.

.
proposed connecting points are t~o eJlhemeral to be pragmatic. The result is us\:fally
\
\ \
\

'Two products of this theory of 1lon-sub,tancé are the. beli~ that "good

teachers are bom and not made" and curricula ar~ not"ing more thon th. disciplines
.
in brief - small ish repl i~, of the I<novtledge content borrowed from
. .the~rt, ~nd
. ,

/
 .,
~,
"

\.- 4-
"

• /

.' ~
, <l

sci~mce!;; ar:l~ reass~bled rather a~bitrqril)< for students

/
r,e~son) the teache~ ~at~o.~ .,~pect'to be ~o~':ulteod
1

'
"
consumption. For this

on educationaf ~atters, si~ce

",

(
ll
the tenno "education
,
I,mpl.ies no, particular expertise (Qther thon
•
" presumobly, that,'
.. " ... r, l 1

, '
•
.
wh'i~h results naturally from having been educated ol1eself) and no body of esoteric
. .
ferms, nç ~ys'tique such os t~ose which shrouq mediciFle,' law ,ar:td other professions

'which a~e cons1derea t~ have developed dtrectJy ft'om establ ished d-1scipl in~s.
1
• 1
~ d ~ ()

Even when svch teJ1'!ls as '''m~thodology" grow out of a set of specifi-

..JIi' 0.. t ,... Il c; 0>'

~ally educationol precepts, the)! usuÇJlly imply t~ê mea,ns for ,~(getting i1' across",
, , .

,"it" referring'to the'contents of the purer disdplines.~ It seems that the twô most
, . . ' ,

;~spected el~ënts' of a' c~rri'culum c;,;re inforrn(Jtion reducHon and presentation. A

gr~t deol of attention is given to forming subjectswithin a,curriculum 'to repr~ent

.,. - , ...
• Jo ,.. ~. l):r " c f!

the. content and processes of the parent djsciplrne~ whi!e ig~oring. th~ means whereby
l ,00

Il • l "

the student -Ïs to become constàntly awarè that knowledgè is nof a fixed entity and
•
l
• that the wey in whihan 0'
controls his envirorvn~nt is represented n
by, the ways in •
'l} 0

. '
, ",

wh ich 'he cre<lfes and 'uses koowl edge.'.

! . ,
"
.'

,
.
,) "
1
'Il

The Influence of Belth and 'Sruner

, 1
,In sprte of the bel ief that experience 'Und e~ucation ore for the most
\1 ..... < , "

. part s},"onymous and.that the more a man "knowslt·the more copoble'"he is"of feaching,
t ' • P 4
~ ~

.'
.. .. • '4-

....
there is the germ of a new philospphy becoming evident within sane educational
,'('",.. ... ~ \ . .
.. (irrdes. M~r~ Belth refers to a "new world of educa:ion": "he sugges~s th~t .eÇucation
1', , ( must corne, to design
, and u~ its own resource~ and prescrioe its own terms of referenée: 3 '

.1

" ,

....
c
 . , -5 -

Furthennore., the, educotional act is to begin by focusing on the

thinking act itself. Then, in preference to being defined in ah exclusively extra-

, G w·

territorial manner (that is ~n terms of borrowed content and sociological. objectives),

education must ~stablish its own course. If the ultimatf objective of education is to

improve thinking and not to me.te1y represent the disciplines, then it must investigate
:\
ail means to study the thinking act and then design curricula' capable of prQducing
• CI

1.
changes in that act so as to make the learner more capable of deal ing with and
!
creating his envirorvnent at the intellectual level.

Having identified the thinking act, education must then establish a

set of precepts through which the connection .between education and thinking con be
-.... _,
~

identified. Th.s work attempts to reconcile thinking and education through two
<, 1

perspect"ives -. the philosophical and the psych%gica/. Alth~ugh the domain of this
\

study is p-imarily philosophical,

,
there is a psychological aspect contained within it
'

in that a particular way of regarding thinking is prescribed'•

• a

"
4
When Jerome Bruner identifies structuring and Belth discusses model-

ing, each is identifying a segment of the many; diverse' and comp/ex processes which
" ~ 1
constitute thinking. Furthermore, modelin'g and structuring are considered as fonns of
• 1
, • t .
intellectuaLskills. They seem to suggest an ~rea, then, where the educational oct
..
may be .brought to bear. In the present study, Bruner' s theory of structure and Bel th' s
, .
theory of model arë brought into j~xtaposition to show how the two concepts can be

" used by çurriculum designers ••

, .
 -6-

the Conceptual Domain of This Work

The conceptual aspect of this presentation is intended to 1ink the

r
cognitive phase of the thinking oct (as opposed to the affective pha~) with the

educational act. Based on Bel th 's interpretatio~ of the role of the symbol in think-
- ,

ing (i .e.: that thinking is the act of symbol-making and -using),5 ~ne part of this
J "
paper will explore how models and structures emerge and their subsequent role ,in
1

thinking; the s~cond part speculates as to their role in curric:ulum design. The
following is a brief synopsis of the way in which the term symbol is to be ",sed.

. -
Symbols: ln order to establish a meaning 'for "symbols" it is helpfuHf we first use

Belth 's manner of distinguishing between tl!.e physical world and the conceptual
F

6
world. While the physical world manifests itself as the "ehb and flow" within W'hich

man finds himself caught up, the conceptual worlèl exists in the form of an anti-world

whose objective it IS to exert .sorne control over the physical world by arranging it
1

and lending it logical structure and meaning and reason ~

The basic difference between the world·of ebb and flow and the wo~ld

of concepts which man creotes in order ta take t~e physical world unto himself is that
, . ,.
the physicol world originates as an- act cl nature and the conceptual world originates

as an oct of intellect. Vlhile this may, in foct, be an over-simplica!ion of the

correlativ,e aspect of man and the universe, it does seem to indicate a place within

the ~cheme of things for the symbol. Just as we can aécept the DNA molecule as

being the source e1ement which divides the two worlds oflife and non-life, 50 can

~ 1 1
 -7-

---
we creote two realms of èKistence which co-constitute man IS world, py using the

symbol as the ,sour~e elernent.

Furthermore" the patterns themselves which constitute the_ conceptual

world are thoughts, and symbols are the manifestations of thoughts. As symbols be-

come integrated with ~ another through the activity d thinking, then the designed

symbots constitute the models of tliinking.

,
The relevance d symbol-making a~ -using is demo~str(Jted by Belth

in The New Wa;ld of Education with the statement: IIThe p-esence of symbols marks
,
the pre$ence of man_.
117 If we can assume that t:ducation seeks t6 bring about a change

in.thinking which will extend the studentls capacity for improving his environrnent 1

then the following statement by Belth becomes crucial for education:

To the degree t~t this native power &he creation and

1
use of syrnb91s] is refined, and brought to a [Ievel of

development which in principle, but rarely in fact,

he con r~ch by ~imself - \0 that ~egree does his

environment improve, and greater possibil ities for
.' -
living, achieving, creating, become possible for him. 8

...One of the means for improving thet environrnent is through the proper- functioning of
-1 1

an educatianal system.

•
 -8-

Models and Structures: Symbol Systems

The followi~g is a conspectus ~ models and structures as they relate

to symbol systems.
~ ~)
1:V When _ look at the pn><:~ ar.symbol-makii., '!JId ~-using, _ are look-
ing at one ~ the main featu~esl~ the intellectual aspect eX the thinking act."

2. In looking at models
. and structures, we are witnessing Iwo. ways in which the
, i
~

1
.
intellect mokes' use eX the Symbol world to exert sorne control over future •
,
experiences.

3. Symbols are the manifestations of the thinking act.

4. Models are the modes cl reference into which symbols are orgtll\ized ~nd thr~gh

which structures come into being.

5. Stru'ctu~es are the conceptual ~s exerted uPon the physical world to demonstr-

ate relationships in that world. .

6. Education is the deliberate interventioQ into the linatural" intellectual process,

c ~
the aim being to alter this process in such a way as to facilitate in~rp-etation
J

of the physical world by strengthening the capacity to extend and employ the
~ "

conceptual world.

...
7. In terms of the curriculum itself, the device which brings the educationol system

into contact with the leamer, there are fundamentol p-oblems which may become

at l80st partially solvable if •the appt'oach to curriculum theory and design begins
1
if-
 J. "

:" .:1
..
-9- .
.
D, V
1'1. 0.1'

,e
sornewhere other thon on the premise that c~rri'culum is merely,a Focsimile of ~
the discipHnes.

L
Two of the Most obvious shortcornings of the IItraditiontrflt method of

curr-iculum,designing are demonstroted by the information overload and data frag-

/ mentation which, characterize today 's our~icula. A model-stru~ture ~iented

curriculu'm would go a long way toward alleviating sorne of this problem, sinee its

intention is to cultivate an appreciation of meaning, assoéiation, identity and,

('
ul ti~ately, creation.

Sources and Oottine

ln addition to the ,works of Jerone S. 8runer, which included On

-
Knowing,9 A Study of Thinking , 1q Th'e Process
!
d Education 11 and The Rel~vànce
of Edu~atiori!2. Marc 8elth 's works on models have .been used extensively.
, \ <)' ..
,The two

primary ,«ources were Education QS a Discipline 13 and The l:'Iew' World cl Education. l4
, 1 ~
Also 1 Jo~n Dewey 's books entitled Democracy and Education 15 and Experience and
1

, Education 16 have °provided val ~ble backgrdund material used t~ interpret and'
1
•
J •
correlate sorne aspects of 8runer '$ and 8elth 's theories.

1.' Numerous other authors have been studied and represented in sorne

form Or other in the text; some of the more prominent works are cited here: Stanley
J •
Q

'Elam 's collection

~
t
of essays y various no.ted authors published under the title, .
1

Education and 'the Structures of Kno~ledg~ !7 has provided e~;ensive and i~ispensible

J
 - 10-

\
informatiqn regarding the concept of structure. Of particular interest were essays
'"
•
by Schwab, Au'subel, Tycociner and Phenix.

AI so, Ford ànd Pugno 's study, The Structures t:J Knowledge and the
,
Curricu lun18 and King and 8rownell's The Curriculum and the Disciplines of Know-
, 19
ledge have helped in the formuléting of a theory regarding curriculwn.
()

The first three chapters deol wlth models and structur';s as th~y are
prQduced by and represent the thinking act. Models and structures are viewed as \
\

being two of the symbol systems used in thinking.

~

The purpose of these chapters is to establ ish a conceptual range and to

\.
~xplain the set of cro$s-reference points which bring structure a'nd model'into the

domain. of education.

ln the first two chapters, the focus is on'structures and models respec-

tively, while Chapter Three is on ottempt to describe the cross-over.aspects which

J

will later provè S-;gnificant in bringing these conce'pts into edu~atiofL -

, Chapter Four examines the concepts of thinking, leaming, transfer and

intelligence os they apply to a leorning situation, white Chapter Five P'opose5 a

curriculum design.which accentuates a structure-model approach within a"leorning

situation.

There are two basic themes in the thesis: the first conc~s the overall

impl icotions of models and structures when recognized as elements cl the.thinking act

L
 -11-

"e
, .
and their consequent inFluence on education. The second theme,• arisi
1/
ng From, the
,

first, involves an expansion of one particular phase d education - s~ciFicQ.Hy, ...

,. -. curriculum design 1 emphasizing the creati~e Çlspect of !hinking and its relationship

to the educati'onal act.

Crie further comment is necessary at this point:' this is nof intended'

as a c~iculum bl~print, nor as a working document to be used in d~signing

of

curricula. Rather, 'it is intended to conveya philosophical appr,oach to the subject

of curri~ulum th~ory and design based on the befi~f that education s~uld be, in the

Final analysis, the improvement of the thinking cet.

_f

, 1

•
1

I~
 - 12 -

).
References

•
1. De~ey, John. Experience and Education. New York: The Macmillan Co.,
1938.
, ,
, 2. Belth i Marc. The New World of Education. Boston: Ail yn & Bacon, 1970.

3.' Be1th, Marc. Educati~ as Q' Discipl ine. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 196~.

ri t"

,4. B~ner, J. The Process of Educ~tion'. New York: Random House, 1960 •

.-
5. Belth, NOrc. The New World of Education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1970.
pp. 1-5.

6. Ibid. p. 10 \

7. Belth, Marc •. The New Worl~ of Education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1970.
p. 21.

8. Ibid. p. 21.

9. Brunet J. On Knowing., Cambridge" Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962.

,
, .
10. Brun~, J .'et al.' A'Study of Thinking. New.vork: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
1956.
,'
11 . Bruner, J. The Process of EdlJcation. New York: Random House, 1960.

12. Bruner, J.' The R4!tlevance df'Education. New York; Norton, 1971.

13.' Bel:th, Marc. EducatiO!'l as a Discipline. Bo~ton: ~lIyn & Bacon, 1965.
~ .
14. Belth, Marc. The New World of Education'. Boston: Apyn & Bacon, 1970.

15. Dewey, John. Democ~cy and' Education. New York: The Macmillan Co.,
1916.
J

-.
'" ..
,"

\ .
 - 13-

1
16. Dewey, John. Experience and Education. New York: The Macmillan Co.,
-0 1938.
, / ~
17. ~Iam, S. (Ed.). Education and the Structure of Knowledge. Chica(Jo: Rand
McNally, 1964. t

18. Ford, G. W. and L. Pugno (Ed.). The Structure of Knowl-e.dge and the
. Curriculum. Chicago: Rând McNally, 1964.

1~
""'~(
r.
A.R: and J.A. 8rownell. The Curriculum and the Disciplines of
Knowledge. New York: Wiley, 1966. _

~t -

"
 1 - 14 -

l' CHAPTER 1

THE CONCEPT OF STRUCTURE

AS AN ELEMENT OF THE THINKING ACr

Purpose

The pur pose of Chapter One is to 'analyse the concept of structure

from two perspectives, first as it exists within the pracHcal damain and secondly as
~ r

it is appi ied to the theoretical domoin of the phil~sopher-edueator. Although it;,

may be argued that, in, fact, both architect and philosopher use "structure" to

refer to the skeletal elements of the subiects at hand, the chapter will atternpt to

demonstrate that there is a difference between th"'eir usages of the term in- that the

former int~nds to convey the notion of supportive devices, while in the case of the

philosopher-educator l "structures of knowledge" connote connecting devices. This

analogy is one which is developed to the edent of demonstrating why the term
•
structure is an appropriate one to the educator.

., It is also important to note that "structure" wit~n a particularly

r
philosophical-educotional sphere d reference will be taken to mecn structure of

knowledge; no dttempt will be made to establish a case for a naturol inter-

relatedn.,!s of things in the real worl~.-,

i
f
The third argument to be developed in this chapter is that structure

• •

..
 o
- lS-

is (, concept devised by th, philosopher-educator as a controlling, ord..ing and

associating device far knowledge.

~
/
It is intended that this investigation cl the concept ri structure will
. ,
facil itate the attempt made in later c:Mpters to establish structurè as a conceptual
( priority for curric.v'um designers.

The Nature « Structure

,
Structure as a concept is no' uniquely educational;
. an the contrary ,

it is a notion which presents a wide range « inferences and Which generates some-

what different bodies of know'edge, depending on whether it is being used by an

architect in regard to his creations, the artist to explain significance cl certain

techn iques, or the educator to ac~ount for the corltinuity cl knowledge. Despite
.
the variety « inferences which emanote From the use « the tenn, however, it ...

appears that there are two basic connotations of structure and these may be distin-

guished as follows: many times when we use the tenn structure, we mean to..imply

nothing more than the actual design d a thing or a process. In these instances, -Re
1 )

are usually referring to those aspects which give Q thing or a concept shape,-dimen-

sions and range. Also included in this category are ideas such as the ,"structure œ
the molecule" , wherein structure connotes the aetual phenamenologica1 real ity «
protons, neutrons and electrons taking an certain ~ttems and' representing the

design of the molecule.

 )
- \6-

j
Within education, w~ ofhm use the term structure in a manner not

particularlyeducational. For exemple, we refer to the structwe of curriculum, ,

mea!1ing the components of a curriculum system and the arrangement of the parts.
~
This is not a particularly educational kind t:J usage, since the idea conveyed is
- "
, . \.

identiœl to the idee canveyed in the preceding examples •.

Many educational theorists of the early sixties (mast notably J. S.

Bruner) bagan to use the term structure

, in a way which has since ~e to be the

focal point cl extensive educati~nal theorizing. Within this frOlM cl reference,

education was to borrow the basic architectural idee inherent in structure and ta

add another dimensi~n. The' assimilation of this new dimension bfoudtt the concept

of structure into the realm of psychoJogy, for its implicatiqns extended theories r:J
• <;- -

cognition, architectonics* and, ultimotely, education. Asa psycholog~st9 Brun«

uses his theory of structure to explain the thinking oct in relation to knowledge.

Sinae the intellectuol aspect of education can be presumed to be associoted with

the thinking act and the deliberate extending and imprOYi~ t:J that oct, and sinca

the dissemination and creation of knowledge bears a naturol connectedness to the

.
cognitive response of mind to reali~, Bruner 's educotionol theory of structur,tt is

intended to link thinking, knowledna-~"" the educational oct throu~ a particulor

perception cl struct

.'
To understond what Bruner implies ytith the term ·structure-, it is

helpful to think of it os being onal~s ta Plo~'~ theory cl form. 2 It is not within

• The science cl th. structur.s cllcnowledge.

D
"

.
....,

the scope of this work to,extend the analogy at length, J>ut Plato's conception of

on ideel istic plane which transçends reality is similor in some respects to Bryner's

theory that any phenomenon con be feduced conceptually to a more comprehensible

form and thot productive thinking is that which renders the seemingly complex '. ;)

simple.

Cf ,

Thus, one of the dimensions of structùre brings it into the context

- /
of fundamentols, of essentiol jty. This can perhaps be clarified t,hrough anolysis of'

the structuring process as being part of the thinking process.

One of the basic assumptions 15 that the intellectual oct of reducing

the experienced world to comprehensible f<}l'ms known as knowledge occuh simul-

taneously with 0
. ,

structuring process of intellect which pieces together reality by

determining common grou!,ds upon which further infe,rences may be created. This

oct of correlating information to generate IInéw ll bodies of knowledge is the act·of

r
structuring and the relation'ships perceived are taken to be the structures of

knowledge.

ob

Structuring as Appl ied to ~clentifi c ond to Humanisti c Problems

~ q
,

Impl icit in this theory is the notion of solving problems by reducing

.'
~'
011 eleménts of the problem to their simplest "orm and consequently reassimilating

the canponents to expla!n opporently c~plex phenomeno.

\

It seems appropriate at thi. point to comment on a basIc deficiency

•
 ,. o

- 18 -
\ l '

f •
" .
if the theory is taken to apply to ail forms of know/edge and
" C "
011 types of problem.
l '
White Bruner appears correct in assuming thot scientiffè problems demond the reduc-
...
tion of seemingly ,comple~ com~nents
- to sil11pler for;ms,.it
,
is difficult to perc~ive of
' . 'lr
philosophical-humanistic problems as being of the same order. As a matter of foct,

problems which are characteristiéally< philosophical-humanistic oiten occur initially

d
~
1
f I .

QS innately simple questions but· then proceed'under examination to ex tend into

l ' , \

.Ç;-rtually inexpl i.c~ble forms of complexity and diversity. Thus, while ~runer's
'.1 '
(,) '1

th~sis lS on
..
encouraging and compelling one, particularly in those areas for wh-ièh
1/ • '
.~ ~ ~ w

mathematiçal-scientific
. ' . models.are relevant, _tbe, issue is less c1ear
iif,
we conslder
. " .
"
,
l' models"of structure that are philosophical-human~~tic. Fundamental·structures of

!his type aré b~sical.ly differen! from"scientific o~es in that they IlIOv~ From the
",'

.' . simple t@ the c~plex'.'

~ ~

-
1
'To phrase this argument in other terms, si"!ply osking a question is
, , 0

not pecessarily the first step towar~ simplification; when Bruner soys Il ••• it moy
.. ,

be ,that. nothing is intrinsically

\ t ~""
-4>,1'. -

djffi~1t1l3 he is ig~oring the fact that there are

{'
•

c,
! problems which are intrinsically difficult by intent. ere the Dialogues of Ploto
1 , '6' { . . 9 ,

j 1 •

- '.
.(
[\r
..
\
i,ntended to ~e fundamental qÛèstions or to prescribe
.J

i'ntentionally confronts questions which ore, in the order of

.. ' 0.

rais, religion or in
, .
.::
other, hu~nistic .realm,s, h,e obviously ~eg1ns with the premise that there are problems

. whicr pre p<?sed'as simpl~ questions but '"aré, intended' to exemplify the complex nature
. ,

of r:/n P!!. !:..'

~
e ... I!
J

:. ,
110' o·

. 0

1
,,
.' .q
., 1
.
 - 19- \

...
5tructuring: A Pro,t:ess. Connecting Knowledge

,\,l
.It is essential to this dissertation that certain aspects of the concept

of structure be c1arifîed. First, when we refer to structure within an educational

conte~t', w"e are usually referring t~ the structurees) of knowledge. Stru~ture is

J, ' ~

ana~ysed insofar ~s it provides a means ci describing the hypotheticat assotiations

which characterize intellectual activity. Structuring is a vehicle "created by

, • a

intellect to control and extend knowl~ge. 4

Vertical and Lateral Structure

8ased on this 'Perspective the structuring process may be considered

as one of the ~lelJ'ental activities which generate specifie disciplines. Ford and
cJ , " ~ o~ ::.

Pug.,o present the opinion' that structure is something wh'Ïch exisb within each
'" • <1 ...

Cl •
, .
discipline and thet to comprehend the structural aspect of mathematics is tp no

advantage when confronting theOstructure of psychology. 5 The type of structure to

l " , " ..

which they refer is of a particular, kind, referred to hereafte~ as vertical ,structure 1

which 1s the manner in which bodies of knowledge are'grouped together according

, "

...
to ~sic ~i:S:'1aritieS and then distinguished one From another according to the know-
'--
, . .
-

ledge accumula d Ohd the processes of investigation undertaken so as to form th~.

disci'plines. ~ ~nd/'type'of stru:ture iIIustrat~s the uni~ersaf aspect of :;ructure

f
itself, and this will he labeled lateral structure. To put this within an educational

frame o(reference: while most c~ricula a~ ~esigned to investigate the knowledge '

•• . i ....
and procedures withiri Particular disciplines (the vertical structure), little attention

/
,/
\
.

