Prior Knowledge

نوشته شده در موضوع خرید اینترنتی در ۰۷ آذر ۱۳۹۵

Jeremy Roschelle
University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth

This article
summarizes investigate on a roles of before trust in learning.
Educators mostly concentration on a ideas that they wish their audience
to have. But investigate has shown that a learner’s before knowledge
mostly confounds an educator’s best efforts to broach ideas
accurately. A vast physique of commentary shows that training proceeds
essentially from before knowledge, and customarily secondarily from the
presented materials. Prior trust can be during contingency with the
presented material, and consequently, learners will distort
presented material. Neglect of before trust can outcome in
a assembly training something against to a educator’s intentions,
no matter how good those intentions are executed in an exhibit,
book, or lecture.

Consider
a suppositious book on nap prolongation in Australia. Australian
ranchers lift sheep in an intensely prohibited dried climate. The
sheep are lifted to have nap so thick that yet yearly
trappings a sheep would be incompetent to walk. To many children,
these contribution together are absurd. Children cruise nap is hot;
if we put a thermometer inside a nap sweater, a mercury
would go adult (Lewis, 1991). Wouldn’t sheep grow some-more nap in
cold places where they need to stay warm? Is nap prohibited because
a sheep catch a dried warmth?

Alternatively,
cruise a suppositious vaunt on fish schooling. Fish follow
any other in tighten arrangement that looks frequency organized.
But no singular fish is a leader, and nothing of a fish know
how to authority a others. Many people assume that any organized
complement is a outcome of a centralized planner who leads the
others. They cruise “there contingency be an comparison fish, who is smarter
than a rest, and who leads a school. If sea biologists
trust otherwise, good we speculation a true, yet I’ll never be
a sea biologist!”

Then again,
cruise a suppositious harangue on jazz. Upon a initial listening,
one competence hear a song as ugly, chaotic, and meaningless- “its
customarily a lot of notes.” Many years later, same song provides
a abounding and rewarding experience, and with some-more listening, yet
some-more formidable song becomes accessible. How can we learn
jazz if all we know is exemplary song or pop?

To help
people make a many of a new experience, educators need to
know how before trust affects learning. To a child
who does not nonetheless know feverishness and temperature, no quick
reason can presumably solve a counterbalance between
a prohibited dried and a comfortable wool; it takes weeks to years for
this bargain to emerge (Lewis, 1991). The adult who is
opposite with a possibilities of decentralized systems
can’t fast be assured that drill fish have no leader
(Resnick, 1992) – and instead they competence be alienated from the
setting. There is no proceed to give a first-time jazz listener
a epiphany permitted to some-more used ears. Prior knowledge
determines what we learn from experience.

Prior knowledge
also army a fanciful change to observation training as “conceptual
change.” (Strike Posner, 1985; West Pines,1985). Previously
training was deliberate a routine of accumulating information
or experience. Prior trust is a scandal of transmission-absorption
models of learning. Mere fullness can't comment for the
insubordinate changes in suspicion that contingency occur. The child
simply can’t catch trust about wool, given before knowledge
about feverishness renders incoming ideas nonsensical. One can’t assimilate
fish drill to a centralized mindset; distinguished concepts
for bargain decentralized systems contingency be developed.
Jazz can’t be translated into rock; one contingency favour ears
for a singular organization.

On a other
hand, it is unfit to learn yet before knowledge. Eliminating
before undertanding of feverishness won’t explain given that sweater is
still so good in a winter, or how thick-coated sheep can
be lifted in a desert. The suspicion of decentralized systems
contingency be built from some anchor in before experience. It is easiest
to conclude opposite song by starting with “crossover” artists
who stock a periphery between jazz and stone or classical
music.

The aspects
of learning, before trust and believe drawn out in these
examples have a plain basement in investigate on learning. There
is widespread agreement that before trust influences learning,
and that learners erect concepts from before trust (Resnick,
۱۹۸۳; Glaserfeld, 1984). But there is many discuss about how
to use this fact to urge learning.

