Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/cognitive.html
1 of 2
6/27/01 7:05 AM
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/cognitive.html
demonstrate the learner's grasp of the subject matter rules/theories, 7) Considering alternative predictions, which allows the learner to think through specific cases, 8) Entrapping students, which is necessary in order to direct them, 9) Tracing consequences to a contradiction, and lastly, 10) Questioning authority, which allows the learner to truly examine possibilities and potentiality of the rules and theories they are developing. Note that each of these strategies contribute to a critical dialogue between learner and teacher which forms the Socratic root of the theory (and model). In order for this dialogue to be as efficient as possible, we come to the third main point of Collins' theory: the need for a structure of control, governing teaching (which again, consists primarily of the dialogue). Collins recommends three specific elements to this structure: 1) Selecting cases that illustrate more important factors before less important factors. This becomes important in regards to directing the learner (as opposed to controlling the learner as with behaviorism (see below). By choosing the cases that illustrate more important factors, the teacher can be more certain that these are the ones the learner will examine and consider. Less important factors can distract from theories and rules that are the goals of the teachers. In addition, these less important factors are sometimes incomprehensible without the more important factors to rest upon, just as multiplication is difficult to comprehend without an understanding of addition. 2) Select cases to move from concrete to abstract factors. This is necessary in order to make contact with the students experience, allowing them a window into the subject being discussed ( see Fields of Experience and Vgotsky's Zone of Proximal Development). Without this window, the subject matter will often seem alien, creating a severely negative impact upon the critical dialogue between learner and teacher. 3) Select more important or more frequent cases before less important or less frequent cases. This simply boils down to practicality. Not only do the more important/frequent cases provide more resources for the dialogue, but they are also the ones the learner is more likely to encounter in the search for content and detail. Subgoals for the teacher are also created as omissions and errors in the learner's reasoning become identified. It becomes necessary to diagnose and correct these "bugs" in the learner's reasoning. In the case of multiple bugs, this process occurs one bug at a time. The teacher must have an agenda, in order to deal with the most important bugs first. The agenda should be based on the following priorities: 1) Errors before omissions, 2) Prior steps before later steps, 3) Shorter fixes before longer fixes, 4) More important factors before less important factors. Each priority is set on the basis of the potential damage to the learner's critical thinking process and conception of the rules and theories within the subject matter. For example, errors are more important to fix than omissions because the consequences on the thinking process are more devastating. (A wrong idea leads to a more inaccurate theory or rule than one based on accurate but incomplete information.) Fixing prior steps allows for a more rational thinking process. Shorter fixes are easier to complete; and of course the more important factors are self described as priorities. Ultimately, by dealing with examples and cases the learner will be able to construct, identify and develop rules and theories regarding the subject matter. Collins' theory does have limitations. It is primarily useful for teaching principles as opposed to facts and concepts. It is also not self-sufficient. Generally, some other form of instruction is necessary in order to provide the background for the discovery process, which is the dialogue, to begin. It also is less effective than the expository approach when dealing with specific theories and rules as it takes time to discover those rules through the dialogue process. If very specific rules are aimed at, then the expository method will prove more efficient in regards to time and energy spend on the subject matter. Back to the menu of theories.
2 of 2
6/27/01 7:05 AM