1
,. a
 Il

- 20-

, ",
has been given to the fact tOOt wtiile thinking patterns couse intellects to diverge
.. ,
at various points, the thinking act itself !s the' some act whether it be of~ scientific

bent or a philosophical one. 6 Furthermore, slnc"e struc;turing has b~n identified

as one of the fundamental aspects of thinking, the structu~ing of mathematical

data must becr sorne resemblance to the structuring of codes of ethids, and this

lateral connectedness allows us to consider the universal aspe6t of knowledgé ~hich

-causes it to exist outside of as weil as within the disciplines.

Thinking - Knowledge - Structure

. The,secoM area in rieed of clarific~tion is the conne~tion bet,ween

thinking and know1edge and the influence of structuring. In reference to the.

sources of knowledge, Bruner suggests the following:

Knowledge is a model we construct to give meaning

and structure to regularities in experience • • • we

invent concepts such as force in p~ysics, the bond in

,
chemistry, '!'otives in psycho! ogy , styJe' in literature
.
as meons io the end of comprehension. 7

...
John Dewey has presented a similor ideo when he soid in regard to knowing:

• every perception and every idea is a sense ~

the bearings, use and-cause ?f a thing-o We do not

reolly know a chair or have an idee of it by

 "

- 21 -

inventorying and ennumeroting its various isolated

qualities , but only by bringing the qualifies into

connection with something else - the purpose which

makes it a chair and not a table 1 ••• the 'period 1

whi~h it represents and so on. 8

.
80th auttlors are expressing thé view that knowledge is the product of the intellect
!
)
making associations and basing
, further conclusions on those associations.
1

Further to these conclusions, think,ing is to be regarded as consis-"

ting of, in part, the creating of similarifies within a given'range of experience

with the purpose of deriving formulae to be used as interpretive elements in ·con-

,
.
frooting future p-oblems. It is signiflcant t,9 note 1 then 1 that thinking is not res-
,

tricted to being the pro cess whereby stimuli are received and interpreted; there Îs
l
.
'

a creative element in thinking , and it is within th.s damain tOOt we come to recog--

! nize the elements of imagination 1 intuition and so on.

'A further observation helps ter extend our range of definition of

thinking; this concerns the deciphering aspect of thought. The basic hypoth"esis is

that eve? thought had its origins in sorne p~vious thought and that, consequently 1
V~ . " .
our perception of the world and of the campements which consti~.te the world is
-.. .
determined by our experiences with other things. Thot is , there is a progressive

continuity to per~eption and nothing existsjin the realm of cogni~ion of and, for it-

self. Even allowing for the possibility that certain oJcts of things exist opart from

•
 \

-22-
)

our realm of perception, these aspects are non-cognizable by virtue of the fact,

.that the y a~e not contingencies of our experience and thus they are unknown. 0

Thus our ~rceptions c:J things are the reflections c:J pqst percep~ions as manifested

in what we "know".

. 1 The next quotation by Bruner is used to introduce the third ~rea in

need of clarification:

The structure of knowledge - its connectedness and

-'-., "
the derivations that make one idea follow another -

·th
IS' e proper emph"
OSIS ln e d ucatlon.
.9

At first it appears that Brunp"is suggesting ttlàt knowledge has an

, ""'"
,- ._~J

'
_ 0

existence apart From intelleat and that the structures of knowl~ge are the (XJttems
....
, ,

in which it manifests itself. This would confonn to the nunfoJding universell theory

which contendsjhat the universe is in a state of perpetuai emergence ancf! that

what the mind perce ives is that which, in fact, 'the universe proiects. This inter-

pretation of Bruner 1 s theory is incompl~te, however, ilS evidenced in oth~ areas

.
where he refers to knowledge os " • • • a model we oonstruct • • • n and to con-
jJ
ce pts as .. • • • " t "Ions • •• .. • 10
loven

Clearly the "môdel" used in thinking (i .e. knowledge) is a struc":

tured model. Moreover, the process of structuring is what causes knowledge to

assume a logicClI continuity. Therefore, the sb)lcturing process may be determined "

to be on~6t.lhe primary sources of knowledge formation. This is characteristlc cA

t
" "

... ,
<,
 '.
.,
"

- 23- /
"
c

, ,
<,

.,thot facet of intellect commonly referred to as the reoson!.ng faculty, wherein

" \0
. ...."

vor'ous elements of the' un;verse ote" ordered, ossimiloted and used to generate
•
, c~usdl th~ries (0 form of structure) whicb then couse them to be identified with

other elements of'the uni';erse.

~

\ \
Logicol and Psycholqgicol Structures
..
The "logical continuity" olluded to in the preceding paragraph is
1 <

used to refer to structures which exist with~n the

. frciJnework of zetetics, that is, .
, . .
- structures which have been "iden!ified" and are categorico"y recognizable (usuolly

'within a f?Orticular discipline)', such as congruency in geometry, conflict in history,

-the symbol in 1iterature!"" "These are the structures ~hich con$titute the rudiméntary
t _ , _ \

disciplinary beyndories. ~Also, they do not appear to be idiosyncratic., since there

,
is agreeme~r as to wllat i$ inferred by sU,ch a concépt os time; both the horographer

, and the loyman shore a knowledge structure, althbUgh their interpretations may- "
o • ~

~ / " vary in terms of depth of ca;.prehension and applicability of the 'knowl~ge. This
. (: \ ~

would seem to indicate that there is an innate structure which characteriz~ at

• 0 '1,

least some knowledge. ; .

v
,t'.'
The~e is also eviJ~ce, however, that there may he a dispatity

among intellec~ responding to the sorne p.~ènomena. In an article entitled n'Sorne

v ,

Psychological Aspects of the Structure of Knowledg~" , ~vid P. Ausubel presen4

th. following cOf]siderations of whot he Calls the "Logicol and, Psychologiea'"

• structures of knowledge:

".",<
[)
 - 24- 1
. • .- in addition to orgonized bodies of knowledgè

1. •• there, are corresponding psychological struc-

tures of knowledge as represented by the organiza-

tion of internai ized ideas and information in the

, mi nds of students. 11 - '

He extends his djstinction as follows:

[There is] • • • a distincti~, in other words, be-

"

tween the formai organization eX the su~iep~ "

. ' {;;tl,;--,'.

matter content of a given discipl ine ••• cind ,

the orgonized 1 internai ized rep-esentation of

knowle~ge in the memory structures of particular

IVI ua 1s. 12
.ln d··d

Relating this to an earl ier segment which divided structure into the reolms of "the
.
design itself" and- IIthe fundamental nature of that which is perceived" , one con ç

reodily discern an association between the fo~er categorization and Ausubel's ,

1

conception of logibal structure. The logicol structure is inherent within the know-,

ledge perceived. thé quodratic formula per ~ is an example of the logical struc-

ture of a segment of mathematics, as is the theoty of relathlity and any other body

'. of porticular knowledge which has invnediate and obvious appli9'bility withi" any

di sei pli ne.

Bellaçk, in,all article entitled" Il Knowledge, Structure and the

Currieul UI'l\" describes 1ogi cal structure:

•
 o •

- 25-

, Contempol'Qry efforts to redefine the 'l'ole, of 1knowled94!'

.- ••• place emphàS!s'On the logical order inherent in
o •
" c ,
.')

knowledge itself, 'on the structure 01 concepts and

, "

principles of inquiry "that charvcterize the various

fields of learning. 13 ,",

Agair:' relating this characteristic inherent 'in knowledge to an earlier conçlusion,"

\ r.
it conforms ~ the notion of the "design ll ~ince it applies to a .per€eptible and
1
universal conditi6n which is evidenced ,within knowledge itself: It should be noted
f
that it is specifically this type of st~ucture w~ich Bruner refers to in conjunc;tion

with the significance of training students to récognize structure, as stated in the

,

following:

What arè the impl ications of emphasizi!:'9 the struc-

.. ture of '? subject' ••. emph~siiing it in a way that

-.
seeks to give ~a student âs quickly· às possiblit a
,.
sense of the fundamental ideas of a discipline~ 1~

Furthermore, the identification of ttJese 'llfundàmentai ideas" Js apparently to be

Jj ~ ~ ,

'.
the resfJc?nsibility of the '.'best minds" capable ,of dealing with knoWledge' in the
.
most
.
productive manner. Thus, education is to he precéded by scholarly dissemina-~.
,' .,,
tion of knowledge. Bruner advocates a specific kind of control to be exercised 1

( ~ " ,-
before cmicula a~e formulated, this control'~i~g in the form of interpreting
) ô ~'. ". (1

knowledge within the disciplines in the most" rudim~ntary form possible. The neglect
.
.. ~
,

of this faatt of education has coused him to êonclude tha't" •• '. school pros:pilmS
\ '

\ '
 , ,
:

Il

have ••• deal~ inadequately ~; in'correctly with contemporolY knoor'edge. ~15

, 0

Some Exomples of Structure

"
\
8runer .IS exp'". "1'
IClr h' ' .' f'
ln IS presentptlon 0 structure
~'d'
e!!' ~ an t he

forms which it assumes. Again it may be noted tOOt the modelSl sel~cted (or d~on-
1

stration are ail c:J a par.ticularly scientific nature, namely, Biology, Mathematics
, '

and ,.language. l' '

"-:l -.
Usil')g the model of tropi~s i~ Biology, Bruner indica~es how' struc-

ture is evrderlt in th~ fom. of

, f
a fundamental idea:
l '

[The undertaking d] the relation between external

. : r .. , ~

"
stimulation and locomot~r action ••• [Ieads to]
'\
"

• being able to handle seèmingly new but, in

fac~, highly related information. 16

, .
f I l 1

He repeatedly alludes to .the decipheri~g ôf " seemingJ.y new" informatiOn by the use

.of familiar structures, the implication being tOOt the more fundamental 'the . individ-
. , ~

ool's perceptions, the more readily he can ascribe meaniRg to experience.

{

In
1,-

other words, the most effective control of knowledgeÎs the control cl the structures

of knowledge.'
,(
,
Mathematical models are the most frequently used for the obvi~us
. l' '
reason that h is easier to identify (as per structures) the characteristics of an arith-
..... 0, 1
metic progression' thon the characteristics of desire or compulsion or of a given
.
philosophical problem. Math'ematics is more self-structuring thon philO$ophy:

, '
 - 27-

Once a student grasps the ideas embodied b t~ese

,
thr.ee fundamentals [commutation, distribution,
"
associatio~] he is in a position to recognize wherein

.new' equations to be solved are not new at 011,

but '(ariants on a familiar theme. 17

ln the case of Language, 8runer stresses the importance of recog-

nizing that thought can be represented or emulated by the controlled ordering of

words, and that sentence structure bears a resemblance to the structure of ideas.
t
(/

,
Ail three of the models employed o~ exemplory' of the sign ifi çonce

of structure indicate the existence of 0 logical structure, but that aspect of the
1

structuring oct which has been referred to as "psychologic structuring" seems to

,~

have been neglected or omitted. While 8runer effectively directs our attention

toward the effective packaging of knowledge for curriculum programming~ he

seems to avoid what 8el th has referred to ,as: (, ,

[confronting] ••• how knowledge cornes to be,

how it comes to take the vorious forms it does, its

consequences in the experiences ci men, and how

it alters and develops newer forms. 18

The contrasting approaches regarding the location of knowledge within an eduèation-

1

al context are exempl ifiecl by the fact that 8runer demonstrates the-case for the

implementation of a struc:'tyre theory e!!"~ while Belth, among others, is concerned

 ·.

- 28-
'/1
...

e
with the very models employed in the structuring act, their sources, range and

effectiveness and the deliberate manipulalion of these

, models as an educa"tive act

designed to control the structuring of knowledge. This is a vita'i consideration in J

regard to this dissertation and will be elaborated upon ~xtensively in a late~ section
,
which deals more explicitly with educational applications of the structure and

model theories. Fpr the present, it will suffice to reiteratè in brief Ausubel's

claim earlier, that besides logical structures there are corresponding psychological

structures ("internalized idees and informa~ion") in the minds of individ~~s.

Structuring Knowledge in a Curriculum

There is a final point to be made in regard to what Bellack has

termed "the logical order inherent in knowledge itselfll. 19 Bell~ck concludes the

following in regard to the role of knowledge in the curriculum:

Whereas formerly factuol and descriptive content [of

the disciplines 1was stressed, now the emphasis is on

basic concepts and methods which scholars use as

intellectual tools to analyse and ....order their data. 20

"

There is reference to "concepts and ~ethods" as "intellectual tools". Schwab also

differentiates between structures cA substance and structures of process, ,which he

labels substantive and syntactical structures re~ctively. 21 "Substantive structures"

refer to the set of conceptslland predispositions which cause (1 body cA knowledge' to

1
 -29-

assume a particula;' form; they ore the 1nceptuol frameworks within which kno*

ledge is generated. A discipline contains an indeteJ.imble number of substœ'ltive

structures. Each enquiry cardes its own set of~concepts which govem the eventual

creation d knowledge. It seems that concepts

, in this cose are samewhot similor to
Belth's models in that they reflect modes of interp-etation. Also, substantive

structures appeor ta be more thon logical, as revealed in the following:

• the dota, once assembled, ore given their meaning

and interpretation in the light

,
œ the conception which
" 'edh
Inlhat ,22
t e enqulry.

This seems ta suggest that substantive structures moy be in effect, the ways in which
>

"
things are perceived by the individual; they give meoning and interpretation tO
dota 1 implying that they ore instruments of a psychological order.' This leads to on

interesting conclusion related to the implications of substantive structures as

.'
elements of the eclucational oct. Schwab actually odvocotes the inclusion of the ,
notion of substantive structur.ing within curriculum. Thot is, students should
1

presumably be mode oware that the limitations incurred within the process of sub-

stantive structuring will dictate the limitations œthe knowtedge to l)e generated.

Fran this standpoint, knowledge is considered and approached os on eternally

ephemeral' entity, incomplete, evolutionary and not governed by Fixed truths •

•

A second cotegary of structure is the structure œ syntox, .. • • • the

•
,.
path~ay by which the discipline maves from its raw data ta its conclusion ... 23 lhis

)
" '

œ -30-

, ~

includes ail processes, modes of verification, manners c:l interpreting and 50 on

which constitute the treatment of data." This, la.tter kind of structure corresponds

with the previous notion of "vertical structure", the connectedness c:l certain
)

bodies of knowledge which cause them to beccme distinguished as disciplines.

Substantive structures, on the -other hand, are discemible bath v~tically and

laterally since they' impty a "conceptual framework" which may but does not
,
necessarily apply to data
, ---
~ithin a ~1ven discipline. For example, one of the sub-
stantive structures evi~ent in the study of history may be aggression. ~is is a
/

theme examined within the pattern of world history to moke various comections
•
with past and future, to lend couse to variOtJS episodes in behoviour and sa on.
" i
Wor, however: is obviously not uniquely historical. It projeçts on entirely differ-
. ' o

ent conceptual frame ork for a psychologist, still another for a biologist'ond

another for a novel ist. bstant; ve struct~res, then, os weil os being manifested

~ertically w i t h i n r discipline, moy exist loterally, virtuolly independent c:l

the disciplines.

--------------~--~--

'" much
Since Bruner hos written extensively on the theory of structure,

of whot is contoined in this work is cORcerned with his ideai. However, educational
th~ish such os 8ellack, Schwab, Aus~1 !2nd Dewey have also proyided valuabl.
insight as weil as i~teresting ..?tensions dl the concept cA structure. and their ideqs
 , . "

..
r~-
/
- 31 - .
'- .
?l
(l-

e
are reflected i!, the i,nterpretation of structure provided in this chapter.
"'--
.1 •

The beginning ci th~ chapter is ~esigned to introd~ce structure as a

co~cept which develops in our minds in two ways: first, we commonly use the ,~ -
~ .
to apply' to the design itsetf whlch characterizes anything from a building (the actuol
----
framework) ta a curricul~ ta an idea itself( Such.'s the concrete aspect
,
J- structure,. -------------
,
that , it is something perceptibly supporting or sustaining something else. SecondJ.y,

we use the term structure on a more idealistic plone to refer ta that which sornething
,
(in the case of this dissertation, knowledge) is, essentially. In this instance, struc-

turing is confined ta being an èlement of the thinking act - it is the form taken by

phenomena when stripped to their essential ity by thinking.

The process of str,:,cturing which yields this condition May be defined

as th~ system of analysis wher~by the perceptiblJ world is reduced to fundamentals

and then reassim11ated in more meaningful (comprehensible) forms. It hos also ~een

stat~d that this type of analy~is is more applicable

. to scientific-mathematical problems
,
than to humanistic-philosophical ,ones, since in the fint case inspection proceads From
f

the complex to the simple t~ the complex, whereas in the case of the latter, we pro-

ceed From the apparently simple to the innately compl~

•

It is suggestect that there are two ways in wfiich we underh?ke the

structuring cl knowledge: first, in what is referred to as vertical structuring, the

disciplines are aeated and extended. lhus, vertical structures are cohesive forces
.
which bring about the distinct,ions which lend form ,to the disciplines. In addition to
 .. " .'
1

'.
- 32-
,

e l ' •
thi.s klnd of structuring , the intellect also produces lateral structuring , which is i~
,
many ways a more .tomplex thÎng tha~ its counterpart. Lateral structuring is pro-
, 0 • "
.
du,ced beca~se of the fàct that, as Bruner has amply demonstrated, the thinking act is
" n
. i e
,
'

tbé same a~t whether it is taking place within the mind of child or,adult. Similarly,
Q , , - , i

'the thinkinJ oct is.èssentially the,same whether it is operative within the realm of
\Y
physics or philosophy., While they may repr'esent two very diverse 'kinds of knowledge 1

' .. tbe' ~ct of intellett which deals with both is essentially the same oct. Even within the
1

n • thinking,act itself 1 although , analysis

' and creation ,may appear to be totally dissimilar

i~ ~ture, they are, 'in fact, mer'ely two levels of the some activity.
/

, " A • .,:.

This is an' essential aspeçt of structuring, since if explains how the

o \

process m~,y bring togeth~r seemingly dissimilar maes of knowledge and ev~n assimi-
t • ~ J 0.\

!çite knowledge from' ,diverse and apparently incom~tible discipl ines.

. .

"
A 4lstinction is made between logicâl and Psyc~ological structuring in

. JO ~ that .Iogical struçtyres ,appear to be accessible to more thon one man 1 while the indivi-
o '
o

--.:
dual inteHect is responsible for creating psychological structures •
.) ç

,
, . .., ,

,
Schwab's distinction between substantive and syntactical structures
. , , ' " 1 .
al sO adds to our u'nderstanding of the concept 'of structure and it was pointed out that
. . . . . c )

syntactical structures are usuolly of the vertical kind while substantive structures may

'be either verticol or loteral. Basically 1 a structure of substance refers to content while
• 1

a structure of syntàx refers to process.

.
>

, , Since Bruner provides much of the source material relevant tg Chapt~r

p ,

.,
'.
 - 33-
\

Ole, his theory of education is introduced as an application of the structure theory.

Bruner ascertains that it is tfle function cA the educational act to make structure as .
'recognizable and as relevant as possible for the learner. The curriculum must be

based upon reducing kn~wledge to as funda~ntal a state as possible, and to do this

v •

the "best minds" are to be utilized in prescribing fundamental blueprints to guide the
, ,
eduootor in his work. It may also be mentioned,.that the latter position is taken'by the
\

authors of a document entitled Curriculum Improvem'ent and Educational Development,

wherein we find the slatement:

~ Special ists from Higher education • , • • [are] the only

ones able to restore ••• the connection between

secondary
, school teaching and ,the
. advanced stote

which the disciplines have reàchéd in the post few

24
decades. , '

The final segnent of the chapter points to the differences between

what Bruner hopes to achieve in terms of curriculum and the theories of Marc Belth,

whose works will form the main source of the next ~hapter. 8asically, while Bruner

presents a case for" the recognition of structure e!!' .!! as the guiding concept for
,
t

curriculum design, Belth examitles structuring as part of the thinking process. Struc-
_ J
tures, in Belth's conceptual world, constitute one of the products of the mod~ls wh,ich
, .
are manifested as part of the symbol-moking activity which characterizes thinking.

Curriculum, then, should be organized 50 as to bring the student to confront th~<

sources of the decisions which he mokes as reflected in the models according to which
"
he creates his environment.
 -34-

References

'\
1. Bruner, J. The Process of Education. New York: Random House, 1960.
pp. 1 - 16.

2. -Plato. The Republic, tr. by W.H. Q Rouse. Cited.in: Dialogues of Plato.

New Yoï'IC & Toronto: The New American UDrary, 1956. ch. 4, 5, 6.
-
.. 3. Brunet, J. The Process of Education. New York: Random House, 1960.
'p. 40.
]
4. Ibid. pp. 6-11.

5. Ford, G.W. and L. Pugno (Ed.). The Structure of Knowledge and the
Curriculum. Chicago: Rand McNâlly, 1964. ch. 1.

6. Bruner, J. The Process of Education. New York: Random House, 1960.

p. 14.

7. Bruner, J: On Knowing. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1962. p. 120.

/ 8. Dewey, John. Democracyand Education. New York: The Macmillan Co.,

1916. p. 143 •.

9. Bruner, J. On Knowing. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1962. p. 1'20 •

...

10. Ibid. p. 120.

cIl. Ausubel, David P. "Sane Psychologicol Aspects of the Structure· of Knowledge".

Education and the Structure of Knowledge. (Elam, S. # ed.) Chicago:
Rand McNally, 1964. p. 222.

12. Ibid. p. 222.,

13. 8ellack, Arno. uKnowledge Structure and the Curriculum". Education- and the
Structure of KDowledge. (Elam, S., ed.) Chicago: Rand McNally;
1964. p. 264.
- -35-

14. Bruner, J. The Process of Education. New York: Random House, 1960. p. 3.

15. Ibid. p. 3.

16. Ibid. p. 7.

17. Ibid. p. 8.
"
18. Belth, Ntarc. Education as a Discipline. Boston: Allyn & BacOn, 1965. p. 19.
, '"
19. Bellack, Arno. "Knowledge Structure and the Curriculum". Education and the
Structure of Knowledge. (Elam, S., ed.) Chicago: Rand McNall}',
1964. p. 264.

20. Ibid. p. 264. ( ,

21. Schwab, J. .. Probl ~ms, Topics and Issues". Education and the Structure c:J
. Knowledge. (Elam, S., ed.). Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964. p. 9.

22. Ibid. p. 9.

23. Ibid. p. 9. -"

24. 0 EC D Publications. Curriculum Improvement and Educationol Development.

Paris, Decembër 1966. p. 66.