This article
presents a set of investigate findings, theories, and empirical
methods that can assistance a operative of interactive experiences
work some-more effectively with a before trust of their audience.
It focuses on a executive tragedy that dominates a debate
about before knowledge. This tragedy is between celebrating
learners’ constructive capabilities and bemoaning a inadequacy
of their understanding. On one hand, educators convene to the
aphorism of constructivism: “create use that rivet students
in actively creation clarity of concepts for themselves.” On the
other hand, investigate tends to impersonate before knowledge
as opposing with a training process, and so tries to
suppress, eradicate, or overcome a influence.

The juxtaposition
of these points of outlook creates a paradox: how can students
ideas be both “fundamentally flawed” and “a means for constructing
knowledge?” The doubt cuts to a heart of constructivism:
constructivism depends on continuity, given new knowledge
is assembled from old. But how can students erect knowledge
from their existent concepts if their existent concepts are
flawed? Prior trust appears to be concurrently necessary
and problematic.This chronicle of a training antithesis (Bereiter,
۱۹۸۵) is called a “paradox of continuity” (Roschelle, 1991).
Smith, diSessa, and Roschelle (1993) remonstrate that educational
reforms contingency embody strategies that competence avoid, resolve,
or overcome a paradox. Throughout a article, we endeavor
to expose how designers can work with before trust despite
a apparent flaws and yet succumbing to an irresolvable
contradiction. This requires clever caring of assumptions
about knowledge, experience, and learning.

The article
is orderly in 3 sections:

In a first
section, we benefaction commentary both on how scientists learn, and
on how students learn science. Evidence on systematic conceptual
change leads to a recommendation to outlook scholarship training as
excellence of bland ideas, requiring a prolonged time and in
a abounding amicable context. Consideration of how students learn
scholarship leads to additional recommendations: we should study
successful learning, equivocate interpreting before trust in
terms of dichotomies, see before trust as providing flexible
building blocks, and demeanour for long-term transformations in
a structure and coordination of knowledge.

The second
territory presents several vital fanciful perspectives on
a routine of unpractical change. Piaget emphasizes changes
in a structure of before knowledge. His speculation and methods
advise that designers emanate tasks that rivet learners and
emanate tragedy between acclimatization and accommodation. Engagement
in earthy aspects of a severe charge can lead to reformulation
of egghead aspects of a task. Dewey emphasizes a conditions
underneath that scrutiny can solve cryptic experience. He
suggests that designers learn that that is problematic
for learners, and settle conditions that support a process
of inquiry: time, talk, and tools. Vygotsky emphasizes the
purpose of amicable routine in learning, suggesting that new concepts
seem initial socially, and customarily gradually spin psychological.
He suggests that designers yield amicable models of appropriate
activity, capacitate groups of learners to do some-more formidable activities
than they could hoop individually, and use signs to enable
people to negotiate a opposite meanings they find in social
activity. Perspectives from information estimate and situated
training theories are also fast discussed in this section.

The third
contention summarizes some useful experimental methods. Successful
pattern of interactive training use builds on an understanding
of how learners think. This requires regulating experimental methods
to expose before knowledge. Traditional tests are combined from
a experts’ perspective, and tag learners’ differences as “errors.” More
complicated and worldly methods concede educators to discover
and work with a explanation of learners’ reasoning. These methods
embody clinical interviews, think-aloud problem solving, and
video communication analysis.

Empirical
Findings in Science and Mathematics Learning

Because prior
trust is customarily specific to a theme matter, it is difficult
to state ubiquitous contribution about before trust opposite all areas of
tellurian interest. Therefore, this letter focuses on one area, science
and arithmetic learning, in sequence to yield a minute example
of before trust during work.Prior trust has been complicated more
extensively in scholarship and arithmetic than in other areas. While
a specific forms of before trust in art or story competence be
different, we can pattern that identical issues will arise.

Prior knowledge
can be noticed from dual perspectives, that of a accomplished
scientist or, of that of a learner. Let’s start with the
scientist.

Science
as Refinement of Prior Knowledge
In this territory we discuss
a purpose that before trust plays in meditative of accomplished
scientists. we use a tenure “scientific knowledge”
broadly here, referring both to “concepts,” and also scientists’
modes of perception, concentration of attention, procedural skills, modes
of reasoning, sermon practices, and beliefs about knowledge.
It is required to cruise that systematic trust is different
from bland knowledge, and contingency reinstate bland knowledge.
But when we demeanour some-more closely, it becomes apparent that scientists
reuse metaphors and ideas drawn from before knowledge. Moreover
we see that this mutation occurs really gradually, and depends
on a amicable practices of a systematic community. Only over
prolonged durations of time, and by extended conversations with
their colleagues do scientist figure theories that are distinct
from their commonsense roots.

The cartoonist
presents a customary scientist as an Einstein scribbling mathematical
formulae on a blackboard. Study of a systematic routine reveals,
however, that scholarship does not always start with mathematical
abstractions nor experimental findings, yet rather with ideas
tighten to a aspect of bland knowledge. Einstein, for example,
roots his possess egghead expansion not in mathematics,
yet rather in bland ideas of rigidity, simultaneity, and
measure (Einstein, 1950; Wertheimer, 1982; Miller, 1986).

Einstein
(۱۹۵۰) pronounced that bland trust provides a outrageous store of
useful metaphors and ideas. From these, a scientist makes
a giveaway preference of a set of axioms, and thereupon starts constructing
a theory. Einstein suspicion a start of his speculation competence relate
to a childlike scrutiny of space, and consulted with Piaget
on a probable similarities between his personal intellectual
expansion and that of children (Miller, 1986). In analyzing
a work of other scientists, philosophers (Black, 1962; Kuhn
۱۹۷۰; Toulmin, 1972) and historians (Miller1 986, Nercessian
۱۹۸۸) highlight that scholarship is a constructive activity. Its
materials are drawn in prejudiced from a supportive images and metaphors
of before trust (Lightman, 1989, Miller, 1986).

If science
draws on bland knowledge, given does systematic knowledge
mostly seem so opposite from bland knowledge, both in
a form and content? In normal accounts, philosophers
searched for a Great Divide that apart systematic from
bland knowledge, many like a multiplication between dedicated and
scurrilous knowledge. If such a divorce could be made, scientific
training could be cut giveaway of a biases of before knowledge.
These normal accounts have not succeeded in establishing
a organisation sequence between bland and systematic knowledge.

An alternative
to a Great Divide comment comes from a work of sociologists,
historians, and anthropologists who have complicated scientific
work (e.g. Latour, 1987; Knorr, 1981). From their inquiries,
we learn that a properties of systematic trust arise
from a amicable practices enacted by specific systematic communities.
Discourse processes transforms before trust into refined
concepts that can be practical consistently by members of the
systematic community. Scientific trust is not a form of
knowledge, yet rather a polished product, for that before knowledge
granted a tender materials and amicable communication supplied
a tools.

The preceding
contention illustrates a contrariety between deputy and
re-use. New trust does not reinstate before knowledge, rather
new trust re-uses before knowledge. Re-use is done possible
by a routine in that before trust is refined, and placed
in a some-more encompassing structure. The some-more encompassing structure
comes in prejudiced from a amicable sermon norms that prevail
within a village of practice.

The importance
of time and amicable context spin apparent when we consider
how scientists learn. Kuhn (1970) argues that systematic knowledge
does not always swell smoothly, yet calls for “paradigm
shifts” that rivet vast scale unpractical change. To invent
Relativistic physics, Einstein had to skip from a very
foundations of Newtonian scholarship (Einstein, 1961). In paradigm
shifts, a antithesis of smoothness again arises: how can scientists
delineate a improved speculation if all they have is a injured prior
theory?