-e
 ...
-36-

.l''

CHAPTER 2
)
.
THE CONCEPT OF MOOEL

AS A TH INK ING DEVieE

1
Definition of Models

Although it can often be a dangerous if not disillusioning exercise

to try to assimilate ail aspects and components of a concept as c~plex

, as "model"
':
into ~ne succinct def,ining stotement 1 it may prove eventually useful to provide a
. ,
quotation as a sautce definition for future reference. The critical aspect d this

"chapterïs' associated directly with the concept of mod~1 as exemplifi~ in the

philosophy of Marc 8elth; thus, appropria tel y , the following is from The New
, i
World of Education:

' •.• models ••• are instrunents for organizing

events other thon themselves, and for endowing those

\. events with meonings tho~ are elements d the model.~ • '

This immediotely places models in the orena of thi~kin9. In addition, this stotement
. ""\
is reminisé'fmt of John Dewey's theories in regard to the relatedness be~een expe-
• J
rience-and-thinking and thinking-ond-education. In Experience and Educotion,

Dewey claimed:

.e , "

c
.. <. 0 '

o
- 37-
v

' .
• every experience influences,in some degree the

"objective conditions under which f~rther experiences ..

Il
(, ) 2' ,
are had. ~
'" .
, "

This is "part of the chapter entitled "exPerience and E~ucatidn" in w~ich Dewey
_ .. (1 t r

focused on how the educ~tive process c~n he brought to intervene in,thinking in

( ~'. : ,j
. ". ~

such 0 way as to be an instrtA11ent

J
i.n creating means for more'
..
valuable intellectual
~ ~
"
~ .
, 'experiences. When he 'says.that ",Every e)(perien~e influen~es in' some d~Jfee the

t' . objective conditions under which fu'ture

, e~perien~es\re hoo,,3 he introduces a
: theory From which 8elth would conclude that the forms which the continuity ci
f , J
expefien~e takes are" the ",,-Odels of thinkingo.

1
,Hoving begun with Q very general,.,approach toJhe subject Πmodels,
"

let 4S now turn to th6se characteristics by which we com~ ta identify sudi !Jn entity

as model.

.'
the Use of Models , -

First, from.Q psychological perspective, models 'are involv~ directry ;1

~ r ~ t

in the thinki~g act, a feature which wUt ~d~lt with in Some detai) ot this point
,
~
\.. "' , . ' (,

since it rs relevant to man)/of the later col1ç.lusiC?ns:~ich attempt to link model

~' t'
Jormation to th~ educativj!! act and, more .
, specificaHy,to thtt cr,eation of c~rricula.
t ' . '
Basic
. to the .
, entire "theme of this work is'the statement that models
\
Il •••. are the "

,basis for inlerpretation. ,,4 To demo~trate the eXhtlisiv; ramifications of this con- '
. " ,
c1usion, ,if' is nece~ry to observe briefly what Berth uses Cis the basis for his psycho-

logicol theories, and one ~ the keys to inte"Prefing~these theOries is to be found in r.

, " J
\
1
~

\, r
 -38-

his notion of inference:

inferririg [is]. • the intellectual activity

'"
of discovering what is not present from an exomina-

• 0 f"wh
tlon ot ·15 present. 5 .,
(

It is perhops somewhot curious thot Belth' should have chosen ta!: use "disc~ery" in
9 . ~~
con y the idea that the fnferences are
this context, but he most likely wontZto
' . ~

representative forms of knowledgè an that they exist in the form of conclusions

" 1
C "

appl ied to data.

,
"
RëtOrning, then, to the suggestion that models are those things to
"

which one refers when makJng a decision, this decision may be seen as emanating
".
from the process of inferring. Based on thjs interpretation we conPlegitimately

conclude that insofar as models are the points of ref~ence upon which we create
,
our experiences, the y are also the most obvious sources of the structuring activity

as ~dentified in the previous chapter. Modets are the agencies through which think-

i ng creotes and structures knowl edge •

{.-
Having establ ishe~' th(!t models are somehaw participatory in the

thinking ~ct 1 th~ next pr~biem is to identify their capacity as "agents". In response
\
to th~1.question, "How do models.behave?'i it may he soid that they re~esent and
they demonstrate. For example, th~ rnind ~oes not perceive abstraction, but it

.,, model s abstractian through var;ous devi~es, one of which is to rep-esent it as a

e determ;nable factor of various aspects df mathematics. 50 abstraction i~ represented

"

. t'>
. Il
'.1
 , 1
l '
..
- 39-
..
l,.
" , ' "

"
in a mathematical mode~. At the sa~!, time ~1 i'S proven to ~e funQti~nal in a'

mathematical f~, an! ,thus it ,

is demonstrated •. Models, 'then, allaw us
,~' 1
t~ tronsfer
, l ,

/. expe;ience into subiective f~rm. In 'this sen'se, ",odels

. are also the modes of inter"-,
7 ,
'"
. -- •

pretation which will determine

1 .

how fytûr~ e)(periences'are to' be had.

(1

,
'-
, ....!. '
.,
Th~ remainder c:i thiS chapter is divided into,six main areas, each
.
..
,'
c:i ~ich deals explir::itly with a particular aspect of "models'. 'The opening ~ction
.
\

, . concern~ the-.)source~ of models, 110,w they c~e into existence and thé inftuence
"

which they ~e on thinking. Secol,ldly, a set of characteristics of models is pres-

~ co
,. 1

. ,

, '
ented. The third section will mention the actuol function of> rnodels as they influence
, .
. "

decisioo making. In sections four and. five, forms arx! types of model s are specifi~. *
1 v
(

Section ~ix attempts ta bri~~ together the c~clusions on moçlels in relation ta the
, I f l " '\

c~nclûsion~ J the preceding dl?pter i~ règard to structure with the ~rpose of

cd
J J 1 ".
establishing a hasis upon w~ich Chapter Three will be built.
, '

Five Aspects eX Mdclels

Sources

Mod~1 formation is a ,1l1')4]tural ll process of int,ellect in that it goes on

whether or not the thinke; IS actually conscÎous of the activity. It is also interesting'
, / r C

----------------~,-

* Form , is used
1
to designate particutar ways in which
.
{l'Iodels are manifested; after
considering a number cl forms, ,they are then grouped generally into types to' ,
iden~ify them ca tegor ica Il y • The former reference may ~ compared to specÎ~
and the latter hl g,nus.

y
, ,
 - 40-
" .. /
1'1
.l

to note in the following quotation that models are referred to in the redlm of ninven-
/

tions" , suggesting the possibil ity that every person might have his own formula (as

derived From his personal experience bonk) for creating and using models:

.
'.
••• irwenting models
,
is a simple and continuai

daily act. 6
, '
. ,
This statement suggests that model-making is, in S()fTIé degree or at sorne stage, a

completely, "natural" process. When involunta,.y, it is so in the 'NOy that thinking

,
,
itself is involuntary.

"-
As to the actual sources which constitute the ingr.edients and 'the

framew~k of models, Belth is careful to distinguish between empiricol resources

,'
" .
.
.., "
1

and psychologicol resources. The materials are drawn From IIHjstory and . • . The

Social Econanic-Political-Cultural Present. 1I The molds of the model created are

subiect to imagination. In fa ct , Belth may have established a more worthwh ile s~t

of aiteria had he simply stated that m~ls are, by definition, the products of
,

•
.
experience - the plan which he presents would seem unnecessary,unless it possibly
, J '

serve~ to remind us that there is a subiective and an objective aspect of experience.

• l' •

Otherwise, the ~Iy val id and useful pÎece of information is' that just as thinking is

a spontone~ and, in a speci~1 way, involuntary oct, model, forma,tion as a contin-

gency to thinking is al$O a spontaneous, involuntorY and poSsibly even slIbconscious t • ~ 1

"act. This does not negate the possibility, however, that model-making ~ay becane

.e deliberate once the thinker is aware ci the existence of a model-making faculty. In

other words, the deliberate corlronting eX the shoping oppa~tus of thinking mey
 •
- 41 -

eventualJy leod to the transformation of the apparatus itself, consequenting in

different thought "patterns" being formed. "

I,~

Another feature of the origins of model~ is revealed by their proxim-

...
t\ ,
, .
ity to înferences as demonstrated in the following:

no one •.• begins to make inferences at

any determinoble time •

[and, furthermore, thatJ

1

••• inferring bègins as a completely natural

7
response. /

•
These inferences erpanate From the realm of models which are. themselves identified
.
as being both sources and derivatives of the continuf.m of thinking. Presumably,

they too originàte as natural responses, and model-building and inference-making

are perceived through this interpretation as lateral correlatives of one another. They

are viewed as lateral as opposed to vertical since they do not appear to owe their

existence to one another, but are both derivatives of the spontaneous oct ci thinking •
..J

Altfiough the precise connection ~tween model-making and inferring

is somewhat obscure, it c~n be concluded tOOt their sources are in eoch other. The

actual operation of thinking proceeds according to the relatedness of the madels and

inferences which have caused experiençe to"have taken on its particula, form and

significance. Thot is, model-building and inferring are pro~esses which oct upon ..

each ,other as part of the associating and ordering faculty of thi~king. The only ott
 Il
,)

difference, it seems, is that inferences emerge in the form of decisions to he acted

upon while models constitute the perceptuol frame of reference within which those
'-.
decisions (in the form of hypotheses and theories) were taken.

, ln order to sustain the next statement concerning the sources cl

models, it is necessary to reflect upo~ what was soid in Chapter Ç)ne about'f-

nature of logical structv~e, in that it was d~fined as a propertY.2f knowledge ihelf.

"
ln the light of this interprf)tation, the information contained in thi next quotàtion

provides an interesting cross-reference for the notion of model with that of stru~ture;

8elth refers to the IIfixed model phenomenon ll th is way: è

Where fixity of models il thè rule the answers are

- al ready known by some persons • • • 8

Thus, models may originate as properties of, knowledge, an apparent contradiction to

'. the previoos contention t~at models always exist in the form of "guiding contextsll

rather than conclusions. The above statement appears incompatible with the state-
4

ment thot:
,
thé study of modeJs is not a matter of fi,nding

limits which are already denoted. It is a matter of

inventing limitations and oppropriateness and inquir-

,
ing into the lagic which would define, interpret
\

and direct them. 9

1
Perhaps a more app-opriate label could be borrowed From the'works cl Bruner, who
 •

- 43-

has provided for such notions as the "fixed model phenomenon" within th. realm ci

structure, which allows that knowledge itself contains a perceptible c~tinuity, " 1

heretofore r;"'erred to as "logiJ.1 struct~e". ('It seems misleading and even unsub-

stantiable, ,however, to provide the sort of perceptual framework which causes

"
models to toke on an, identity as interpretive elements, but on the other ha~ to

allow that they may be "known by sorne persons". In conclusion, Belth's "fixed

models" do not appeor to be models to any degree, but are repetitions of the "Iogical

structures" of Schwab.

Features

At this point it seems appropriate to identify those psychological

ph'enomena which would come under the heoding ci models by eslablishing a set ci
. '

criteria by which a decÏsion can be made.

The first of the following two stotements by Belth is'to serve as a

guiding statement to be extended and c~arified as the entire model domain is

opened up:

[models 1••• ore . . • the guiding contexts ci explan~

.ion and , interpretation, and of the n\Kture land

" ...
employ-

ment 01 powers in our daily lives. Whethèr we know

the moders we use or not, they are at work. 10

ln conjunction with this, we are told how models çome into the act ci thinking; at
~

the sorne time, we are reminded.that models are "created" within the conted of
 -44-

.
thinking to exercise 'confrol over future thinking:
"

••• From experiences which we 011 hav6, models

are created by juxtaposing apparently dissimilar

and uni ikely things. For e)(ample, much cl mèdem

~athernatical study is viewed through the models-

·
o f arc h .tecture. 11

8ased on this and eorlier statements, a model cl models begins to take shape. II}
.
- order to estobfish this model, we must first conceive of thought 0$ being an active

and directed process. Thot is, whenever one is thinking, he is in fact producing

somethingi furthermore, since one is thinking oboot something 011 the wIlile he is

thinking, he has a product in mind, and that product (or end-in-view, to use Dewey's
.
terrn) provides direction'. The reason that this prclile is' necessary is 50 that we may

,conceive of thought as originating somewhere (in the mind) and ~ltimately proceeding

somewhere (toward the thought-obiect).

The actuol projection, however, passes through a variety d irlluences, \. J

band it is here t,hat the ideo of models begins to take shape. Using the analogy of on

ovemf"':Jd proiector which emits a focused beam of li~t throu~ a creoted image and

thus proiects thot image forword, we moy consider the mind as projector and the

frames or pictures through which ~e light i:s projected would be the models. A,.,mber

cl overlays may be used to creote elaborote and highly sophisticated images, and
/

thus it is with the minci employing a variety of som.times incongruous transformers in

~

anticipation of a final image, the parts aod substances and textures d which are
<tj

/
 -45-

partially determinable ~nd partly unexpec~ed. The anticipated results are filed and
•
catalogued, to be introduced for substantiating purposes in the future, and the un-

premeditated aspects become the sources of further'research.

There is the suggestion from this model that tke gouge of intellect is
"
related to the flexibll ity bf the model-making and model-using apparatus and is ~n- .

ceivably directly proportional to the range of models employable and employed.

Thus there is emphasis upon the--versatil ity of interpretation as a mecns to creating

knowledge by the lIappl ication ll of a variety of mcxJ~s. 8ased on this supposition,

intellect is apparently not a fixed condition (althou~h there mey be elements of

heredity which may c ontribute in varying degrees toc) the initial stages of intellectual
,
activity), but .can be lIimposed li given certoin conditions. This conclusion is integral

to the portion of this dissertation which deals with the educationol act.

t.
One of the ""ost sign ifi cant features of model s is that they are al Ways

present in the thinking oct and their creation.'is not re~rved or limited to particular

minds; indeed 1 8ehh reminds us of their omnipresence more thco once - l' .•. in-

venting model. i. (a; .imple and continupl daily oct." 12 Also, ~YchOIO-
gic" (o,apter One) phenomena, as noted herein: ~
"

. . . we . • . ate always inventing meonings for

events by inventing the models of interpretotion. 13

The fact that dota are always perceived through models is evident From the following,

which 01$0 suggests that models ~re idiosyncratic and syntactical. That is, theyare

...,
 of ' r •
r
,:
1

, - 46-
r
.e .' , .
~
;
. th~ ordering devices prescribed by an Indlvidual Intellect:

Since data cannot b~ treated wlthout models, the

subject matter lof curriculum at varlous stages of

~ ,
educationl is not the same unless the same models

are employed to organize, .explaln and interpret

"
~ r <l

the data, any r;nore thon the Madonhas of Rubens

dRd DaVincl'are the some subjeé! matter.,14 .

" ln summarizing the~'haracteri'stics ,of ..:n"dels discussed tq this-point,

~e _~ay consider them as the g~iding conte~ts ,oF thinking. Furthermore, the'~e is the

..1. -.. ,suggestion that a study of the models created and employed by a partic'ular intell!ct
, .
. may reflect the measure of the intellectual capacify of-that individuel. Thot is not

.•
i

to say, however, that the measure of the intell igence of

,.'
a,given individual
~ .'.
is c;liscern- ~
:;,. ,
o 'V ;. ! ~ f""'"

ihle only through his model-making faculty, but that 'the abil ity to create al)d to us~ .

~ 'models and, more significantly rthé ability to.be. a:"'are of tlîe.limitot'ions of Jhe
" .
mode-Is Î'!tpqsed are distin~t factors in theodevelopment ~f the. thinking act~
"
Perhaps the most filIssential characteristic by which"we come to Identify

.. 1 such a ~oncept as model i~ that model! are elaborate mental. devic:es whi.ch represent
~r~ ,. "

".sort-c;ossings". Actually,' to' perceive of ~nyt.hing through a mod~1 (and ev~rything

r •
.' ,
is perceived through models) is to lend thè identity of the model to the ·pereej*ed
o .. ~ . ' ta___ .,
1 •

thing. It is 1ike looking out into spacè and"thinking

. of spoce as infinity or eternity or .
looking at a numerlcal figure and.le~iÎ1g it thè qôalities of Il'50 niany fingers", rather
• 1

.,
. s'
:
 - 47-
'. (
t~an just "SO many". This reflects the metaphorical structure of the model , for wheh , 1

we are using models, we ore referring to things os if they were something else, as

8elth exprains in the following:

• • • in a brood sense nibdels con be identified os

.'
·as if· statements or sort-crossings. Consrdered i,n

this sense, a model is not a copy of real ity pre_-

0( 5ented in a simpler f~rm. It is a theoreticol ~on-

r
nection between t'T0 real events, the conne.ction

between them being unobservable. 15

o ln Democraq: and Education, Dewey has said the following, in regard to conneftions
p

.."ithin the ,thinking oct:

/ , We analyse to see just what lies between so as to

o \

bind togeiher cause and affect; acti~ity and

> consequence. The extension of our insight makes

, foresight more accurate and comprehensive. 16

- .
·The parallelism betwe8n the two statemt!'nh indicates that models may be defined
)
0$

the, cognitive forms in which ~)(perience manifests itse'tf to establ ish.a basis iOf' future
t.. •
• experience •. AlthouQh thi, does not conclusively establ ish models within the realm cl ~ ,
,
the metaphOf',. the following leaves no doubt as to the ndture of models being

•• J basi coll y metaphori cal:

: model. are metaphOf'ic accordi~ to their

.. . very ~
rUt VI.
17
/
1•
.
'".. ,

-48-

~'
\
D

What is mor~, the use of the metaphoric nature of models in creating new models is

evident in the following:

And if still newer meanings are SOClght, theyare

found through the development of newer metaphors,

by means of w~ich newor different concepts are

brought to bear on the materials present. 18

•
A third characteristic i"s ~de(i to the first two, then, in that models aire metaphors;
they are literally ways in which 't'e say that something is something else.

Before beginning the next section which deals with identifying further

characteristics of the ~odel, a peculiar problem merits some degree of analysis. _

Belth presents two conclusiOns which are intended ta lead the reader ta ;'lfalls ta be

avoided in studyi~g models and theirO effects but the l<>gical structure o~he argument
appears somewhat defective. On the one hand, 8elth says:

• the greate~t danger which models must cape

with is that of ~il')9 confused with what is modeled. 19

Secondl y, he says:

• no model is examined except through some'

other model .20

Thirdly, how.ever:

Failure ta get outside any model makes it impossibte

ta see that it is a model' • We must get outside

1 •

;
.
 - 49-
, .

of models and cOhsciously study them from the

21
vantage point cA other models.

The anomaly which threo'tens the very basis upon :which the notion,cA model is

found~ is iIIuminated in the following problem: if it is the pur~e of mod-:I crea-" ..

tion tOOt models should represent. the f,?rms c:J .reality creoted in the mind, and if the

form of. representation Js by "metaphor,ing ll those things perceived in the form of

models, then is it not incooguous, in the first instance, to suggest that models and
,.
modeled might be IIc~fused" with one another? As it has alreody been aséertained
1.
that models are metaphorical llsort-crossings" , it seems that iÎ- is the models them-

selves that are the vital links betvÎeen perception and real itY, and not merely the use

of models. Thot is, a type of "logical sf!'Ucture- os identified in Chapter One begins

to emerge. This seems inconsistent with the perspective cr80ted by 8elth tp this point

and hereafter, a perspective which establishes a domOin of distinction for models

which is largely subjective arld idiosyncratic. This information should be viewed in

the 1ight of an 80rl ier conclusion re,..lting from the lifixed model phenomenonll -

getting Uoutside a model" would apporently at the very least render the model llfixed ll ,

wh ich wou 1d, in effect, transfonn i t into a structure, as described in the sect ion of

Chapter One which deals with tv Iifixed mOdel phenomenon ll • Significontly th en ,

• • 1

to get outside cA a model denies us the.use c:J that model as a metaphoric agent by
1 •
making it the subject of enquiry as opposed to having been created as an agent c:J

- enquiry.
t. ,
1 • •
As has been mentiOQed, models are idiosyncratic entities as defined
~ n(
 - 50-

\, /"
1

by 8elth, as perceived in the following:

.• models are not abstract entities From among which

everyone has a choice but must choose only one. The

fact is tOOt each man can develop for himself a unique

"
model of such privacy thot 'in most cases he shares it

with no one else. 22

The process of model Formation appears to exist within the domaio which_Ausubel

- has already identified as the Ipsychologic" 23 as opposed to t~e logical struchA"es

which 'dominate Bruner's theories •••• ' We are reminded that models are modes of
'. \

.
interpretation as opposed to unilateral distinctions which structure the discipl ines •

As further proof that modéls are not in any way similor toJogical structures, Belth

specifies the domain of influence which choracterizes the ~I:

Onl yin a very general sense con we say that two

-
men shore the saine model. In th is respect a model

is not 1ike a philosophical system .,24

With this statement, Belth apparently assimilates th~ notions of model and experience,
'1 l ' Il

each 'of which can be interpret~ os the element which' corrèlaies various aspects of

real ity.
} ,

Thot is not to say hbwever ~t models are identical to experience,

but that they are, in a sense, the reflectio~ cA experience, experience being ~he

m~in source and models providing the catC!lyst for inferriJ'lS. In this way, a model is

the imag~ or set of irnQges through which expèrience is perC8ived, and as such,

,
"
 - 51 -

,
<,
models 0150 provid., the meaning for ex~rience, <:" noted by"8elth in the following:
1 _

ln Principle, there is no' 1imitation on the pOssible

,

mixtures of old and new concepts or to further

meonin~s ~hi~h can bt!t seen in famil iar ~ta. 25

We have 011 had t~e' expedence of suddenly being reminded of some-

thing from our child~ood'and then, whe!, deliberately 'recreoting the incident within

the' context of the pres~nt, we find newer, m~re significant meanin~ for the incident,
"

s~nce we are now using a more 50phisticated set of models. For example, the "wards

of wisdom" which parents exj>bund for the benefit of the,r' children ~re initially taken
,.'
in by children's ears. Somehow the 'child senses the significance of these words but,

in spite of any degtee ot sincerity on his part, he finds himself unable to extend the
meanings to any great ex~ent;' although he may be caPable of applying the wi~ortIlto

sorne de-gr~e. As an adult, however, reFlecting'upon this advice through the context

of ex peri en ce , his range of models has becorne far more extensive. The quai i~ cl

th~n~ing is virtually identical in child and ad~ult;' ta use 8runer's expression, the

difff!fence is lIin degree, not in kindlt •.And one of the measures of the degree is the

range of models employable.-

Functions

The use of a particular model is not necessarily a deliberote act _

'(IIWhether we know the ";od~ls we use or not, they are at work ll - 8elth). 26
"

Howêv~r, models are i~terpretive elements, a1nd they are "guiding contextsll of
J
 .'
- 52-

knowledge, "and thus they reptesent the very'modes of intelle,ctuol response which
,
, '
establ ish the conti~uum which i1, th'inking.

) The o~iI ity Jo creote model s has profound impl ications, for once

~stablis~ed, they provide contact w-ith otherwise i~~ccessible knowledge:

.,
• C!S to their function$, models facilitate the

examination of'events or conc~pts which would'

. - ~

27,
otherwise be beyond }ls.
\

This idea is consistent with the belief that,iI ••• models set up the relationships

J From" which ••• meanin9~ are derived, •• 28 It is note'worthy that the "meanings"
1 _

referred to in this context àre the meariings through which structures will be per-
I J

ceived. Soth~ process of structurin9:o~curs within the structure eX modeling.*

t? ", \

,
Models themselves,are. nof matters of means and .'"
, 1

ends. Models are the sources From which ends

r
ar~ determi ned or deduced. 29

". ,()

ln brief, it seéms that in spite of Belth '5 protestation against models

. ,

being regarded as either means or ends, they are aduolly more associable with meons

th an e~ds. More specificolly, they are a means"'for structuring, wher80s structures

, 1

* Structure of modeling here refer~ to those predispositions and bodies of knowledge

,
which cause modeling to o,ssume its particular form. In other words, the entire
set of models which a given person has co~trol over can be identifi~ on a struc:~
,

tural 'basis. It is the structure of these models which, in foct constitutes his
psychologicol identity.

: . '\
 o
-'53 -

(more particularly in this case, "Iogical structures") are more substantive, and, as

such, are ends. It would be mor~ plausible had he categ"orized experience as the

"source(s) from which ends are detennined or deduced" , since models seem to be

more in the realm of correlator, while experiences constitute the actual sources or

resources brought into play' by models. From this point eX view, the function of

models is to oct ~s modes of connection, introducing concepts as they emerge to

knowlec:lge as it eII1f&rges (from a psychological viewpoint) in order to produce "new"

knowledge.

Forms /
~

There are two outlines provided by 8elth to demonstrate how models

actually emerge as control 1ing factors - these manifestations of psychic phenornena in

, -
-
the real worl~ are referr-ed to âs the IIforms" of models, pnd they are identified as

follows:

Models con be objects; they can be pictures; they

can be verbal descriptions; they can be masks or

abstractions 1ike 1in~ traWings. ~els ~an be of

singre events or of relationships Of whole universes.

They can refer to objects in- time and place; they

can refer to laws which describe the sequence and

order eX events; they con be purely theoretical in

their references " • .30

Furitier, as to the forms which models con take, he later says:

 - 54-

.,.,-
A model • • • can b~ a diagram, Q chart, a picture,'

a physical structure, a word, a concept, a formula ~

or a system of ideas connected logically to one

another. 31 .
....
1 1

Again it is the metaphoric nature c:l models which is being stressed - th. model itself

is not the thought-~iect; it is th~ way that the th~ught-obiect has been contoured
.
and refabricated m the mold of SQmething else. Models are literally the shapers of

experience; they shape the experience factor accOrding to the precepts which have
/

go08 into the making of the model, whic~ has lad 8elth to state:

• • • lA model! • • • is, hl one way, or another 1

rep-esentative c:l ~ analogous to some event in

reality. Every model has a metaphoric character

and function 1 and a metaphor is unde~stood to be

a statement about something as if it were sane-

thing else.32

It is because, of t~is phenomenon that we con. conceive of pictures existing

. in the

mind. And so, as the song goes, . . . . . playgrounds iJl my mind" is one of the

models v ia wh ich future experiences will be shaped and control! ed •

Types

There are choracteristics which, according to Bel th 1 di.fferentiote

generically among models, dividing them Into four main groups according to those

features of the perceived world which they ac~lIy represent, or the manner in
 - 55 - "

which they represent.

Although Belth divides models into four main types, namely, the

scale mode 1, the analogue, mathematical models and theoretiail models, it seems

that there are t~o main types cl models ~sed and that these are representative of

the two types of problem with which we constantly deal - the scientific and the

humQnistic. It is hoped that..9 brief synopsis of Belth·s categoriza.tion of models

\:".. • .:1fI( "

will help to explain this' poSition.

ln regard to scale models, the important thing to note"is that.the

J

, ... ' model represents the- actual substantive structure of the thing itself, much in the
. "

mam'er of an X-ray or a photograph or (1 drawing. Perhaps a more signifi~cant ex-

ample would be representational diagrams such as are used in the' classroom in 8iol-

ogy, where significant aspects of an organism' Qre'stressed by drawing and label ing.

ln any case, it is the lIimportant or relevant features" whié~ are represented.

-fn the case of the analogue model, the "structure of the relationsh ips

within the even;lI33 are represented. Thus, in this instance there is evidence of a
<

more complex representation, since to n'present structures of relationships is obvious-

Iya more dema.,ping task thon was evident in the case cl scale models. To represent
,
the French Revolution in tenns of the struggle between poverty and luxury and to

reJate this to human goals and to revolution is to apply analogue models within ~n
,
historical context.

The novelist uses the analogue model e~ery ~ime he int~oduces -virtue
,1)

/
 - 56-

in the form of a hero and confl kt in the form ci opposition. The plot is then an
'.

analogue model representing the eternal and inevitable struggle betwee~ good and

evil •
• , ,
Belth 's third type of model is the mathematical model, and at this

point we reflect on h is eorl ier definition of mathematics:

(Mathematics 'Consists of) ••• c<?Oceptual struc-

tures which men create and from which theyas-

cribe quantity and logical function ta events in

nature. 34

Mathematical models, then, are in one way totally different from the first two types

in that they represent meosured, calculated comparisons. Mathematical models

have as their purpose to represent events by using one to measure another. Belth has

said of mathematical models:

(They} ••• ,make possible inferences in terms of'a calcula-

fion of the internai rélationships of the elements of an

eveAt. 35
J

\ . And 50, .niathf:matical models are designed for a purpose other than that of the scale

.
or th,'" analogue: theyare intende,d to provide the basis. frorrl whid:1 relationships are (
, ,
determined accordi~9 .t0 their measurable discrep'ncies~ Àn y ti,,", we refer to
al '
measurement or cale:ulation, we are using mathematical models.

. ,
 /
- 57-

1 .
The Theoreticol Nature of Models

Belth's fourth type of model is the theoretical model, which he des-

cr ibes as follows:

We take sorne comparable but unproblematie and

weil organiz~ domoin, establish rules of cortela- :j

tion between it and the troublesome domoin we are

lOg, and, with these rules translate the

"
inferenees ~e in the known damain to the

domoin whieh has puz~led us.

36

It is difficult to understand wIly Belth proposes this last type of model, sinee it Ms
already been aseertained that mOdels ore always metaphorical and a metaphor is a

form of theory whereby quai ities ore transeribed from one thing or event to another by

preterding that one is the other. In other words, it 'HOuld seem that all_models ore

theoretieal, sinee they are 011 metaphorieal.

.. Instead of the classification system proposed, let us eonsider a system

which would presume that 011 models are theoretical. From here, we distinguish be-

tween the scÎentifie mode of problem and the humanistic mode. In the former case,

we may use seale models and/or analogues and/or mathematical models, depending on

the kind « reluit we want fa obtain. likewise with prOblems whicti ore charocteristi- •
. ,
colly humanistic, altha.\gh these would presumabl y be less mathematically inclined.

ln other words, 011 problems ore confronted with speculation; we then pro~ed to

...
 -58-

theorize using one or more of th. thr. . models proposed.

Applying Schwob's Thesis to Models

ln "Education and the Structure of KnowledgeK, Joseph Schwab

prësents a system of categorization to be appried to 'structur:es. 37 'In this article,

- --sçhwab distinguishes between the substantive structure and syntacticol sfTucture œ
knowledge. Substantive struct~e refers to the set M concepts and the data which

cause a body of knowledge to assune a particular fom. furthermore, he concludes

tOOt:

the dota, once ossembled, ore given their meon-

ing and interpretation in the light « the conception'

.... W h"
IC h ","Itlate
." d t he enqulry
"38 •

Schwob stresses that a disciPline or a body of knowledge corries on indetenninoble

number of sueh structures. Eoch enquiry corries with it its own set œ concepts Which
" l "
tonsfitute a structure. It is evident thet he is using the term • concept ion· in this'

stotement to refer to something which 8elth would cali a model, for

tobHshed .ha. lM.. devôce~ .hrouglo whôch meanông ô, assôsr:od are r,.
h has been es-

conc~uded, then, that one of the products of model using is substantive Structtl8S.
1. can be

This first kind ci rnodeling, which ascribes meanings to things as theyare or as they.

appea,r to be, is wOOt wi 1t he hereafter referred to os Substantive ModeUng, according

to its purpose, which is to identify ihings insolar os they appear to be U'lique.

('

,e A second kind ci model ing con be examined tt..ough Schwab's

 1.

- 59'- .,

terminology
, again. Schwab suggests that in addition to the substantive structures

there are Syntactical Structures of knowledge, ~h;ch are

.
Il .' • • the pathway(s) by

which the discipline moves from its raw data to its conclusions. '·"rhis infers pro-

,
, -'
- .
gressing from one piecè of information, to anoth~t' by creating asso~iative links.
,
Contingent on this theory, a' second kind of modeling emerges, again the distinction

being ba~d on the purpose of the modeLing process. The kind of modelingwhich has

as its objective the representation of the similarities themselves upon which furthe{

connections are derived is syntactical modeling_

,
ln concl usion, models represent ways of structurinQ symbols to projec;,

new models and produce new knowledge. The impiicqtions for education are twofold:
. '
first, since models
,
constitute the conceptual framework within which the learner mwst
~

presumably function, they ore in the order of guiding principlttS for the educotor,' who
.
must seek to strengthen the capocity ci the leorner to funetion within os many models .-------;

os ~ssible. This may be seen as a eorpllary of improving ttre ability to think.

Secondly, im'plieit within the function of the mode 1 is the obligation

of the educational system to nurture in t~e leerner a sense ~ purpose os derived from .

models_ This simply implies the nurturing of on apPreciation ci modes of thinking and
.~

studying os represented by the models. In other wor~s, not ~nly does ed.ucotion toke ,

upon itself the responsibility of teaching ttie learner to moke and !Jse mod,ls, put 0110
... 1

1
to ~ke os hi, primory objective the seeking out of the very sources of the moct.ls
'r.n
i•

. thMlselves, to examine the opparatu.s which he uses i~ dealing with the world. Thus

.\
.
J ~
 , , - 60-

" I the educator 1. re.ponslbl. to provldé not only dlssemlnabl~ knowle~ge, "ut the

most effectlve,tools t-o dlssem'In~te knowledg ••

:>
\ , ,
-' , , -----------------------
\

" , '"
a
Summary
"'{1' "

Chopter Two undertakes to examine the concept of model with par,-

ti cular referencè"o the tl1eories of Marc Bel th.

~
As is the case with structure, the term "model" represents a range of

Inferen s to diHerent people. There ls, however, a cen,tral or basic idea which be-
"

longs, to the concept - it is tha,. model. always represent things other tnan themselves. .
~
'n,this sense, the model its~lf has a metaphoric nature.

FUl'thermol'e, model-making and, model-using ore parts of the thinking

,
Plocess. More specifically , models are 'the -agencies through 'w~ich th inking ~ thrQugh
• >

. th~ manipulation of symbols, creates and structures. knowledge. Models~are defined'

~

o -

her~in as pSy'chological, phenomena which allow (or "cause") experience to evolve

- / .

From the interaction oF "the world of ebb and' Flow" (B~lth) and the World' of symbols.
ro-, ...,
"

The ch~pter lÏâs been divided. into a number of'sections. Sources,

'. -
charactelÎf!1cs and fun~tions of models are the subjects of the first three ports, follow':
..,....

ed by the forms and types of models 'which tho mind cr'eates.

1 CI
. '
.
The purpose of the sixth
• 1

part is to suggest what i; i.nferred for ,educ;ation when we 'discuss models within.a

.. psychological context. The follow~ng is ~ .Jery brief outl ine of the contents cof each

'.
 ".

- 61 -
, .
_.,1
of the part.s:

, 1.1 'Sources-

The process of model-making and -usiog is basi~ally non-dei iber~t~.

Education imposes certain 9uidefines in deliberately trying to make the process

mor~effective as (1 thinking device.

,
2. Feotures - ,
. ~.

The ability ci the individual to make and use models is one gauge of

~ is i nte Il ectûol abi! ity.

Models are more of the nature o!. psychological phenomena than

c:

I~ical, as t~ese ~were defined in the previ~~$ chapter.

\
3. -Function-

; McXjels act as _di':l9 con tex ts" . in ~hat they reflect tlle intellectual"
,. experiences of the individual.

4. Forms'"

The f~s which models may ass,:,me are viftually unlimited since

models are !n the nature of mooes of interpretirig. Mode!s infer shape, dimension
..
and iocation among other things.:'/
J

.
5. Types - /1

Although 8elth suggests that there are fou~ types cl model which the
' ( 1. _.

mind creotes (namely, the scale, analogue, mathematical and theoretical), this
r
paper takes the position that Joseph Schwab provides a more effective system of
. .

!'
 -, 62 -
..
p

categorization. 8a~ on his dèscription of substantive and syntactical struc-

1
\ '
turing, Chapter Twq presents a system r:J distinguishing between substantive'

Qnd syntactiçal modeling.

. ~
'
It may be furth-er concluded that m~els are theoretical and also
. ...,
1
t •

,
metaphorical and that education's responsibility is associated with the oct of model
" -
formation and usage, cin area which
~ . is taken up again in one of the, later chapter.s

of this Ytork.
..

. .

IJ

'ÏJ

/1

.,
 l 1
1 (

! - 63-

References

1. 8elth, Marc. The New World of Education. BOlton: Allyn & ~con, 1970.
.p. '99.1' \
, .,
2" ; Dewey, John. Experience and Education. New York: The Maanillan Co. ,
1938. p. 37.

3. Ibid. p. 37.

4. Bel th, Marc. Education as a Discipline. Boston: AI'yn & Bacon, 1965. p. 91."

5. Ibid. p. 94.

6. Ibid. p. 287.

7. Ibid. pp. 92-93.

",

8. Ibid. p. 100.

9. Ibid. p. 207.
,/
10. Ibid. p. 206.

11. ,Ibid. p. 213.

J,
12. Ibid. p. 287.

13. Ibid. p. 290.

14. Ibid. p. 289. Cl

ô
15. Ibid. p. 283.
(- ,
-
16. ok
Dewey, John. Democr y and Education. '" ~w York: The Macrnil lan Co. ,
~

1916. p. 145.'
'l;
17. Bel th, Marc. Education as a Discipline. Boston: ~Iyn & Bacon, 1965.- p. 286.

, ... 18. Ibid. p. 290.

l '

~
 .. 64-

e 19. Ibid. p. 292.

i '

20. ibid. p. 185.

21. Ibid. p. 213.

,
22. Ibid. p. 206.,

23. Ausubel, David P. "Some Psychological Aspects of th, Str_ucture' c! Knowledge" .

Education and the Structure of Knowledge. (Elam, S., ed.). Chicago:
Rond McNaHy, 1964.

24. Bel th, More. Educ.ation as a Discipline. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1965. p. 206.

25. Ibid. p. 290.

26. Ibid. p. 206.

...
27. Ibid. p. 91. ,

28. Ibid. p. ~84.

29. Ibid. p. 207.

30. Ibid. p. 91.

31. Ibid. p. 287.

32. Ibid. p. 287. ,

3-3. Ibid. p. 287.

.\ 34.

35.
Ibi,d.

Ibid. p. 287.
p. 287!
i'

.. ,
_r
r,
_'::-' • _ "

36. lbid. p. 89.

37. Schwab, J. "Problems, Topics and Issues". Education and the Structure of
Knowledge. (Elam, S. F ed.) Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964.
,
l '
38. Ibid.~. 9.
3Cf. l'-'cl. f·'.

\'
 \

'.

CHAPTER 3

ASSOCIATIVE FACTO~S OF

STRUCTURES AND MOOELS

Introduction

Chapter One presented a study of the concept oF s~ructure a's the

term is applied to knowledge, while Chapter Two was intended to show how models
, t'

are used in the oct of thinking. ~he purpose of Chapter Three is to demonstrale how

structures of knowledge and models of thinking are interrelated wi th one another.

This relationship will later be studied in50far os it is on element 'bf curriculum

designing.

If we accept th~t there is a connectedness among bodies oF knowledge, , .

it May then he possible to extrapolate From the thinking-knowledge continuum the

• _, r

actual connections, the theoretical bonds which intellect deploys in leoping Trom one

known to another. These a.$Sociative factors themselves ore the str'uctures of knovA-

'Jedge, On the' other hond, the terms of reference which or, employed os the lenses

through which the constant juxtaposing of experiences occurs are the model$ of knov.#-
-
Yedge. Viewed in terms of means and ends, i t moy.be conclJJded that model s are the
\ ,

meons prescribed by intellect in attaining a perceptual fi~d, and thet that percep-
, u

tuai fièld consists of series or sets oF conclusions and their inherent conlinuity, this

continuity representing the structure of the knowledge perceived.

- l.' ,,"

Î
 -66-

The chapter Is divided into two main parts, the fint 0{ whlch brings
. , ~~

models and structures simultaneously into theCarena of thlnkinSi the second part

explores the connection between structu~es and models and intellect itself.

The Influence of Madel s and' Structures on Intellect and Kn~ledge

4

Having ascertained that models and st~uctures are, in fact, ~Iements

created in order ta interpret the mind 's perception oF relatedness, we must now

examiné more closety the characteristics of both concepts which actually ~ing them _

int~ juxtaposition in the thinking act and, ultimately, the educational act. This
. .

suggests a range of activity for bath models and structures which will el1(Jble us to

identify c~aracteristics of the two concepts in terms of functians which they perfarm

within thinking.

Models: they describe a certain chQracteristic. of the thinking acf'; namely, that

activity whereby the intellect dra,ws From experience a set oF collinear reference
o \

points, the objective being tO,lend to some newly encountered event or entity the

attribut~s of some known circumstance(s) sa as ta render the new ~nowable.

Structures~' they ar~ the means devised ta represent the theoretical cOMections

th~mselves which associate bodies of knowledge.

ln as much as structures join bodies of knowt'edge, they are t~e fabric

of logic. Whereas models relate intellect, perception and knowle~ge but are not

properties of knowledge, they are constructs of intellect which c9nstitute the s~rce
. "
 - 67-
)
<
of logicol reasoning.

One way of perceiving the difference between structures and models

;s to think of structures as appHed models. One must proceed coreftJlly with this

particulor opproach, however, for whil e structures have their origins in the modeling

process, modeling per!! does not al ways lead the thinker into creating structures.

The purpose of model formation is to lend reason and order to experience, wh ile the

purpose of structure-moking is to establish a particular mode cl model which will

loter be treated os the constant whereby further conclusion, may be reached.

An appropriote exomple of this difference is evident in stud~ng the

theories embodied' in Newtonian physics as compared ta Einstein 's Theory of

• J

Relotivity, the point being that the structures conceived by Newton, bosed on the

hypothesis that time and space were absol utes in the reol world, were used to gener-

ote further" co ri cl usions , which resulted in new sets of models being generated within ,

the minds_of scientists. Ultimotely, it wos Einstein 's obit ity to perceive of relation-

ships on a very sophisticated plane which led to a whole n ' set of structures evolv-

ing for the physicist. It moy be concluded that if WOI Einstein 1 s àpti tude for creating
"
models which o,lIowed him to construct a structure of physics which is almost universal

by nature in thot it is capable of expla-in'ing seemingly unreloted events in terms of

• J

the;r proximitYI tQ one another and, in this manner, of reducing the comple)C to funda-

mental elements~ Thus the relativity principle is a highly sophisticated and divers

-e structure of physics. , The models, however, used by the physicist are not the specifie

formulations which
,
arise from his analyses, bU,t are the ,reflections of past concl~sions,
 - 68-

-e .
conjectures ~d perceptions wh-ich in juxtaposition with one another have cauled a

conclusion œsuch-and-such a magnitude and with such-and-such c;OOracteristics to

be reached.

Belth hos provided a position in the fol/owing stotement which will

<Y •

serve as a point of deporture for a brief onalysis of structures and models insofar as

they may legitimotely be classified os meons and ends. As cited in Chopter Two:

Models themselves ore not motters of means and

ends. Models are the sources from which ends ore

determined or deduced. 1

First, this stat nt in itself is incondusive. The basic inconsistency within the

trying to distinguish between a "means" and a ~uree. Sinee

models are defined os the sources of ends (or ot l80st of the détermination and dedué-
,
tion of ends)~ it seems more accurate to classify models cis means. In faet 1 since

"sources" may ~token to represent those conditions without which the ends would be

incapable of coming jnto existen~e, it would he more appropriate to"say tOOt moders

" are a form œ ultimote ~eans, a sort cl ~ priori set of shaper-tronsformers. Aetually,

it seems ina"':'p,iate to allow fol the existence of an instrument used in thinking

without allowing for its being a mecns. If a thinking device is to be considered

neither means nor end, whot is the purpose of 'stating that it exists?

Having establisbed tbot models are, as defined by the function which

they perform, a form t:J meons, we can controst this position'to that of structures.

,
 ..
- 69-

. ,
Structures are also means. accordi ~ to the purpose for wh i ch they are designed.

Thot is, they are created to -establish a pattern - theyare the origi~s 6f,the entire
network cl knowledge. Once derived 1 howev~r, they assume the form of ends i,R

that the y are treated as the actual associative factors themselves •. Thus a structur~
,
once conceived is an end, while by intent it retains its functlon as a "means to
. ,
interpretati on Il • ,
. --.
, Models by their very nature represent intellectual diversity. If a
"

person were to attempt to reveol to another the models which he used in approaching

a given problem, he would not be outlining his reasons for making a particular deii-

.
ci on; he would be explaining the sources of his reasoning. This woufd obviously
. be

a 1imited exercise, since ma~f the models which we employ are almost incidentar.

Also, w~en confronting a problem in biology, we do not necessorily employ only

biological models, but draw from whichever sources seem relevant at the time of

examinotion. This presents obvious problems in trying to "re-Iive" the set of models
B
used in reaching a particular condusion.