Analyzing
unpractical change, Toulmin (1972) argues that unpractical change
is not a tiny deputy of one speculation by another. Conceptual
change occurs slowly, and involves a formidable restructuring
of before trust to ring new ideas, findings, and requirements.
Thus Einstein does not merely reinstate Newton, he transforms
Newtonian ideas and places them inside a new, encompassing
investigate of space and time. Toulmin emphases that conceptual
change, like normal science, is continual and incremental.
It is mediated by earthy tools, and regulated by amicable discourse.
Only from a apart outlook of story does a paradigm
change seem as replacement. From a close-up perspective, conceptual
change looks like transformation and preference in a interrelated
complement of knowledge. Individual scientists change a meaning
of concepts and a use of methods. Given specific amicable rules
and a prolonged time over that to operate, preference can result
in vast scale changes in concepts.

From this
investigate of a systematic routine comes a array of important
doctrine for those who investigate learning: trust starts with
a preference of ideas from bland experience. The construction
of systematic trust is a slow, continual routine of transformation
holding place over a prolonged duration of time, involving successive
approximation, and customarily gradually and somewhat apropos “different” from
bland knowledge.

In general,
training involves 3 opposite beam of changes. Most commonly,
learners cushion additional believe to their current
theories and practices. Somewhat reduction frequently, an experience
causes a tiny cognitive startle that leads a tyro to put
ideas together differently. Much some-more rarely, learners undertake
vital transformations of suspicion that impact all from
elemental assumptions to their ways of seeing, conceiving,
and articulate about their experience. While rare, this third
kind of change is many surpassing and frequency valued.

These lessons
have 3 implications for designers of interactive experiences.
First, designers should find to refine before knowledge,
and not try to reinstate learners’ bargain with their
own. Second, designers contingency anticipate a long-term learning
process
, of that a short-term believe will form an
incremental part. Third, designers contingency remember that learning
depends on amicable interaction
; conversations figure the
form and calm of a concepts that learners construct. Only
prejudiced of specialized trust can exist categorically as information;
a rest contingency come from rendezvous in a use of discourse
of a community.

We next
pierce to a outlook of learner. This will highlight similar
points, yet pull courtesy to specific problems that arise
in perplexing to conclude learners’ before knowledge. First, we
hearing information that shows a widespread a antithesis of continuity
in scholarship education: scholarship learners need before knowledge,
yet before trust seems to trick them. Then we present
a fortify for resolution a antithesis by reconsidering assumptions
about learning. These fortify competence assistance educators interpret
before trust both in scholarship and other areas.

Studies
of Science Learning: Deepening a Paradox
Studies of
students’ before trust in scholarship and arithmetic began
in a 1970s and have given constructed a saturated literature
(see reviews in Confrey, 1990; McDermott, 1984; Eylon Linn,
۱۹۸۸). Interest in before trust began with a careful
support of common errors done by students in solving
prolongation and arithmetic problems. Analysis of interviews
with these students reveals that a errors are not random
slips, yet rather get from underlying concepts.

For example,
when students are asked to explain a toss of a round straight
adult in a air, they report a suit in terms of an “initial
upwards force” that solemnly “dies out,” until it is “balanced” by
sobriety during a tip of a trajectory. Physicists, in contrast,
explain a round toss in terms of a singular unchanging force,
gravity, that gradually changes a transformation of a ball:
On a proceed upwards, a transformation is certain and decreasing;
during a top, it is zero; and going down, a transformation is negative
and increasing.

From analysis
of students’ thinking, researchers have dynamic that this “mistaken” explanation
is not rare to this problem. Students customarily give explanations
in terms of “imparting force,” “dying out,” and “balancing”(diSessa,
۱۹۹۳). From these commonsense ideas, students can generate
unconstrained explanations for opposite situations. In many cases,
these explanations remonstrate with required Newtonian theory.

The text
subsequent examines a formidable commentary that have emerged from
investigations of students’ concepts. Notice that research
tends to reduce a antithesis of continuity: as we learn more
about students’ before knowledge, a construction of scientific
trust not customarily seems slow, yet also seems increasingly
improbable.