\ ,
Structures, on the other hend, once conceived, will always be trace-

able according to the sequence of lagical events which led to their construction. _
.-' J
~
"'-
Since structures exist within the fabric of knowledge, they are shared by any two '.'"
. ,
people who choose to use them as interpretive elements within a ~iscipline.
,

•
When 8elth says that Il • models set up the relationships from
\ . ~ \.

which • meanings are derived ll2 the relationships to whi~h he refers appepr to be

one'and the sorne as the structures as perceived by Bruner. With this in mind, a
 '{ "
l '
'1' ..

,,
, - 70- .
,• ,t

,
.. "
.
connectedness .,q,ecQmes discernible between the thinking oct and knowledge, and it
,,
is this th~ead of identity which becomes the meons for amplifyin9 th.e inte~relat~~-
"
néss of structures and models.
, , " , 1

',Str1,Jctures are intended to ténd order to knowledgè; the patterns thus "

c~~trued form the ~emental• ~~i~s of t1.disci pl in~. Model~~ on the other hand,'
1

"
•
, .
are ifltended to lepd order fo think.ing and the patterns thus construed become the.
:~
1·
.. 1

stru~tures Qf intet'lect.

/ .
If should
,
~ noted alsa thot the t
structures
"
described are of a vertical
,
" '.
as weil as lateral nature, as these tj!rms were defined i(l Chopter
. , One. If the order..-
ing i5 suéh foot it confines the knowtedge ,to the domoin 6f C! discipline, then th~
"

structure m~y he said to be, verti'car, wher~s if the ordèring accentuates a universal-
\ 1 ' .. \. - , 1

ity of knowledge which causes it to èxist across discipl ine$, then the stru,cture con-
do

cei":ed.is'Ia'teral. Tpus the some body of knciwledge ~ay be structured vertically in'
, f , • " ' , 11..
order to reach one conclusion, and it mqy thenobe structured latera~ly to form another cv
"

condusion.

Evide~ce of this exists in the. very fa~t thot a si~'gle problem moy ~e
"
given a philosophical Interpretation within one set of circumstances and a mathemat-
,

icol or economic in~erpretatio~ in anoth~. And SC> Q dollar ea~n~~~ ~o.ck,lIars

spent repre'sents debjts and credits to ,the economist, while to tlte psychologist it may

indicate li"ing beyond one's means. Quite simpl'y,' evidence has been used in the
. , '

first cas~ to structure a~ event Alathemati coll y , While in the $econd instance', besides
 - 71 -

th,e actual calculation, there is evidenco of a value judgement, which implies a

new struetore, eousing the problem to become something more thon simply mathemat-

ical. It Is the process of lateral structuring which aUows us to use 0 different mode

/ , / of interpreta,tion; a new struct,:,re, which in this case is lateral.

Models and Structuring as Intell igence Indicators

It has been ascertained that thi~kin9 involves a contjnuous de'c:ipher-

r "

ing activity whereby whatever is beirig daolt with is immediately 1imited by the im-

position of images of other things. That is, theoforms of other things which lie within

thé e)(periencial field of tho individual constitute the perceptuol range of ev~ .............
thought. ' 8elth uses the c~~cept of model for~tion and modttl usage to explain thot .~
th,e result of intellect~1 activity is not the revelation of absolutes - the mind merely /

makes inferences in regard to certain aspects or features of evidence at hand in terms

of the frame of references which it has at its di~1. The phrase "frame' of refer-
.\ . "
ellees" is used here to qenote QII of the resOtJfces from .which intellect con drow in

.
deal i ng wi th a probl em • The' shape assumed I>y °these references consti tutes the forms

of the models in use. Bruner int~rpi'et~ the continuai l>rooden ing and deëpening of
.. ( ~ ~ 1

. " 'tf
the form~ of the models as being 1inked to the transformation of bosic ideos SQ as to

m""'~ingful in."..... '. a' th. disposaI of ,h••hinkor.

moke th!,m progre .. ively

8ased on this attitude, he ~~s the follow;ng:

-'

T0 be in commond of • • • basic idees, to use

..
the,m effectiyely, requires a continuai deepening

of one 1 ~ understandi ng of them that comes (rom

 -n-

learning to use them in progressively more corn-

plex forms. 3
,
The using of "basic ideas • ~ • in progressively more complex forms" is one method of

extending the frame of references, since it increases the r ces ava ilable ta the
Î
~

thinker .

Further to this, the ways in which the models re used and the ronge ,

of models emplo~~ reflect the intellectual ,copotity of the thi ker. In regard to the

use of models, Bruner has soid that the thinker is to .. • • • orga ize hi's lea!nin~, in

such a woy os to moke whot he leorns usoble and meoningful in hl thinking";4 this,

moy be interpreted os $Oying thet a thinker is as effective os the model~ which he1con

and does bring into a given situation. And it is the individuol's effectiveness os a

thinker which is the moin concern of the educotor.

To relate the above to inference-moking, the greoter the range cl

models whic~ on intellect con creote and deploy, the greoter the ronge 01 potentiol

inferences ot 'his disposai, inf~rences being understood to be the octual conclusions

. ".. .
created by a given intellect.

And so, by observing the models employed'by the thinker, we con

", oscertain his actuel copobiJity intellectual!y. In other words, thiJ h one opp-oach to
..
observing intelligence. Although not a simple tosk in itself, this"octivity cl oliservo-

tion is indulged in by virtuolly every educotor who strives ta ide'ntify the actual

elements of thinking which bring about leaming. lM essentiel question is: "y do
 '.
- 73- ,

.,
different people learn different things From the sorne evidence? Whenever education
.."
attempts Jo answer this question it is, in effect, analysing a vital feature of the

~.
thinking act, and this process of analysis is considered to be an elernental task of

education.

.
.r "
~

'.
This information is of vital concern to the eelucator, whose domaur'of

in~luence is considered to be primarily knowledge and the thinking act. By first

determining what the models employed were by nature 'and to what use the learner has

put t~em, the educator eslabl ishes for himself a set pf rudimentary criteria upon which

to formulate both a theory of teaching and 0 theory of leorning_ Upon this foundatiOn,

he wi /1 then begin to develop a curriculum, the intent r:A whiçh is to harmonize the
,
interaction of the leamer and knowledge via the thinking act _ He will furthermore
t-

direct his activities to the thinking act with the aim of somehow helplnQ. the leamer
·"1 .., .
to confro~t his own model-making apparatus. In this sense,
, we are. suggesting thet

Bruner 's emphasis on "Iearning how to leorn" begins with t~e act of "leorning how

1eorn".

This statement brings·th~ conceptual worfd cl models and structures

into the world of education. Having assumed the position thot it i$ the task fi educa-
1

tion to improve the quality. of thinkin~, we now confront the problem as to how struc-

'tures and models are involveel within cl curriculum ..

. ,.r

.. , 1 •
 b

,l '
t
- 74- J'

Summdry
..
a 1
l ,

Concerning the relatedness between model s (I~d structures, Chapter

Three c~"cI~es that structures qre·to·be defined as applied ~heoretic?1 connections

,
while models are the lenses through which structdres, among other intellectual
o ,

j '.

'Con5tru~ts, are devlsed and appl ied to crea te experiences. .

. '
" 'V
The ch~pt.er is divided into two main parts. f"I The firstcport

\
presents
, 1~
. ,
, -

.. basic defin~ng statements and tnen proceeds. to ~na.lyse the relationship between

"models bnd int,ellect a~d, a~ w:ell~ structures" and knowledge. The fout basic differ-

•
'ences between ~tructures and models may be summarized as follows:
't .. Co

,#/"
-
1.. Stru~tures Cfe the Il'f~bric of logic" while models-are the "source bf logical

reasoning" .

0:;1

~ . 2. ,Models are more in the nature ôf

p ~nds perceived •
meanSj structures are more in the nature of

• 3. Mod~h are usuallYomore idiosy-ncratic than'strl;!ctures. .

-(
~ "

,4. Structures lend order to kbowledge 1 whereas models lend. qrder to thinking. -
9

-e . ..
" •
(]
JI

/'
.,
1

" ..
i •

" \ \

, -
 ",
e /)
75 -
,. "
~

,- " ~eference5
~

1. Belth, Mar:. . Educ~tion as a Discipline., Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1965. p. 207.

2. Ibid. p., 284 ..

3. Bruner, J. The, Procass of Educoti on ~ New York~" Rand~ House, 1960. p. 13.

4. Ibid. p. 20.

,0

\o "
•

.; 0
'-
" ,

e )

(J ;. q, • ,
1

., . .. ~

,
,)

. ~
~.
,',
'~,
o ..
~ . -,
"0 ';'
.," , .-
 - 76-

•
//

..

CHAPTER 4

, COMPONEN,TS ΠTH E

EDUCATIONAl ACT
"

Chapter Four is divided into two main ports. The first is designed to
, \
introduce the elements of thinking, leorning, transfer;~ and intell igence insofar as

they are ~ignificant elements of the educotional act. The second JX!ft begins to;
1

onswer t~e question; "whot do structurës and modèls have to do with ~ducation?".

Its purpOse is to pro.vide a brid,ge between ,the phHosophicalrand psychological

èlem~nts of the J~rst three chapters a~ the ~du~ati'onal theory contoined, in the re-
, ~

- .
mainder of the dissertation. The final chopter will propose a point of departure for
~

the curricutum designer, the individuel who actually creotes 0 given edL!cotion~1
"
progrom.

a~sic PrOcèsses Within 'the Educational Act

~------------------------------------

Thinking
, .
,
-8'- \ , ~ ~
Thinking is a pri,mary concer~ of the educator since it is...the vf!ty oct-

wh ich he proposes ~omehow to improve. Furtherm~ore, the posi t ion assumed here in is o

, .
that it is more specifically·the symbol-mok~ng part of the thinking process which the
'. - '.

educator must strive to interpret, (md he m~~t tlien enable the student to do' the' sorne ~ ,
... • a •

a'elth demonstrCltes the ~unction of education in improying the proç~ss of.thinking in-

this ,stofement:
-.. "
- "
..
_ 0

" ' •
 1 •
- 77-
) \

The ,concern wlth' identlfylng model, and alsilling

'thé chlW to é10 the lame, id.,ntlfying meoningl "

"

within models and ani.ting th. child

,
to do the .
\
"
somo, soeking out alternative me~nings a~d mod-
/

.els, and ouisting ,he child to do w too is, in

'/
, .
proctice, the. devolopment of powets of

' k'109. t
thHl

,
Cloarly, then: "powers of thi~king" con be influenced by identifyi ng
. ~

spociFie modo 1, and their mooning" and by providing for-the student tho meons to do

1ikowiu!. This ~uggosts thot knowlodge ;, not to be 'reated as an end in iholf, but
, 1

it must be constantly r~$tructured

,
and transformed
. by the deliberato mqnipulrjtion of

one', own sot of mod~ls. In this way, models in thinking ore s~ewhat onalogou, to
1.1 J ~-

codes of QtHics il) thot the y represent ways in which decisions ote brought about •

. Mqdels dre, in .this manner, codes used for decision-making.

learning

John Dewey once soid thot whàt the genius grosps intuitively educa-
'. . " - ~

Hon seeks·,oprovi.chdor n6h-geniuses;n a deliberate manner. 2 This points'out a

,. .'
vi 'al feature of leor,ning - it is si~u1tane9usly something which is "natural" and
.
• 1

somefhing whi ch con. he dei iberate. ,It is not within the scope of .the present study,
. , .
nor is it necessory, to el'oborote to ony ~;eot è)(fenf thé ë~ncept of ;e:r(1ing .J T~e

•• ~eoson f!,f introducing if ot this point is to analyse Bruner 's referfmce to "'eo'r~ing how
~
_

\. .
•

to learn" and to ~emonstrote how this octivity i$~ prefaced by t~e activity of 'whot hos,
... ~
t:.

..
1
...
cl

- 78-
'. •
~

.
been referred to in Chapter Three as Illéaming how 1 learn", Thus this section ;s
1
1
dividecl'lnto three parts: the fint provides a working' definition cl the concept
- ,
"Iearni n9" , the s~tond aHempts to derhonstrate whot 8run~r'impl ies when he says
\

that ·under optimum conditions the student "Iear~s how to lea'Y' .. 3, the third expl~es
• 1

how the deliberate mànipulatio.,n of one 's &wn médel-making apparatus at the

intellectuallevel is the preH~inory step, in learning how to learn.

1
Ali that is needed here in' the way of a 'definition is to -say that
, f

. learning ato the"'intellectuql, level has to do with the acquisition and/or creation cl
"

knowledge. * .I~ evèry in~tance where such learnin~ is implied,. whether it ;5 the
.
individuel leorning a technicel or intellectuahkill or a series of data, Ileornin9"

impl ies the presen'ce of knowledge theretofore unknown to the leorner. ~t he, in
. . '~1
~ " ~ ~~ J ~~~"} , ", :

fact, acquites mey be d sk iII or someth ing else but it is,_ nevertbe;Sess, a derivetive ,

of knowledgé gained.

, . -
ln regard to Bruner' s statement as ci ted ab~e, i t se~ cl ear thot he
~ '" ...' ~;'J /
, , " 1> j

is referring to the ski Il embodled in determining fundamentals.' C~n~~~e~tly', "" .-

\ "
."Ie~rning how to leaf'n" implies the acquisition of a particular 'skill, namely', oecom-
. '
, .
ing odept ot seeing reo/ity in t-erms of Hs continuous b"lilt-in relationsltlps. ""
. • r, ~ , •

* . In foct, whot is being teferred to here is learning as .ft tlppl ies to intell~ct. AI-
, ~ ~. -.of

though there ma~ be Jurther dimensions of 1earni ng such as those wh iéh ex ist in
:ff~ctive dr ps;~.omotôr d~i!1s, these bear 1ittl~ ~eIQtio~ to the cogniti~e skills·
#'

which enable the learner to restructure knowledge a~ remodel his thinking', Sinée
stru~turing and m'ôdeli~g ore the main ihemes of thi;'$tudy, the definition used for
, l,
learning is .Qne which enabJes us to relote'it ti) intellect.

1
~

,/
. ~ 1
.....
" '
"
t j, 0
 c

,,

Assurnln g, ,haf Dluner 'os cOlr~ct ln determlnln g , "Ieo~nlng h o r leam"

-;,
10 be (1 mOle de,ltable overofl end thon leornlng faé" or proc,edules, a probl8fTI >

,
mises in legold to how olle Is to go a,bollt, thls from elther Ih-e teadml " standpolnt or
,
, , 1

the stuçJent 's. 1r'!!1 in thll area that Bolth becomel 1~5trument,,1 in legOid to currlc-

uluO! planning, ~s i5 evident in the next quototion ft~ Education 05 a' Discipline:
" , .?

To ItudX, models '5 to rolse the educotlng oct to the

I~vel of theoletisoal enqulry and to make It ponlble
/

to impt ove action by dei iberote~tudy.

4

Thul ,he model-oriented curriculum consisls in port of "dei iLerote

.. If' , <)

, . -
study!' whkh'ieods through \ttheo~eticQ,1 enquiry" to-action. Thot J
!S, the theorelicol
oP 1 ,) t

enquit y which is 'desirable in a curriculum consish of model-sh~y, ~he reluit ?L

• Il

, which is dlrect action mode pOlsiblé by "the study of the models of thlnking employed
- 1. , \ (j.
in a given situation.
J
l '" .
flonsfe, * -

A leorner 'ls'ôn'ind1ivldual ~ho has hod his environment chOl~ged. os a

re~ulr
.
of hi~ hoving'organiz~d his çoncepluol world in such a way. as to pro.duce such-

l '
-1< It should be noted thétt,lttransfer" 15 definedmore in terms of the tronsfer <?r
cQmmunicotion of
. , ledlni~g (~nowl~dge,
~.
thinking, etc.) frO{n one person to an-
,
, olher, os opposed to the more common use of the term to implv the obi! ity to
l ' t ""
ttansla~~. some"thlng leôr~ed From one set of cÎrcumstances to a'n9ther. For example,
,
, . .
'Brun~,suggests that d person f.!:,ansfers whc1t !S leàrned ,from one situ~tion !o anothe,r.

•
r
• 'S'

Thù'S one persoQ is -involV'ed i,~' two situations. Transfèr as d~fined in t~is diuert-o-'"
tio(l'~ however,. j~pl ies thê action-rea,ction involving ope s~ili 'or body of know-

r,,-.
lédge and m'ore thon one person:
~ • • t
. t
,

\' ..
\'
 - 80-

, "

and-suc" a vorsion of "the WOI Id of ebb and Flow". The fqctor ftself which hOI pro-

motod this condition is knowlodge., WHhin edu~ation, tran,fer opplie. to th~

",/
, .
communicative elemenls which bring together kl1owledge, the'concGp'ual world and

tho 1 eal world. To of irninole the concept of Iransfor from the educatio~1 sphere

would, in flffect, nogato' education as on oct, sinee transfer ts that eJement wf,ich

makos education,idcntifiablo as the bElIBERATE in'erforence wi,h tho thinking ocl.

, . .
It is this/vicw of honsfer which is tho topic of tho next soction:
~

Il would secm inappropr iate for thq educator to conside.r knowledge

"&.

os something creatod for a purpose ol,d then Iransferred to the leorner t olong with

the teochcr 's i~tcrel etolion of i 15 significance, .purpose ,or meaning. Since the
.'
stl uc tUI es of knowledge al ~', in many ,~~y$, co-creoh)d in that t'hey' have been ~ter-
, ~

mi!10d fo be "shOleôble", even structure itsclf, to (1 certain degtee, does not require
• 1

a tcoc~er-Ieo,.ner situation. Rolotively simple structures ("the ways i,n ,~hich ,thJngs
5 . . . " .,
al e 1 élated") arf; \:Inderstood not,ula.lly in .the way thot a person learns to wcrfk with-

dut firs,t thinking through 011 of the motiollS involved. In the som,fI woy o~ the individ- '
.
üal 'creotes wol.king for hi'mself t 50 ho eleates knowledge. There is no transfcr neç-
~ ~

essolX in the walking-Ieorningi~ thot is, one does noHlave to be "to~ght" how fo wolk.
~ ,
S'milarly,·knowledge is being c~èated whenever thinking is taking pl~c~. Whot,

then, is the pu~pose of having educatio,n?

Form,erly, this purpo~e rn~y have been stoted in t~rm's of c~unico,t-

. \

ing knowledge to the/fu~~nt. Thi~ would·se~m to be â s~ort:",sighted'point'of view,

e· ,
hQ.we'v~r: in view of the fact that it res.t~ict~ the potentia~ leorner in di;ect prop~tton

\'

'. .'
 - 81 - •

e
,

to the adequdcy (os measured by a ,number of factors) of the teocher. Whenever

accumulation dom ino tes over assimilation and association, the student 's energy is
'"
. ;

taken up in striving to reach I the level, of the t~cher 1 os detef!"ined b'y his knovÎ-

ledge and expertise. ~ Opposed to this, many contemporary educationol theorists

• t
.
., educat ion begins when the student acknowledge~that he is a
would contend that
.
creator of knowledge. Edutation, then, presuming that it is Ollé of the aims of the

indiy i11ual to become as effective 9 creator as possible, Jndertakes to design a

c,!rriculum which concurrently tnodels itself according to the vertic:al and loteral

structures of knowledge while reflecting the continuum of octivity which is the;

(
thinking oct. In effect, what is to be transferred is 0 sense, of respect for the individ-

uol as a creotor of knowledge ond meaning.

\\
\
The Intell igence Foctor
J
Ob:,iously", there ore other factors besides education which enter ioto

the potential cr,eotivity of the student, one being his own innate intell igence. AI-
Î ' . ,

though il may b~ orgued .that intelligence is portiolly a reflecfion of knowledge mode

occessibl e through educa.tion', the f.oct that there is no guaranteed 'end for any educa-
..,
. . '

tional act,ottests t.o the fact that there is a "natural" factor involved. Although"we

are uncertain as to what" in foct, constitutes 'the Jiltell iS]ence factor, we generally

a.ccept thot intelligence is often, if not alway,s, reflected in creative ckts, including

the knowledge-creation ~ct. ~

.' , Furthefmore, intell igence" is reflected:in 'ihe individual",'s obility to,

..... '
t
~onipul(fte his
" ,
conceptuol world (the' symbol ~orld, as definecf eorl i"er by Belth).
" . ,4

-. "lJ. (
1\
~

p).
"- :~ ., 1
.
 " - 82-

Consequently, this is one way of illustrating the role of edu~ation in actually in,
" .
creasing intelligence. 8elth demonstrates how education influences intelligence in

the following:

The educati~ process is a fundamental instrument

, \
.,J

for organiz'ing the symbols of environment in

order for children ta learn how to use them in

çreoting their own experjences and shoping their

, )

futures. 6

.,
Th~s statement serves, to link up thinking" learning and tr~nsfer through'

l , education, whose Purpose is to be an instrument or an agent for children to use in

creating
,
their own environménts'by making effective
'
use of their "natùral" intelli-

gence. The effective use of intellect involves becoming capable of thillking about
.
thinking in such a way as to produce better futures' thon would be ,possible without

educ~tion,
o .'

education. Through "le'arning how to Ibarn" include$ learnlng how to.'

" 1
think about thinking in terms,6f the structures and m'odels which thinking produces.
,
,J -
•
8qsed on the conclusions reached thus far regardin~ thinkihg, learning,

transfer a,d intelligence, ~e have established a ~t_ of basiç criteria ,,:,hich wHI' under-
. ~ ,

,lie any forthcoming discu~sions regqrding educat,ion. We now direct our attention to
t .. ... '"

"

asc~rtaining'what mod~rs,~nd s~uctures have to do with education as determined in

,.
" , , . '

P,iOrt by what they have to do with each ot,~er.

. '"
J •"'Ii

J, •

..'
 ,
- 83-

,Structures' and Models' in Eduèation

(

Srunef has provided us with CS ~omewhat gene'rdl objectiv~' for educo-

, ,
tion which 15, nevertheless, a useful view to bear in mind whenever we (ue discuss-

ing th~ overall purpose of edùcation per ~. ~runer, in The ,Profes's of Education 1

points out the following:

learning should not only t~ke us somewh,erej it

. . 7
, should allow us later to go further more easily.

This presents us with the view of educption performing a specific function f~r the. t..,. • q-
. " , ' ~.
,individuol; in 'a sense it becomes the oct of lIoil ing theQwhlels" of. intellect in order .

that the machinery of thinking be

"
set ioto, motion so as to be as productive as possible.

Based on this aspect of educt:Jti,on~1 'objectives in gener61, the f.ollowing dools ;"ith
- ,
Brune,.'s approach to cUrriculum as opposed to that of Belth.
.
It should be noted that
'.

~ ;

'v ' tJ ,-
each is. trying to açhieve the ~rTfe end ~providi.ng access to b,e.tter intellecttal" tools

.~ for learning). but the means presçribed are different. ,

F~ndamentally, what Bruner says is tOOt education should f~cus on

the created asPect of knowledge while simultaneously e!1cou;aging the studént to use
•
the instruments by whi·(;~ he naturally perceives (intuits) relati9nships. Apparently
. ~

real!ty consists at sOme level of a set of coordinates and the educational oct iS"to
o '
, . , '

strive te direct the 'Student toward recognizing as mpny

"#!
elements of that set as possible.

The leorner
,,
<
Bruner enumerates the desirable skills of the leorner. First, he must
,•
"
l',
..... ''\,'
 "\

-,84 -
1

e"
be able, to intuit:

,Mast~ry of the fundomentol ide;os of a field in-

volves not }>nl y the grasping .of general principles,

..
,but also the development of an attitude toword .'

learning 'and inquiry, toword guessing and .hu"ches, _

,
,-
toward the possibility of solving problems on one's

, own. 8

ln other words, hovir).Q built within himself a method of "understanding pril1ciples" ,

•
the student must then learn to trust in his own procedures and- interpreta,tions.

Secondly, he must be able to t~ink in terms of general principl~s ..

This idea lies at the yery core of Bruner's conception of structure. I,t is at the level

f of "Qeneral principl~s" thet structure cornes into existence, which has led to tQe

conclusion thot educatioR mus! undertake to become responsible for" ••• the

manner in which stude~ts could be trained to grasp the underlying structure or signif,i-
, 9 "
ca.nce of compl ex knowl edge ll •

Thirdly, the student must be in commond of bosic'id6?s and then pro-

ceed to use t'hese ideas in ddvanced forms, as stated in the following:

1nonspecifi c transferJ . cons ists of 1eorni ng

, '

.... not ~ skil1 but a generol idee, which, can then

.
be used as a ba~is for recognizing subsequent pro';'
. -
e, lems as special casés of the idee originally mostered. 10
.

"..
\ . f a
.
• '

- 85-

Stoted in t!'tms of edllcotiQn '5 responsibiliiy in thi. orea, he soys:

If earlier leorning is to render later l~rnjn9

"', , .
eosier, il must do 50 by P'"0viding a generol

pi~ture in term, ôf which the reloti,?ns be-'

tween things encountered ~orliet and 'oter

ore mode os deor os possible. 11

Il seems c1eor thot 8runer 's concept of the ideol curric~lum would be'

one which reveols to the sludent those aspects of kn~ledge, nomely structures,

'f which o/low him to understond ~Qre meoningfu!ly the knowledge which he will en-

coulller 101er. Thus the emphosis in terms of curriculum is on the effective orgonizo-

-tion of knowl~dge 50 os to reveol 'certain fundamentol ideos inherent in knowledge -:

itself. In a sense, then, the forms in which'knowledge becomes reveoled through

'00

cUlriculum are of vital significonce. Presuming rhot the "best minds." 12 have deter-

"~~ned the
. curriculum"Sruncn would likely coriclude thot whoUs produced' i"~ in " .

fact" th"e best curriculum designoble. (> • • ...

.. ~ - t.

,The Psychological FQctor

On the other hand, Selth ignores the possibil ity Ihat perhops thè

best .minds s~oul~ ~e involved in the designing of curriculo "olthoug,*.wou·l? pre-

sumably agree that this is 50. The difference lies in the fact thot thiJ.e 8runer '0$

- ~ , "
theo~y is built primGrily upon a theory of th~ I1Qture eX knowledge, 8elth facuses
, ~

primorily on the nature of the symbol-moking process os creator of knowledge. He

, , .
{ ..
proposes tha! initiolly education and consequently the 'Ieorner himself must examine
~. -
\ '
,.
"
1 l'

" . .. {
 - 86-

tho procon of ,ymbol-maklng whic~ COU~OI tho model, to camo ln to exhtonce, r.... ,
"

ln oxporloncos toklng on tho porttculor Forml whlch thGY do:

1

••• thlnklng ln odueotlon 1. dlroctod no' 10

J .
muel; toword the logle of concopt folotlonlhi.,.,
\

Of of the judgomonts about th. ('!xporiencod

world, but, rothor, toword tho modoll of thlnk-

Ing whler, enter Into the procou of roo.ooln9,

the judgcmonn which result, and the Form,

.
ronge, ond quollty of expcrienco$ mode ponibln
. 13
by tm, models. <

"

As oppo$ed to, the thoory

<.
thot loglc should be tho dominont factor in dctormining the•
. ,

nature of curriculo~ 8el th OSlumos tho posit'ion thot t~ psychologicot fgetor b oho of
..
pt imo importance.
1

.'~

The purpo$O of the tcmoindor of this chaptor is ta exomino the relovance

of the respo~tive theorics of structure and model ..vithin dn exclusively educotionol

) ,
frame of rcfcrenee. 8~ocecnt~ting. the divergence of Bolth and Bruner'
, s p~ilosophie,
o

os thcy opply ta curriculum objectivos, it is intended that further foundations bu as,:,

i.'
. tobl ;shed for the conCiluding chapter, whorein w~·s~1I ~ndortok~ ta oscortain tho volve

of a structure-model orionted .curtitulum.

~
,~

, '

.
 •
. '

- 87 -

Curriculum ..,
Both Bruner and Belth take a dond on whot they consider desiroble fOf' ( . /

a cu.rricuJ-ur;'l' It is from·thelr respective statements whlch'

.. #
fo\lo~\hat we begin to
~ ~.
.,h , ... '

fecognizé a basic philosophlcal difference between t~ tWo tneodsts. Brune .. cloi~, ~l

that: c: '

• .t.~ curriculum. should be dete.rtnined by

~ ! t,

the most fvndomental understanding thattcan be

achieved of the'underlying principles thot Qive". f

", 14
structure to the ,subject.

From this it is apparent thot curricula are to be designed ac~ording "to the logicol
,
siru~tur~s (see,Chopter One) as they ore monifested 'within the ~eolm of Iqtow:edge. /

~ .
That is, if underlying principles ore pr.operlr l'epresent~~ in the curric4&m on? if the
.
1

-stUtHS ~ \
somehow made aware of '.he s'ignifiCânce of stru~tu:e os the c,,:"(elatin~'\ '

for e in the re'olm of knowledge l, then ,eduçation hos performed the task for which it • • .. 4

was in·tended.
~ l.,.~

l
0 .. ';

,'. r
.. ... ...

1
"
Bel th ';'ou Id olso ,atlest tp the
; 0
VQlu~ 0;
~ _~
such cu"icula ••but he seems to'
~~
~~ •

g~ one sfep further wi,th his philosophy Jn regord to curri~ul,um. Thu~' he'con tends thet:· 2
F"

~ .
" . , 4

The reof educotional 1 curricu10r éffect'comes ot àl~ l'evels

. ... ,
when
, ." ~ . mod~ls are ~pt only used, but id~ntified an~i .
"
made the subjects of explorafion for the children' who ,.
·e .~
~ :

~f
,
• . - ~.
~ , j ,;f'J
. 15' •
learn and the odults who teadi., ~ -
.... '

... ,
••
, ,
.. ..,.
'

,,. .
,r
,"
l

. . ç...... ' .. ' .'.

.. .
," . '
...... ..., , _ ...
/0 •
) 1 -" , "~ , '
),
;,
"...

'.
...'- .; 9
~
 - ,
- Q8-

It should ~ noted at' this pôint tOOt 8elth has a way of presenttng
j ,

m~ls which makes them similar in many respècts 'to "concepts" of 8run~r. Thus the

creoti~ of modeli as modes of lnterpretation is analogous to the "i~vent,ion (of)

co~cepts".
" 16 J ;
I~ fa,ct, the realm of kno.1ledge ~s perceived by Bruner is analagous
"-
1 •

ta so~ extent ,t~ Belth l $ "~,oretical mT'slI, which do actually iux~ose and
,
OSSOfiate apparently dissimilar things by using the structure of one to determine the
,/ '\ ~~

structure of another (see Chapter Two). F~ example, we may form the theoretical

continuitY of a discipli~e such as.... chemistry in this way: through our observatio~ of -~

elementQl differe{lces in the physical,cômpositions of yarious subs~nces, we create

. .
a-Icnowl~ field and ihrou~h the ~els which were used in determining the,nature

"- of the field, we also create a strucfural pattern l>y which we will presumably be able
C' • \! ..

ta foré'c~t most of what we will later encounter wi.t~in th.at discipline.

'Perhaps ~he f!lOSt striking ~ontrast between the~hilosoph'i~s of the two

~ bec~ apparent when we consider how str ... ctu~s themse,1 ves are ta bë studied

as'op~ed ta' how mcXJels ore t~.be studied. The difference is extensive, for, on the
~ .
) r
see in the following:
'
.
.
one hand" Bruner portrays structure as being of the nature of elemental design, as we
. . .
,
\

. re .
• by constantlYAexamining material taught in elemenl-
.... ' ,
illry ~nd secondary schools for its fundamental character.,
....
one is able ta narrow the ŒlP between "advanced" .kno-+
17
I~ge and "e 1ementaryllknow !ed ge-.
ft \ _

Il,
'. - 89-

,. ""
ln contfQst to this idea, Belth has rnade the following stotement regarding models.:
..
~ t~e study of models is not a matter of findi,,!g

..
, limits which are already denoted. It is a matter of

inventing limitations and appropriateness and in':

quiring into the logic which would define, inter-

. 18 c-
pret and direct them.

It would oppeor ,that the "1 imits ••• already denoted" as perceived by 8elth a.re of

, the nature of structures, which are considered to be the associative factors them-

selves which correlate knowledge. The individual is somehow .to b~ brought forth to

"perceive" structure, to recognize the basic components which 1ie àt the foundation
A" ~ .
of a body of knowledge. This in itself has led to Bruner' s often cited statement that: .
. ' F
1
\' • the foundations of any subject may be taught
2 19 '
ta atlYbody at any age in some forme '

We also must reflect on Bruner' s belief that: "To learn struc;j'ure ••• is fo lear.n how
• 1 -

things are felated~'. 20 Thus, .white 8elth focuses on the education process in terms of
, - '\.
the ability to confront references, literally to think about thinking, Bruner would
- " .
contend that the merits, of the educational oct are determined according to the pre-

de""-mined arrangement of the subjects confronted. For this reason,. it appears that
,

rec~nition of existent structure precedes interpretotion of the thinking oct in terms of

educational obiectives. Based on this hypothesis, 8runer' 5 doètrine of education

contoins Frequent references to "grasping" of fundamentars and Il mastery" of various '

. "
notions, os evidenced in the following:
q
 •
o 4

- 90- •
J
~stery of ~he fundomentol ideas of a field - ,
/
involves ••• thé grasping of general

• '"1 es. 21
pnnclp

,
Another way'of in~erpreting the divergence of philosophies is tol"egard

Belth' s primary educational question as to objectives as being IIWhat should a learner

learn?" an~ his response might~:

,
"He Jhould learn what causes him to think as he
~

does and to thus broaden (or Il improve" if we were to choose this monner of interpre-

tation) h is thinking. Il For Bruner, however, the ul timate questi on might be "What

should the teacher teach?" and his response is evident in this quotation concern ing
'1;), • 0
rt' • \
"Foor
r
general-
•
clalnlS -••• for teachTng the fundamental structure of a subject."

(1) ••• understanding fundamentals m:Jkes a subject ~

more compre~nsiblè •.

.. .
(2) Learning a structured "pattern is a memorya.id.

(3) ••• understanding of fundamental principlJs'

and ideas •.• appears to be the moin rood to

odequdte, "transfer of training".

(4) ••• by constantly examinirg material tought

.. in elementary and secondary schools for its funda-

mental charac~r, one Îs able to narr-Qw the gap .\

between 1 advonce<J' knowl~dge and 1 elementaryl

e, knowledge.
22
..
 . ('\

- 91 -

"

1 1

80th "Brunér and Selth have made CI number of general statements in

regard to educotionol pbiectives, and these quotatiom indicate, to a large extent,

, P
J the appropriateness of the! inferences in regard to ~th ~Is,and structures., It

seems -proper thot, before proc~ding

,
to examine the actu~1 .
role of models'-and of'

structures in the educational oct, we conSider a number of general statements which

,
moy help to convey the tone of the cOl'!lext within whi~h specific daims are made.~

. , '
Perhops the most revealing single stotement made by ~Ith within ~is
./ /,
context is the followin~'

••• education is the process in which man ~s

the concepts at hand, and allers them os he ob-

1

serves wh~t they prQduce. Thus, the procedure

\ of educoti~ RlIst institute this very proc'ess. It

con only cid ,this os it nurtures t,hose deliberative

powers which include lesting, alterin'g, ond)n-

venting new i~truments or modes of behaving

" with ~thers in'noture. It would then be the

"

teocher l s obligation to nurlUre this ability rother

"
1

than to transmit moial ity. The teacher is not

osked to' be a mode 1'. ! . but to enable leamers

, 23'
to' moke models.

Further to this, he later points out tF.at:

\

"
 1 • "

1
•• the educative activity b ele."entally con- ,
cerned with the development of supportive powers,
. -
24
preservative powers and deltberative powers.

l Th. ~f.re~ce. Il> "delibe"';'ive power.l in both in/IGnee. lead· one.

more ta rhe ~onclusipn that the learner must be brouQht ta confront continuously
\
those elements which predispos~ him ta act in a certain way (i.e. ta have a given
, .. • 1

experience). Since a man' s t~in king is reflected in his experiences, and since th~se

experiences exert some f~m of control over the mod~ls which intellect has at its
. ,
disposai and thus control, ta some extent at least, the structuring"facet of thinking,

.then if we are ta lIimprove u

thinking , we l'OOst first confront
. Our experiences and the
..
'" 1
models of thinking which led up to them. Dewey said:
1

The sole direct path to en1during ime4vement

in the method of instruction and leaming con-'

.. "

sists in céntering upon the conditions which --- -

~

exact, promote,
1
an d testt1h'lnk·Ing. 25

,
Again we are reminded of the Il ete 1iberative powersll evident in ~8etth:- -----
, ,
";esting,' altering and inventing ••• modes of behaving.,,26
(

The emphasis for 8runer, however, is on educational environment,

'\ ,
especially the "right" curriçulum. It might he said that 8elth strives.t0 identify eduoa-
i'
tion through a thinking oriented approach, while 8Juner' s approach is more knowledge
. -
oriented and seems ta allude to a structure implicit in ~ôwledge itselF.
., -'93 - '.

Q Thus It is the connectedness itself, the theor;tical binds which intellect

, 1

creotes to leap from one known to onother which iJ ~ core idea in Bruner' s "struc-

ture". The terms of reference which are employed and thmugh whi.ch reality is per-.

ceiv.!d and interpreted, on the other han.d, constitute Bal th', s n~tioo of nmodel n •

Viewed in terms of mea~s and ends, it might be said that models are, by definiticn,
, il
the meons which intellect employs in a~ining a perceptual.field, and that percep-

tuai field consists of sel'ies or ~~ts of ~owns and thei: continüity.. that continuity 4

be ing expressed in terms of structure.

ln regard to 9ér:'eral educotional obiectives, when Bruner suggests that

"Ieorning how to leorn" is part of the edûcational procçss, he is assuming that clorifi-
.../
cation of the notion of structure is the basic means to attaining thet .::nd !lnd thet the
.'
oct of thinking structurally is an asset for the leall!er. His perception of the èduco-

: tianol oct is thus based on the

. ,pr.emi~ that increasing
'/
in~lIectual activity begiJ

with identifying the structurihg process as part o~tellectual octivity and then pro-

ceeding to emphasize tl)e structures of knowle~. And sa" Bruner con say:
. ,
To be in comRl9nd of ••• basic idea.s, to use them

effectively, requires 0 continuaI' deepening of one'.s

•
understanding of them thotcomes fr~ leaming to fi
,
27
use them ;n progressively more complex forms.

The purpose of education .Qccording to 8elth, however, is not only' to

'\

reveal the telatedness amon~ bodiès 01 knowledge, but to be able to identify the
 , . ., . ..:-_---------r

.
.. - 94 -

'.
' " 1

psychological factors which have contributed to the p'rocess of identification and

• • Il • 1.

nomenclature. In this way, Belth takes eduèational theory beyond a theory of the ...
,
nature of knowledge and\into the realm of thinking. He retates knowledge to the

, ,
process of thinking by.demonstrating one of the processes in'tolved in the creation of
,

knowledge, namely 1 the process of model-rnaki~g and mode~-using, which he demon-

..
strates to be one of the prirnary sources of cognition.
•

------------------~
" -.

Summary
". -
, \
/
# r
Coopter Four in'vestigates the ed~cational act inso~r .as it consists 9f
"
basic processes and certain other elements. The processes
l
discussed are thinking,
~

leaming~ transfer and intelligen~e. From here, the learner and the ~u~riculum are

investigated insofar as they are vital elements within education.

,
\ .,.'
The seètion on thinking is concemed mainly with the intellectual
1 -
aspect of thinking and the responsibilt,ties oF education in' this area.

"
Learning is invesiigate~ as to whot is impl ied by "learning how to

learn" and "leaming OOw to think ~bout thinking", since these appear .to be two of

1 the desirable ends oF the educatiOl"lQI oct.

l '

1 Transfer is studied within the Framework of education as being the actuel

l'. 1

.
communication factor which gives learner and teacher something in common. Thot is,

,/
 l '
J t

- 95-
If

transfer applles to the passlng from one person to another of knowledge, attitudes
. "

and 50 forth, rather than the application" of knowledge from a known area to an area

under study;-

,
Having brou.Qht into focu$ three of the proéesses which constltute

educatio.n, the chapter then R{ovides some general observations regarding the
.
learner himsel f and the influence of natUlal Intelligence within an educational
.,
sphere. 1

The c:oncluding section deals with curriculum, and introduces the èon-
,
cepts of structure and model as they would appJy generally to curriculum design. It

is mentioned that whereas for Bruner curriculum design Is based mainly on the parti cu-

lar arrangement of knowledge, for Belth the structures of knowledge are secondary \.

within educatipn to the models of thinking which brought the structures into be.ingo

'\ '

• 1..

"
\
(
 /

- 96-

1 1 •

\
References
,

1. Belth, Marc. Education as a Discipline. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1965. p. 286.
i

2. Dewey, John. Art as Ext;[ience. New York: Minton Balch; 1934 .. Cited in
Belth, Marc. le New World of Education. Allyn' & Bacon, 19?O. p. 48.

.. 3. Bruner, J. The Process of Education. New York: Random House, 1960. p.6 .

4. Belth, Marc. Education as a Discipline. Boston:' Allyn & Bacon, 1965. p. 169 •
.
5. 'Bruner, J. The Pro cess of Education. New York: Random House, 1960. p. 7.

6. Bel th, Marc. The" New World of Education. Boston: Allyn & Baèo.n, 1970. p. 19.
,
7. Bruner, J. The Process of Education. New York: Random Ho'use;, 1960. p. 17.

8. Ibid. p. 20.

9. Ibid. p.6.

10. Ibid. p~ 17.

11. Ibid. p. 12.

12. Ibid. p. 19.

13. Behh, Marc. Education as a Discipline. Boston: Altyn & Bacon, 1965. p. 9.

14. Br.r,J. TheProcessofEducation. New York: RandomHouse, 1960. p.31.

15. Belth, Marc. Edue,ption as a Discipline. Boston: Allyn & 'Bacon, 1960. p. 285.
l'
16. Bruner, J. The Procttss of Education. New York: Random House, 1960. pp •. 53-54.

17. Ibid. p. 26.

18. Bttlth', Marc. Education as a Discipline. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1960. p. 207.

19. v Bruner, J. The Ptocess of Education~ New York: Random Hause, 1960. p. 12.

20. Ibid. p.l.

,- ...

- 97-

\ 21. Ibid. p. 20.

22. \ Ibid. pp.25, lj,.

23. Belth, Marc. Education as Q DiscipH.ne. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1960. p. 85._

24. Ibid. p. 96.

25. Dewey, John. Dem~cy and Education. New Vork: The Macmillan Co.,
1916. p. )53.
o
26. Belth, Marc. Education as a Discipline. Boston: Allyn & Bocon, 1960, p. '\.0,

27. Bruner, J. The Process cl Education. New York: Random House, 1960. p. 11.

j
"

,
.,

, c
 ..
CHAPTER 5

THE ROLES OF MODElS AND STRUCTURES

IN DESIGNING CURRICULA

Intellect ,
.
") ln an earl ier chapt~r it was suggested that the principlé function of

thè school is an intellectual one, and that whil,e it.may perform a variety of

(j community bnd other functions, that characteristic which set~ it apart as unique from

other institutions is that it serves the intellect. With this yiew in mind, we shou!d

examine the concept of intellect e!." ~ if we ore to determine how the curriculum

\ of the school, through _the use of models a~d structures,. is to influehce the act o!

intellect.

It seewras evident that the inteltectual act consists of a number of parts.

, .
Thot is, it would he inodequote to define intellectual activity as the Mere reception

of impressions or as the creation of knowledge. There are, in fact, a number of

"abilities" which constitute intellect, as J:P. Guilford show~~~:n~'t~des

intellect into live main oreas, namely, cognition, mernory, convergent operations,
• •
diverge~t Of*.Otioni and evaluation.
,
(This méthod of classification wicll. proye useful

in forthc~n9 segments of this chapter.)