After they
determined a existence of before concepts, researchers investigated
a consequences of those concepts for successive learning.
Most studies have looked during a purpose of before trust in
a required scholarship course. The formula count on a nature
of a charge used to examine students’ learning. If a charge is
procedural calculation, students can mostly learn to get the
right answer eccentric of their before knowledge. However,
if a charge requires students to make a prediction, give a
qualitative explanation, or differently demonstrate their understanding,
studies expose that their before trust “interferes. diSessa
(۱۹۸۲), for instance, found students who were receiving an “A” grade
in beginner prolongation during MIT, yet could not explain a simple
round toss problem correctly. Using their before knowledge, students
mostly erect idiosyncratic, nonconforming understandings
of a systematic concepts.

The prevalence
of this outcome has been widely documented. Halhoun and Hestenes
(۱۹۸۵a 1985b) found that 30% to 40% of prolongation students who
pass beginner prolongation during several universities misunderstood
a concepts. This also has been found during a facile and
delegate propagandize levels, opposite both Western and non-Western
cultures around a world. Indeed, some researchers suggest
that 30% to 40% of prolongation teachers during a delegate school
spin mistake prolongation concepts given of their prior
knowledge.

The processes
by which
“misconceptions” arise from a mixed of before knowledge
and educated theme matter are not singular to Newtonian mechanics.
Children have concepts that differ from scientists in biology
(Carey, 1985; Keil 1979), feverishness and feverishness (Lewis, 1991;
Wiser Carey, 1983), electricity (Cohen, Eylon Ganiel, 1983;
Gentner Gentner, 1983), arithmetic (Resnick Ford, 1981;
VanLehn, 1989), luck (Shaughnessy, 1985), statistics (Tversky Kahneman,
۱۹۸۳) and resource programming(Spohrer, Soloway, Pope, 1989),
and confront problems as they conclude a systematic theories
of these subjects. Furthermore, a not customarily children who produce
mistaken interpretations by mixing before trust with instruction.
Consider Tversky Kahneman’s (1982) commentary about elementary statistics.
They have identified erring before concepts about statistical
phenomena that are widespread among veteran psychologists
– scientists who use statistics regularly. For example, both
students and scientists humour from “confirmation bias” that
distorts believe to fit before theory.

Prior knowledge
exists not customarily during a spin of “concepts,” yet also during the
levels of perception, concentration of attention, procedural skills,
modes of reasoning, and beliefs about knowledge. Trowbridge
and McDermott (1980) complicated notice of motion. Students
know equal speed during a impulse when dual objects pass, whereas
scientists observe a faster intent flitting a slower one. Anzai
and Yokohama (1984), Larkin (1983), and Chi, Feltovich, and
Glaser (1990) complicated how students know prolongation problems
and found they mostly notice extraneous earthy features,
such as a appearance of a rope, since scientists perceive
theoretically-relevant features, such as a appearance of a
concentration point. Larkin, McDermott, Simon and Simon (1980) studied
students’ solutions to customary prolongation problems and found
that students mostly reason retrograde from a suspicion towards
a famous facts, since scientists mostly ensue brazen from
a given contribution to a preferred unknown. Similarly, Kuhn (Kuhn,
Amsel, O’Loughlin, 1988) complicated children’s explanation at
many ages and found that children customarily solemnly arise a capability
to coordinate justification and speculation in a proceed scientists do.
Finally, Songer (1988) and Hammer (1991) complicated students beliefs
about a inlet of systematic knowledge. They found that students
infrequently have beliefs that encourage attitudes criminal to
scholarship learning.

In summary,
before trust comes in opposite forms. It affects how students
conclude instruction. While it competence not forestall them from carrying
out procedures correctly, it frequently leads to unconventional
and unsuitable explanations. Prior trust is active at
levels trimming from notice to source to beliefs about
training itself. Moreover, a effects are widespread through
lay and veteran population, from immature children through
to adults, and from low to high ability students.