, ,

I.e
,
v
 J'

1,\
•
'\', - 99- •

• Guilford exn1ains intellect as follows: -

F\ \

\
Cognition',mecms d,\scOVery or, rediscov~ry or

recognition. Merri~ry mecns retention of what

is cognized. fwo kinds of productive-thinking

--- operations generate new information from known 1

information Qnd remembered information. In

divergent-~hinking operations we think in

. .
different directions, sametîmes searching, some-
f .
times seeking variety. In convergent tJ1inking

the informati~n 'Ieods to one right answer or to

a recognized best or conventional answe~. In

evaluation we reach decistons as to goodness,

correctness, su i tabil i ty, or adequacy of what we

\ .
know, what we reniember, a~d what we produce
.
• t h"ln k"mg. 1"
.ln pr od uctlve

The two aspects of the above hypothesis which are IlIOS. relevant to

this work are Ilconvergentlt and Ildivergent lt thinking operations. G'iven tOOt the

function of the school is ~ntellectual by ooture(and tOOt the curricuhm reflects the

actual poi'nt of departure for contact between t~cher and I~mer, the purpose Of
(
the following is to demonstrate why the" concepts ~ model and structure as defined
. '.
previouslyare to be integrated into the initial phase of curriculum designing.
, ~,

..
,

• , .
•
~. ,
, .
..
- 100-

• ,
(Curriculum
...
. )
~

\ .
The curriculum itself, white not being the central theme 01 this disserta-
.
. .,
tion, does warrant sorne discussion in that who' is
. being
. Pfesented is a suggMtion os to
.
how curr;culum planning may be opprooched 50 os to foy the foutldations for a curric-

ulum which will both represent the disciplines

, \
of Knowledge and~n osset to the
,1

learner in his function ~5~n,intellectuolly creative human being, With this in mind,

Wf! should first establ ish sorne. sort of schematic representcrtion of the entire stru~ture
.' ' : t..-"'y .{i.,~J&t>J n.rt1~ l:.'t.rI., Atklftrrnu,
of a sch~1 system. In Curricula for the Seventies~ theJollowi~9 outline is'suggested:

~ v

Given the communities of discourse in the scJ.ools,

•
the teacher as a veteran disc~Jrser,
. the stu~nt
,
as

one being in$lucted and developed in eoch' comrru-

.
nity of intellectual discourse, the cvtriculum.as a
~

planned, series of encfnters_with the comrrunities

r ,

of intellectual discourse, the 'course as a systetyl of

plQnned enc&mter5 .~ith a poJticular discipl

, ine, "
. '2 '
the $Choal is thereby ••• defined.

Planning Encounters , \
\
\ -

, . The pfanning of the" encount,n is ~he primary fu,.c:tion 01 the designer

7
J

of curriculum and hi, responsibiHties are twofold. Fint hé IllU$t restructure t" dis-
, ~
~ ..
,ciplines as a curriculum context.' Thot is,}le n'list estaf>lish 0 design whfch will ....
 " ,
"
"

,
..
'e' . \.1
1
, . \ '\ .
in ;o~ve th~ Jeorher in the jti~ i~i J. of. ~~. d be iplin", by orgon ~z ing the d i,e i pÙn~,
.:.

,
of knowledge for the lèamer. • a

," r ,

The purpose of this process would be to a .large extent in conformity

.1 " . vI' '-
.f with the i~e~ .;ha; ,there is such a pio"cèss as con\ler~nt thi~~ir;lgll,' t~e 'p~rpoSe of
Il

a . ,
""
, J
~ " ...

.. wh}ch is !o arriv~ at a fOregone conclûsioo.qr.r at feast ,to reach a preconceived end •.

t , , 1

" , il

.As far as the curriculum is coticern~d,

. there
,
are a ",um~r of ways of
• 0
". . . . ,

tredfing t~e knowledge and the proc.esses· of knowledge 50 as to mak~ them accessible
o • '1 .... 9 ",:1
' 1 ':
.
o

. to st~dents.' It is 'in this' area that,Bruner and his many folÎ.owers become relevant, .
$ '1 ~ .. .,.

~ ~ -. 0

. in proposing that it is the structufe-element, the e"actual inter-connectedness

.... ~
of • , fi

~ ~
<:ra • t • •
knowledge whiëh should determine the substGIntial aspect of the curriculum. This is
l)- , ~e
•
., • Jo 't .. <'9

, <>
Q.
. ...11
,
.' 0

a very competl ing argu~ent which has bèeh reiterated

. '~ .. Qn 'n'lany occasions a.nd in a

... variety of ways; OfId 1her~ see~ little dou~t'that the structures ~f knowledge will

frovide a bosis f~r a mo~ea,listic curric~lum thon ~ould ~,the case if the foct-ond-
• • . , . . . ' ~t.
o , . 1. .. " ~'

~
data-Iodel') curric,lo of, the 'past·were maintèined. Porticularry in. areas of.stucly en- "
.,. .) .
[ : , ( .. '"

~ compassed by scfence-mathematics, the àdvantages of a· structural opproach to curric-

~ ", 6 , •

~ • A ~ • \

:ulum are evident in tOOt the,~~rner is equippe~ with a "set of le'arni~g tools Which he
...
t , , ' ..

can develop hims-:lf •. T~t is, he learns to seek out meaning and to constantly re-
..
(1 '~.. \,., ~ ,

~
~vqluate what he IIknows u •

, ,
"

~
't:.
p •

ut the following: "

'J

>
' .

ln r~,gard to structure within. the curriculum, Frost pnd Rowland point,

p
Cl

,1

"

~, 1 1
.
 ,,
,
- 102-

.
,
The theory proposed for the student ' s consideration /

• • • has been identified as the strudure-process

aperoach as a result of Iwo fundamental considera ...

• .()t

tions upon,which the theo..y rests. The first crucial

consid~rotion is that knowledge has an inhèrent

, i

',< structure ••• which if adeqtJately understood and

-----'i ...
o
utilized will facilitate the student's and reward
v
3
the Jeacher ' s effÔf'ts with success.

The authOl) continue from this point~ furthermore, with a second consideration which

toUches upon"the theme of thé .,ext section of this dissertation:

u ?

The second consideration is that there is an

identifiable 'process of knowledge • • • that

depends upon the nature of the leaming or9On-

'.
ism and an invariant sequence of processes thot
,
lead to the learner~.s establishing control· over
•• 4-
hIS envlronment.

, \..

e..When,we refer tOlhe "nature of the learning or~,nism", we arrive at an

1 •
area too often neglected by th~ desi~ers of curricula. Secure in the Faith that
\

\ students ought to be guidèd through

"
the mOze of the selected elements of the disci~

plines of icnowledge, and mesmerized by the convergent tendencies of the thinking

oct', curriculum designers. tend to ignote that intt?llect consists of ~e thon one aspect,

and '0150 that divergent thinlè:ïng is t~ essential feature. of the creative act. Concem-
 -'103 -

ing this neglect of the divergent aspect of lintellect, Currië~la For the Seyenties •
.

~
/
, 1
issues the fol owing plea:

The central plea ••• is tOOt educotors [in this

f'

case,. curriculum designers) substitute flexible,

{>o

inquiry-based teaching-learnin~ which ~mphà-

sizes divergent thinking for the lockstep patterns

of conforming behaviour that tend to stifle

.. 5
creahv!ty.
J ,

. off." .
Having agreed, then, tOOt the concept of structure is desirable as a'
• 1 0 A.

foundation for curriculum building (particularly for those segments of the curriculum

which are science oriented), we now pose the question, IIls that al) that is necessary

in the way of Q conceptual guide for the ,designing of curricula?".

It seems that if.a curriculum is to improve the student' s 1ife by "broad-

_ 1 .
ening his horizons", then it must offer him as complete control over his environment

!lS is ~ible. If the student is unable to literally "moke a better world ll thon wQuld
,

have been possible without his education, then the curriculum has faile,d in one' of
..
its fundamentol respansibil ities, and that is to moke the student a more creative

hunan being thon he could otherwise have hoped to be.

Models and Creotivity

'f :
We naw arrive at the second responsibility of the curriculum designer,

and that is~toadopt as a conceptual guide the ideas of models and model-creation as
 .
J - 104-

they relate to creativity insofàr as creotivity is the product of the d.ivergent ten"den-

ci~s of thinking. ...

Perhaps the most appropria te place to begin On the subject of curriculum-

creativity - models is with the following statement From Curricula For the Seventies:

" ~ ~ .
Creative skills are identifiable and they can

be taught. To deny the teachability of creati-

vity is to assign teachers the role of obsèrve..s

in the educative process •

• • • we can modify intelligence byaltering

the conditions o~ nurtur:,e: We have the power

to modify nurturant variables, and we should

surely do so to allow each ehild a chan·ce to

6
fui fi Il his potential.

...
ln addition to this, we have the !heories or L.G. Thomas conceming

three aspects of creativity, pc:èsented in Educatfona,1 Perspectives in an article en-

Thomas distinguishes among creative power ~ creative

7
titled IDefining"Creativi.y".

"> process and creative product;

,
Creative Power: nif creativity is a power th en it is apparently located in the per- 1

former; that is, it is quite personal and may be considered p-sychological. It Js

logical only to the extent that we leam to understand the dynamic neuroloQical

interrel~tionships of the human mind. Yet, it is clear that a facilitating environment

Il
 - 105-

\. 8
con norture its development. Il
" - - -- 1 .. - -
Il Ev~n though creative persans tend to ~OII under certain general tJes
.
of conditions, the timing, compléxity, and.intensity of conditionS ~y alter-the

. direction of growth or even determine whether it oc~~.·9 "

..
Crea.tive~Process: Il ••• problems-ore creatively perceived~by ;;r.e~leamers, t~n
•
the learners l subsequent stages of behaviour
o
in problem solving are their own genuine

choices predicated in part by their own definition of th~ problem ... 10

ln relatiOri to the type of problem 50lving which is seen more as a

c:reative oct thon 0 guided oct, Thorms says:

'-

50lving hm structure
. but it .is not a fixed
. or pasit structure. It has developmen continuity rother thon predetermined cQ1tin-

,.
'Ulty. uchve probi em 501·
As pl'od· vlng ····h . ,1 11 ,
If IS ln erent1y creative.

If the thinkin9 oct can be peréeived momen~rily as a continuous

.
progression of solving p.rablems, then "predetermined continuity" would suggest

problems to be solved by 0 structural Qpp-ooch, while "devel~tal c~tinuity"

suggests continually rearranging, sarting, assimilating, disseminating and 'disc::'ardin!:f

1 • mOdels of thinking as part of the process of c~i~ new ways of thinking. ,Toot is to i
say, we are ~ot only structuring Icnowledge i" ..;ev" ways but approaching Iithe world
of ebb and Flow" with a constantly fluctuating set of sy.molic referents. ,Such !S the
oct of creation.

J••
 /.

- 106-

Creative Produc!:, . "Only after we.esJa,,)ftsh the originality of the produat can ~e

~ke oteps 10 determl':" how f proOJcts con be ~..:s..ced and who can produce ~"
, thème :-r19lysfnt-~,SJeattVe praduct or prOcess into l~ical ~lements may lead to

;::
~I. a~d pred~ction over the creative act, and for our purposes, appropriate
• l'ad"
e d· uaotlona m 1fIcotlons.
i' Il
12 , ~
,; \ '

, 1

( If the primary Function of the schoel is intellectuol, then it can be

conduded that one oF the most si~nificant products which curric~lum should be .
,~

designed to creote is knowledge. Regardless oF how we choose to define d "creative

product ll , it is the result oF the creator knowing how,to create tOOt product. And so,

although knowledge ~ ~ may not be t~ desired end oF teaching stud~nts to be

creative, it is involved at son:'e level in the student becoming creative. And 50, one

may conélude tOOt kno~Oledge is invQlveà 1", the ;ogression From cognition"to

creatjvj ty.

. A, special feature of the creati~e oct is tOOt it represents u~qeness and

for 'this reason it is ultra-Iogicol, since it supercedes

•
the expected produèt.
r

~ 1
1 d J -

Another noteworthy characteristic of the creative act is that it belangs

,to the crea~1' This is 1ikely the F?remost reason why creativity is often either

ignored or Feared, particularly by educators (in thi~ instanœ, curriculum designers) -

'.
J ,

l::ieco",se the madel-making oppar~tus

the physical world 408s not conform to

r .-
which is brought From the conceptual world into

the structures of knowledge as perceived by

J•
other people.
,
. - 107-,
•
But the curriculum designer, besicles bringing to the leamer the
,
structural world which characterizes t~e disciplines cl knowledge, must present a .

curriculum which creotes within,the student a desire to confront his own, terms of

references, to model and remodel his o~ conceptual worl~, to stand outside the
• 1

~tructural danain and strengthen hi~ own capacity to be a divergent thinker.

()

~ Point cil Departure "

, -
The document which is the cllrriculum of. a g~ven educational system

is the product of many levels of decisioo-mak)ng. Among those who influence the

design of a curriculum are governments, parents of the students being °taught,

ad~inislrators, teachers and, sametimes the students themselves.' However, in terms

of design, it is usualfy teachers who are dosest to the problern, since it is they V(ho
must function within the curriculum aloog with the students whorn they hope to initi:-

ate into the curriculum. Alth,ough many segments of society i';'-Iuence education in

that the y prescribe whot a curriculum should offer in terms of t::ontent, 'it is teachers

who piece together' the psychological, philosophical, and zetetic aspects 4iCh will

constitute the actuol curriculum and 50 it is they who deterrnine f'ltimately the nature

of the process of education.

Also, thè designing cA curricula does not refer only to the p..esc:tip-
1

tions which precede the edueational act. '~II roo often, designers cl c...ricula~ ovet-
>
t
powered by ~eir zeal to p~uc~ effective curricula, generate programs cA study which

e, • 1
can virtually "stand on theiroown". This indicates one cl th. dangers inherent in such ,
 .. 108-
, j

1 1

influential educatio~1 theories as those of Bruner - it becomes too easy to forget

(
• 1
\ \ ... .
, that any program, regardfess of its design, if merely submitted to the student,' under-"

the illusion that it is itself a curri~ulum is no betfer than the text-book approach

which ma.,y educators profess to b~ 50 intent uon improvin~. The designing of

, 1

curriculum ~ho\Jld always be a dynamic and continuou's process for the teacher who
. ,
sees himself as an essential element of the educational act.

; . Based on the conclusion that the curriculum should offer the student

the utmost in the way of environment-creating faeil ities, it is suggested that'a

. . ,
\ f

curriculum sho,uld exhibit the following:

1• The abi 1ity to demonstrate and represent the basic and inherent differences be-

tween problems which are in need of a structure-process approach and those which

require a creative approach as reflected through the model-rrtaking apparatus of '

. ~,

intellect. To demonstrate this divergence of problem types, we will consider the

prineiples involved in solving a scientific or mathematical problem and those of

.'

a humanistic probJem. In th~ first instance, We guide the student into the main- .

stream of thought which charactèrizes the discipline under consideration, we

poin,t out the structures evident withi,n the bodies of knowled~e and w~ tE)' to
n\Jf't~e in him the abi 1ity to identify structure per ~. The process through which

the.leafner proceeds is a logical one t~rough which he may reach a series of

\ 1

logical conclusions.

Problem solving of ~his type usually occurs within a particular discip-

line of knowledge and 50 the focus is primatily on the vertical aspect of the structures'

c
 _1 - ,
,\
, (
- 109 ..

of knowledge and the learnlng situation emphaslzes the loglcal creation and
)
aUlm ilation of knowledge of a glven order.
: '

1" the' case oF a probl em which 1les wlthin the reaJm of the humani-.

",ies, however, the questions themselves are :of a diff,erent order than those in the

above." ln this case,. thet di,vergent thlnklng ability of the learner should be empha-
, '

sizad by bril'lging him to confront hls own terms of reference, to exa~ine the models
,~ • 1
- .,he i, creating and using From problem to prob!em. This kineJ.of problem solving
, "1
o
concentrates l'nore on the lateral aspech of the structures of knowledge in order to

\. , bring out the psycholo~ica~ 0,' weil asJhe logical aspects of ,thinking. The objective·

of this preeess is to ~ùrture the creation of new modes of knowing , new realms of

knowledge, naw means forïnterp~eti ng the real world and the .accent is on the
:.

model-creating, -usine process6s employed by -the learner himself.

1 •

2. ' Secondly" the curr. lcul u~ $hQUld encompass thë m~ans whereby the 1eortler be-
, ,
. "

comes ,capable 'of recognizing the validlty 'of the f01!owing three mod~s,of inter-
. '
,

pretaHon os i~te"ectl:lol, instruments and of r'eol izing the desirabitity of their use
, '

in oppropriate situations~ ~ .,
,
\.
Oeductic;m: Jn Educotion';lJs a Oiseipl ine Bel th defines~ the process of deductive
~ r
, rea~oning as: l."Exposing onew w.hot is 01 ready known "by some". 13 'For the student 1
, ,

this
. impl ies correlating information as a "means to reaching.what\as been, defined by
, ,
experts ln the f..ield os logicol ends. O,educt'ive reosoning giv,es the student the means
, ~

to think his 'woy from ~ssumpti~ to facto •

,"

1 /
,/ .
 - 110-

. .
/, In~uction: Whereas deduction is a quite restricted operation in that the ends are
, iL)
.......
" ,0
premeditated bY'SOfr/eone, induction de pends more on the use Slf lateral structures
• "
and models to draw general conclusions. This is a more "personal ll area of thinking

since it brings into play a n\Mhber of seemingly unrelated models, am!. can rely upon

somewhat unique and persona,' inferences as proof.

Intuition: Thi'! is perhaps the most neglected mode of thinking in education. Intui·
, 1

tion embrate~ the whole spectrum of un-Iogical thought and for this reason, as is th~
. .
case with creativity, if is often feared by educators whornistrust any mode of think-

oing which does not emanate from a prescribed set of rules and data, and which does

not fif..into, the progressive patt~rns which characterize deductive reasoning •

.t But'intuition is a correlative of instinct, which is very much an '

. ) J .
'int~ral part of human nature, and to d,eny intuitive thinking is to restrict one"facet

of the creotivè process.

'" .
. ~

.
ln oth~r words, the curriculum has a resporisibil ity to not only repre-

sent the discipl ines of knowledge in a given form, but to undertake the study of the

processes themselves which constitute the entire educational procesJ, one ~ these
,
processes being the thinking act itself and, more particularly the creative element

.
of the intellectual aspect of'the thinking act. This responsibility of curriculum to

produce the means for creQtivity is summarÏzed 'in the fo!'owing:

,
The individual (in our case, the student) spends his f)ntire inteUectual
1
 1 - 111 -

e·
life creoting knowledge (see o.aptet'$'One and Two) to make his envirorvnent more

meaningful a~, by doing so, to ~e future experiences in some way qualitatively

. 1

superior. The curriculum of a given educatiQnClI systém has an obi igation to serve
"
the student by making him a more 'capable symbol-creator'and -organizer thon he

would have been otherwise. This, in effect, increases his capacity to creote. And
d f
50, while it is tM'ldeniably beneficial to the learning process that knowledge cl a

certain form and arder be presented within the curriculWh, the curriculun has not
.
performed its required function unless it has also p-ovided means whèreby the student
\\
will ultimately become ~ creative ànd thusbe able tq exert more' control over '1'

his environment.

Design of the Creativé Curriculum

To this point, this wotk hm been designed to develop the concepts cl

model, structure and curriculum in OIder to ascertain how and why it is to the advan-

toge cl the curriculum designer to use models and structWe5 as two d his fundomental
~ . .
guides in designing a curriculum •. This final section is intended to wopose a model c!
the' creative c'fJ'Ticuhn one{ to thus iIIustrote how, in proctice, models and structures

actui.Uy become port of the de;Jign of the curriculum.

The following schematic dic9-am represents the campements of 0 crea-

live ctA"ficulum, and the description which fol,lows ans at providing on overview of
i
such a clniculum system by onalysing eoch of the ~ponent parts •

..

"
-----;----------- - ---

• - 112 ...

A Cross-Section cA the Creative Curriculum

MODE(S a: THINKING
/ '-- artslng from

Other Factors
1
Experience, Intellect & -
1 •

o
z
~
Z
:J:
-1-
APPROACH -'
Huna~i$tic __ --- DEDUCTION
INDUCTION
INTUITION
APPROACH -
Scientific

1 PR OSL Ov\S
4
,.
ttft ttt ACTIVE AWARENESS
Modes of thinking

,•
'(As defined by , ENCOUNTERI., Crea tiv ity
t- , , f ·
teac:her and/or
t leamer) LATENT AWARENESS
Knowledge

++M++' Structure

'J ,r
lU
o "
Q
lU
-' la te ra 1 Struc}ures
~
o
z
~
" ,
'-

- 113 ..

Elements of the Creative C~rr.iculum

,.
The most vital compbnent of any curriculum system is the actual

meeting rJ student ana teacher, the p.lrpose of which is to somehow alter some phase
~

or some aspect of the thinking oct. _Such a meeting may be ~alled an "encounter".
~ -
Encounters vary in length, range or p.lrpose, procedure and in many other ways but
. i
.
the constant factor i, the purpose 1 which is to bring together a "knower" and a.
, '

novice for the purpose of .reaching a pr.edetermined end. The end is predete~i~ed in

the sense that it is to change the thinking act ci the leorner in some way, although
<.
. the n:'eans vary widely from one encounter to the next •

It may be said that there are two general purposes, or "ends" to an

encounter 1 one being to introduce the stu~ent to th,e vertical and lateral structures

of the disciplines, and the second to àssist the stuelent in recognizing the models he

has bUllt and used and consequently to r~structure his modeling 5YS!em' as much al

possible.

The term " problem" i5 used to represent whatever conditions initiate

an encounter. ~t is, it may be a problem as defined by the t~cher or the system

1

(for example 1 introducing a student tcnhe fundpmentals cl linguistics to make him

. , ~

more articulateLor '0 problem as defined 6y the learr~r (for example 1 questions con-

cerning living and "sueeeeding" From day to doy within an educational system). Thus,
.
"problem~t is not used in the famil,iar sense ri Q specifie set of perplexities; rather 1 it
~ ...~ ...
refer5 to whatever reasons'bring together.teaeher and I~r. in an encoonter.
/

D ...
 ...

- 114-
. ..... /.,
-
e ~/

, ln the some sense, curricul..m is.,.represented

, aslrwOOtever m~ns are
,
provided within an ec;!ucational system t,o solve a given problem or set t:l problems os
-.
defined by the studellt and/or the teacher.' A curriculum, then, is manifested in a
1
series of encounters. It may 0150 be soid ofla curriculutn tOOt it shou~d lead to a
•
new "awareness" on the part of the student toward both the structures t:l kn~edge
,;

and the work~ngs cl his own inteltect, as ~epresented in part by his own model\ystems.

Awareness, then,"";s the predetermined end of an encounter or a

series of encounters. It includes the power of knowing, but OOs further dimensions.

More spedfically, there seem to be twc> types of awareness which con emanate From

a curriculum. The first 'is the type which results From recognition of the vertical and
~ .'
laterdl, logical and psychological structures of knowledge, and this may be termed

a IIlatent awaren~ss" since it represents the outcome of c~ergent thinking operations

ond has 'to do spedfically with knowledge. , 1

,
There is evidence al50, however, of a further dimen~ion to aWar'eness,
, 1 "
of an tlactive~wareness" which mànifests itself in ci!'CJtive acts and which arises, in
~ ,
'part, frOm models themselves being made part of the program of study. This type of
" 1/'

awareness is the product of divergent thinking.

,
'~
, It has been 'Wg~ed earli_r in thi, chapter that th~ probtem-solver
1

should determine as ~fy as possible whether the solutions or answ~ wh'ic:h he ra-

~re of!sdentific or a humanistic order. This decision will de~ine, for the
.quires , " . " .
most part, the "approach" which will be used within an encoooter. The sarne probIem
/ .
 ..

.. .. .

may represent fundQmentally different ch~1Îerges for one student-than it does

f· , \
ror
a ' , 1

another. A problem may initially be perceived in t~rms of its disciplinary context,

. - " , ~ . 1 <l
,

.J but then the student rest/ctu~es and rem~dels rep~atedly in 6rd!,r to answer seeming-

Iy similar questions usi'ng d'tffer~nt approaches'. For "example, ,the ~tudy and analysis
~
, , 1
/ a!ld, recording o'f Napoleon's conquest of BJrope may lead to measurement oThis

'influence on world history or ï't may pose basic questions related to sociology. or 1
. /)

"t li

psychology, depencting upon the approach taken. ,

-...
1 •

ln formul?ting an approach to a(,given problem or ~n desig~ing 'an

•
_, encounter, three of the means used to determine the "right" approach 'tire the mental
• ... a ' · , , ~
.. 0 (1"

1 . . . . , . . . f 'l.~""

faculties of deduction', induction and i')-toition. Also, ~hese are three ofl the. ways

.. in ~hich one should c9nsciously ~onfront a problem. T.hF~t_ i~, there shoulej. be a
.. ~ • ., , (1 .... ,

cOr\stant eff~.t to exert

\
the~e psycholo~icaj
~ ~ ~
powers in ordet to opproach a problem

f.rbm as 1TJany pers~ctives as are possible. This"means tha.t' d~duction" induction and
.
t> \ j ) ' ..., .~

- intuitionshould
. ail play b major role in the student's ,decision-makil'lg at ail levels.

.
The, Ideal E'néounter
.
t
-, "" . .
1~

Perhaps it is, inevitctble that at/some poiht in his work, the curriculum=
-'
designe; must c8nfrorit th~ question: ~ ulf· J put together the ri'gh pieces in the right
" ) 6 « , ,

p'C!ces whot 'will the'1~suing encounter look Iik~?11 is nof intended

1\ . ..
} \ \ ... If

1\
,"0 ~ a document on how to teach or even how to,design a curriculum, but it does, .
i

should read
J--
! '
r
.sugges~ what r~suJ.ts can .be anlicipated from sucJt an encoùnter. The ideal enc:;~nter

' studént'into the rilainstream !,f a~discipline (or a group of disci-

,

pli~s), rrey~lin9 hbw the.discipline is $tructured while simultaneously building

•
.
..
~ . •

, ,

. ,
,
o '

o
 - 116-

w~thin the'student a respect for his own ingenuity and creativity as represented by
.
the models within his repertoire. The student must, cOnstantly be able to use the

~countef it.lf to re-examine and, when necessary, redefine the models cl thinking
"
which he is usJng to work within the disciplines •
•1 ~ t

[\

It now becOTes a relatively simple task to' define the ideal resuh.

Whot the student takes From an encounter should be something more ideal istic than
• a ... \.
a set Œ rules or a body Œ k~wl~ge. What vie hope to achiève i.s to develop in the
"
il '

student a trust Îri and respect for knowledge, ~md alsoJor)he thinking act itself, ,for

the i~~1e ~ whicb is intellect ~nd for the indiVidua~ latent a~ility to creole
his own world by the intentio~1 confrontation with and man1ipuiatiQn of his symbol-

world, or world of models.

\
Q

Chapter Fivé has been divided into two parts. The first part is de-

signed to bring together 011 of the theoretical points made in. the previous four
, '
v

'chCJpters, and to<fX'Oposè where ~ese fit into a theory of curriculum design. The
- . D
J

second part is ~ntende.d tO,sUQge$t sOme practical applications of the theoretical as-
~. -
, '
peets cl the whQle dissertation by suggesting the types Πproducts whi~h, one may
~
. - fi •
, '
. 1

expect from the educational encounter, wh-ic'h actually brings tc?getfler a Jeacher and'

'-a studentofor the purpos.tQf making the student a better thinker.

, >
 ~
.. .... l ' .. ~ Il •

- 117 ..

References
.

1. Guilford, J.P. The structure of intellect. Psychol09{cal Bulletin. 1956, 53,

pp. 267-~5.

2. Frost, Joe L. & G. Thomas Rowland. Cuiricula for the Seventies: Early
Childhood. Through Early Adolescence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. 1
o
1969. p. 123.
3. Ibid. p. 105.

4. Ibid. p. 105.

5. Ibid. pp. 198-199.

6. Ibid. p. 199.

7. Thomas, L. G. Defining creativity. Educational Perspectives, 19.65, 4,

pp. 12-14.

8. Ibid. pp •. 12-14.

9. Ibid. pp. 12-14•

. 10. Ibid. pp. 12-14.

11. Ibid. pp. 12-14.

12. Ibid.
, pp. 12-14.

13. 8elth, Marc. Education as a Discipline. Boston: A'IIyn & Bacon, 1965...... p. 100
. •

).

..
 •
..
- 118-

e
1

CONQ.USION
1

This ~tudy consi.s of two phases, the first of which is an analysis d

the concepts d model and structure insofar as they represent two very significant

facets,of intellectual activity. The intellect itself is of concern to the study also, '

since it represents that aspect of the thinking act which the educator seeks to alter.

Much of the theory generated in regard to structure is based on )

Jerome Bruner's thesis in this field, while the portions devoted. to model owe much to l "

the work done in this area by Marc Belth.

The second phase of the study is intended to introduce these twO con-

1 cepts of structure.and model simultaneovsly into the field of curriculum desigrr. There
~ -
, .
is abundant evidenc:;e to prove that education has taken on many new dimensions in

recent years and has evolved to the Point that Belth con make reference to the "new

,
! world of education".' This evolution is reflected partly in the significant curriculum

changes which are in evidence in many parts of the world, including North America.

ln fact 1 the whole opproach to curriculum design has undergone mony radièol changes
,

ir(many parts of Canada and the United States, to the extent that questions regarding
"
what to teach and how to teo.ch have tek en on~new dimensions, and the'curricula which

are emanating from .these new opproaches are many and va~i~.

The second phase of this work deols more expl icitly with curriculum

design in ottempting to esteblish that whenever the primary purpose of an educational

..
1
J
1
 \
.
/ - 119- 1"

)
,.

system is involveel with improving the leamer's intellectual ability ~ the structures cA

knowledge and the madels of thinking are themselves mai~ conside.-atiom fOr the -

curriculum designer. Study then has a dual purpose - to moke the student knowledge-

able in a general way, and to help him to understand the ephemeral nature cA know-

ledge às weil as the nature of the modes of thinking which constitute his own set cA
~

reference points.

The dissertation begins by examining the role of symbol-making and

symbol-using insofar as symbols constitute the manifestations of thoughts and are conse-

quentLy related to intellectuel activity at some leve.. Structures and models are then

examined as being particular kinds cA ~bol systems.

0>-
\> 1

..
The first c:hapter is clevoted fi> the ~t of shvchlre :
-
0 ;oncePt •

while Chapt!!r Two concerns rnainly the concept of model. Cha'pter Threeh-correlates
. ~

the two concepts, and juxtaposes various aspects of them in p-eparation for the con-1

cluding two c~ters, which are more specifi~lIy educational , and whiçh draw upon

the hypotheses rea~hed in the first th.... chapters in orcier to moke structures and

model~ meaningful f..or the curriculum ~igner.

Chapter Four concerns four of the main canponents of the educationbl

-
oct:. thinkiftg, leaming, transf~ and intelligence. It explores each of these concepts
.
to determine the bàsic nature of the educational act and to thus es'tablish Q field within

which curriculum design is to be discussed.

, .
\ .
'r "

"
- 120- ,

'0
) (
e
ln Coopter, Five, the' topic under consideration is curriqul':Am design

itself .... This chapter stresses th, importance

, .., . c# eduCQ.tion being instrumental in pro-
ducing ~rt!ative t~inkitig i.n addition to reprèsenting knowledge as it is presently
, .
"
cOnstituted. As a practic~1 app! ication of the theoretical points raised prev~ously,
, .'
.
a model of "The Ideal Encounter lt is sugg,sted, the merit of which is to be determi.~.ed

by the magnitUde of the awarenesses which\ are. p-oduced by it.

n

The following is a summation of the conclusions reached as a result-of

the foregoing study:

, 1. Symbols are the manifestations of· thoughts at the intellectuallevel; thus the/

are of concèrn to the educator. Two kinds of symbol systems, are structures and
~

models. \ , \

o
2. Havi n9 establ i'!hed a rùnge 'of defin ition, then, for structures and models, the
~ ./ l "

following definitions become the basis upoh which the theOreticoi aspect of the '.

dissertation is founded:

Structures are the symbol systemt\,sed to represent the interconnéctedress of

. ,
o
.
........ knowledge, while models are idiosyncratic metaphorical devices usecl within the
/' • r )

~~t of thinking to correlate the world of symbols and eVeAts in the "world of ,bb

and flow".

3.. Structures1may be, vertical or lateral, and, alsO, logical or Psychological:.

~

"o
. , ~ ,

Verticpl structures CIre 011 of ~hose which Joseph Schwab hos i~entifi'ed_Cls struc-
..
• 1

il.
 - 121 - 1
tures ri syntax and structures ri substance; they constitute the intrinsic frame-

work ri the disciplines •.

Lateral structures is the term used to idèntify the correlative aspects cA various

-aspects of various bodies of knowledge token from different disciplines.

Logical structures are those which âre produced by convergent thinking opera-
"

fions. The p-ocess' of, deducfive reasoning p-oduces IQgicOl structures.

",

Structures may also be psychol og,i cal , in which case they beor many of the
,
'characteristics ri ",odels. The basic difference between logical and psychological
,
"
structures is that in the fonner case there is an impHed conlensus of opinion at

some stage as to the nature ri the structure under consideration, while in the

latter instance,.the structure may be a unique ancl personal set of referencé

points used to correlate knowledge.

4. Models arè more psychological thon logical, since they rep-esent the actual modes

of thinking which the minci creates for measuring and ordering events in the real
f &~ •

world. "Because of thilcharo,cteristic of models, they are considered as pc.-t cl the

divergent thinking operations

, which are 'ot the basis
,
cA creative acts. In addition,
,
a model , on~ appl ied, and thus in a sense "shared~' with someone else, tokes on
.
many ri the characteristics rllogical structures.
J
. " 0

5. A curriculum consists, in part, of certain powers, awarènesses, apprOaches and '

actual encounters:

} _~~~~~li('~~}L- ____________________________ _.-_--

__ ~~ ~::~~~_-_iJ~~_-_~
______'__...
o '

'- 122-

D~uctlon, Induction and intuition are l identified as the po~ers of intelleçt

• .. ,0 r \

which should be recognlzéd ~hd consequently stressed within a curriculum.

,')

, ar~ the latent aware- '

Th6 two awarenesses which education seeks to strengthen

ness of knowledge and the active aware1'less of the structures of knowledge and of
, l , 1

the models of thinking. Furthermore 1 active awareness often ganerates créativ'ity~

~,

There ar~ two ba,ic approaches to a prob,lem, and the curriculum should accentu-
.
ote the basic and Inherent differences 'between problems which are cl a sci~ntific

order and those which are humanlitic. f

The encounter itself, which is !he action' segment ,of a curriculum 1 brin~s together
,
the teacher and the learner for the purpose of solv\ng identified probl.ems as de-

fined by eith'er th~ teacher 9r the 'Iearner. The Il Ideal Encounter" does not offer

..
solutions which'are predetermined, but
•
.
. leads the leame\- toward both the struc..
) . , f

". '
tures
.. ci knowledge approprlate tG a given ~oblem
(. allCl.... the models of thinking
. . (

which the learner "owns". Thus the study of knowled9e-structures and thinking-
. .
models should occur simultaneously. If is s~ggested 1 then 1 !hGt the curricutum

should be designed to demonstrC].te how knowledge is structured, and to afford !

opportunitie~ witbin encounters for thetdevelopmen.t of an Q1yticai ~~w~rs ,whi\ch

will strengthen the student 's capacity to think by having him constc;lntly reflect

upon the originstf his thoughts.

, '
1 ,
~.
. " CI

6. . The'most significa~t c~nclusion of·this study is t~~t th.re are correlative aspects

of structures and models wKich curricull design"rs

1
sho~ld bear in mind,.·and that

• J
 )

, , - 123-

e
th~ con junction between k.nowledg~ and t~e .thinki~g oc~ is best reprfsented by

'the structures lof knowledge and the models of thinking and their bullt-in
! "
, . J .
~ints
~ ,

of convergence. Many curricula do stress the• irinate properties

~ t.
of knowledge
..
as
, ,

represented by the structures whjch knowledge

, assumes, but there is often a
\ ,
,
neglect of the st~dent's own perceptual'field, and his ability to make ard to use
, • 1.
models. Only when the cur~~culum, is, able to convey to the student the need to
c .. 1-

refle-.ct upon the structures of knowledge and the models of thinking whi~h he
, '" .
.. l'

us~, can,it be said that it has fulfilled hs obi igation to improve th, quality ti
o
his intellectual ability, 'and afforded him the opportunity to improve his world in

a way which_would not Have been possible otherwise.

, ,
This study has introducèd but one set of concepts which the curriculum
~
, r ,
. ,
designer must'bear in mind. There are Many other fundamental questions which arise

from such ~ study, ,su ch; as th. impl ications, of other fundament~r concepts either in'
, '. .
àclditi~n to' or in conjunction with 'those mentioned here. : .

Furthermore, what are the impl ications for this proposai at various
. \

stages of an educational system?' At what stage in his-intellectual d~velopment is the

I~rn~'r oble to handle such levels of abstraction as are discussed in this'dissertation?

•
\
Perhaps a consideration of some of Piaget 's theories in regard to learning readiness

would be of assistance to the curriculi~t who chooses to begin by dif(erentiating

the eharacteristic~ of thinking and learning ot various

"
between
, 6
stages of intellectual
, " \

o developnent.
\
,.,
'.
 - 124-

)
Another problem nof dealt with in this study is the question of who

should design curriculum. There is much controversy in the Province of .Quebec at

this fime in regard to jurisdiction within schaols, particularly ot the secondary school

level. School Committees, administrators, teachers and students 011 find themselves

involvecl at som!lleve! in the decisions regarding curriculum objectives within the

individual high schools. It 'ltas been suggested that there should be more "e)(pert

advice u From the professions outside Aeaching used in determining thê ~ature of
curricula. This feature of,ed~cation in this province is the 'r~sult of the school hoving

'become a megalopolis offering éourses in virtually every area conceivable. We must

!
soon ask ourselves whether or not this is, in fact, the best way to make(1 use of publ ic
\ 1

formai education. Perhaps when we know the answer to this fundamental question
1

we,will be capable of deciding who should be involved in curriculum designing and

,
precisely what their function is to be, and, ultimately--, how curriculolare to be de-

signed to meet the intellectual demands oF our society.

,'

1 •
'----/
 )

- 125-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

e
ASSOCIATION for Supervision and ClATiculum Development, What are the
Sources of the CurTicuh.... ? WaShington, D.C.: The Association;
1962. , '. ,, ,

BEAUCHAMP, George A. ClATicul.... Theory. Wilmette, Ill.: Kagg Press, 1968.

BB. TH, Mac. Education as a Discipline. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1965.
" ,

BB.TH, Mac. The New World of Eduœtion. Boston: Allyn & 8ocon,' 1970.

BERMAN, Louise M. New Priorities in the Curriculum. Columbus; Merrill, 1968.

1

BRUNER, J. The Proc:ess fA Education. New York: Random Hou,., 1960.

BRUNER, J. The Relevance of fducation. New YPI'k: Norton, 1971.

BRUNER, J. Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

Press, 1966~ - '\
J

BRUNER, J. On Knowing. Cambridge, MaSSf Harvard Un!versity Press, 1962 ••

BRUNER, J. ~ J.J. Goodnow and G.A. Austin. A ~tudy of Thinking. New York:
r;- John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1956.

BUCHlER, J. The '-""" .......,.pt of Method. Ne~ York: Cohl1lbia University'Press, 1961. /

CONNB.LY, F. Michael. nts cl Curriculum Oevel

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
nt. Toronto: OISE,
1971.

DEWEY, John. Democrac:y and Educati New York: The Moanillan Co., 1916. ~

(
,
\.

DEWEY, John. Experience and Education. The Maanillan Co., 1938.

, j
, \

DEWEY, John. Sowces of ,a Scien~ of Education. NeW ork: liveright Publishing

Corp., 1929. //
u

DEWEY, John. How We Think. Boston: D.C .. Meath & Company, 1933.
ot

e-
 - 126-

, e· DEWEY, John. The Child and the Curriculum.

Press, 1902.
Chicago: University of Chicago

EISNER, Elliot W. Confronting Curriculum Reform. Boston: Little Brown &

Com~y, Inc., 1971.

ELAM, S. (Ed.). Educatlon and the Structure of Knowledge. Chicago: Rand

McNally, 1964.
) 1

FORD, G. W. and L. Pugno (Ed.). T~ Structure of Knowledge and the Curriculum.

Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964.

FOSHAY, ~.W. -Curriculum for the 70's: An AQ!nda for Invention. Washington:
. NEA, 1970. .
FROST, J\L. and G. Thomas Rowland. Curricula for the Seventies: Early Childhood
Through Early Adolescence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,
1969.
\ -
1 GHISELlN, B. (Ed.). The Creative Process. New York: Mentor Press, 1959.

GOODLAD, J.I. School Curriculum and the Individual. Waltham, Mass.:

Blaiselell, 1966.

GUILFORD, J.P. Creativity. American Psyc'ttologist, 1950, 5, pp. 444-454.

GUILFORD, J.P •.I,The Structure of Intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 1956, 53,

pp. 267-295.
. ,"

GUILFORD, J. P. The Three Faces of Intellect. The American Psychologist,

August 1959, pp. W>,=479.

GUTTCHEN, Robert S. and Bertram Bandman. _Philosophical Essays on Curriculum.

Philadelphia: Lippincott,' 1969.

HOWSO-N, Geoffrey (Ed. l. Developing a New Curricu'um. London: H~inemann,

1970.

KING, A.R. and J.A. 8rownell. The Curriculum and the Disciplines of Knowledge •
. New York: Wiley, 1966.

KOPP, O.W. and David L. Zufelt. Personalized Curriculum: Method and Design.
Columbus: Merrill, 1971.
 - 127-

.e '-.....
MACLURE, John S. Curriculum.lnnovation in Practi.ce: Canada, England and
Wales, The Onitêd States. Londôn: Her Mâiesi')l iS Stationary
Office, 1968.
. .
MARTIN, Jane R. Readings in the PhiloSOPl cl ,Education.: A Study of, J
, 'Curriculum. Boston: Allyn Bacon, 191t):. " r ' 1

y McMURRIN, S. and B. O. Smith. "What About the Philosophy of' Education?"

. .in,59 Journal of Philosophy22, Oct. 25, 1~62.

OECb Publîcations. ,Curriculum Improvement ctnd Educational Developnent.

Paris, DecemSër 1966.
, .
ONTARIO. Living and Leorning: The Report ri the Provincial Committee on
Aims and Objectl\tes of Education in the Schools of Ontario.'
Toronto: Department of .Education, ·1968 •
. .
PARKER, l. Cecil and Louis·J. Ru~n. Process as Content: Curriculum Design
!l'nd the Aeeliéation of Knowledge. Chicago: Rard McNâlly,
1966. , .
PHI DELTA KAPPAN. "Curriculum for the, 70's" Vol. li, March, 1970.
, ,
PU~PEL, David, and Maurice Belangèr (Ed.) Curriculum and, the Cultural
Revolution. Berkeley,: McCutchân, 1972.
QUEBEC Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiryon Education in the Province
. of Quebec:. Vols. Il & III. QlJebec: Queen '5 Printer, 1963-66 .
...
REY IEW of Educational Research. June, 1969: "Curricu.um".

SILBERMAN, Charles E. Crisis in the Classroom. New York: Random House" 1970.
Î ,

SCHEFFLER, 1. The lang~ge of Education. Springfield,· Ill.: Charles C. Thomas,

..

.. .
Publ I,her, 1962 ..

SMITH, B.O. and R.H. Ennis. 'LangU0ge and Concepts in Èd~cation. Chicago:
Rood McNally, ~961. ..
,SMITH, B.O., W.O. Stanley and J.H. ShOres. Fundamentalsof Curriculum
Developnu~~. Ne~ Yor~: Harcourt, Broce & Wor~d, Inc., 1950. \
.....

S~ITH, B.O. et al. A "SM}' of the Logic of'Teaching. Urbano, III.: Bureau of
i Educationaf Researëh, Ûnr....,fty ôf Illinois, n.d.
1 ~ ,

.' fi •
 .,J
"

\ . --128-

. "
~.: ":,

THOMAS, Robert M. '>Strotegies for Curriculum Change: Cases from 13 Nations.

'., Scranton: Tnternationol Textbôôk, 196$.
, .
THOMAS, L. , A. Coladarcci et 01. Pe~tive on Teoching: An Introduction to
Public Eduçatio'n. EngTe 'CliffsrN.J:: Prentice-Holi, Inc.,
1961. ..

THOMAS, L.• c;,. Defining creotiyity: Educati~1 Perspecti~es. 1965:.t •

• .
TORRANCE, E. Paul and R. E. Myers. Creative Leorning ànd Teoching. New York:
Dodd, Mead & Co., 1970.
. . t...
T~R~AYNE, C.M. Tbe My th of Metaphor. New Haven: Yale University Press,
, \ 1962.

TYLER 1 Ralph W. The Inferrelationship cl Knowledge. Cola.nbus 0: Professional

Repr:ints, 1964.

VENABLE, Thomas C. Philosophicat Foundations of the Curricultn. Oticago:

Rand McNally, 1967.
.
WALTON, J. and J.L. Kuethe. Th, Discipline of Education. Madison: University. '.
of Wisconsin Press, lm.
WHITEHEAD'I A. N. Aims of Education. New York: Mentor Press, 19.9.

. "
"

. ,