Implications
of Prior Knowledge: Learning as Conceptual Change
The
strenuous weight of a justification has forced supportive educators
to essentially change a proceed scholarship is taught. Learners
are some-more expected to erect an interpretation that agrees
with before knowledge, and hence disagrees with the
outlook of a teacher. Thus, a effects of before knowledge
need a change from a outlook that training is absorption
of transmitted knowledge, to a outlook that training is conceptual
change (Resnick, 1983; Champagne, Gunstone, Klopfer, 1985).
Over time, learners need to accomplish a rarest form of
change, a model change in their elementary assumptions about
a healthy world, and a concomitant ways they see, conceive,
and speak about a world. Conceptual change is a process
of transition from typical ways of perceiving, directing
attention, conceptualizing, reasoning, and justifying. Slowly
learners renovate before trust to accommodate new scientific
ideas (Posner, Strike, Hewson, Gertzog, 1982).

Most of
a information on scholarship training stresses differences between prior
trust and systematic knowledge, rather than commonalties
(Smith, et al, 1993). This has had an hapless consequence:
rather than creation credentials seem easier, it now appears to
be impossible. Teachers get a clarity that students need
before trust to learn new concepts, yet before knowledge
misleads students to radical interpretations of concepts.
Moreover, as a notice of a opening has increased, a metaphors
used to report a training routine have spin some-more adversarial:
before trust contingency be confronted, challenged, overcome, replaced,
eradicated, or broken in sequence for new trust to take
a place. Educators applaud students’ constructive capabilities,
and afterwards hurl out a complicated artillery to destroy it. The weight
of a justification creates antithesis of smoothness seem as a gaping
void- there seems to be no overpass from before trust to desired
knowledge, with many apparent pitfalls along a way.

Undoing
a Paradox of Continuity in Science Learning
Smith et
al. (1993) recently investigated a antithesis of continuity
that arises in scholarship credentials research. They advise a
interpretative fanciful horizon that accepts a flawed
impression of some before knowledge, yet still gives it a positive
role. The crux of their justification is that a antithesis arises
from substantial biases in speculation and method. To remove a paradox,
one contingency recur a substantial assumptions in scholarship learning
research.

First, one
contingency commend a disposition in a information set. Almost all a data
starts from identifying training failure-examining a situation
in that students make errors, and afterwards identifying a concept
that causes a error. If we start, on a other hand, by identifying
success, and afterwards questioning a concepts that capacitate success,
we find an equally clever purpose for before knowledge. Prior knowledge
is scrupulously accepted not as a causes of errors or success,
yet rather as a tender member that conditions all learning.

Second,
biases in investigate methodology tend to furnish “attributes” of
before trust that competence be improved accepted as “attributes
of a training task.” For example, before trust is said
to be resistant to change by required instruction. Students
competence be facing a training experience, and not a knowledge.
For example, many required scholarship courses concentration on manipulating
mathematical expressions that impute to idealized situations,
i.e. a frictionless plane. We should not pattern such an abstract
use to capacitate many change in supportive concepts of motion.
When training use are some-more concrete, associated to familiar
situations and interactive, “resistance” mostly disappears,
and students erect new concepts quickly. Prior knowledge
and required educated trust competence not be in conflict,
yet rather competence be ships flitting in a night.

Likewise,
investigate methods that hearing consultant and beginner performance
tend to impersonate their commentary in dichotomies. For example,
Larkin (1983) suggests that systematic trust is abstract,
since before trust is concrete. Other renouned dichotomies
are ubiquitous vs. superficial, fanciful vs. familiar, and
constructional vs. superficial. A methodology shaped on dichotomies
is good matched to classification objects onto a bipolar spectrum,
yet is not good matched to investigate of how emergent wholes integrate
pre-existing parts. For example, dichotomy-based methods mistakenly
claim that scholarship is abstract, and can't brand how scientific
trust successfully coordinates both petrify and abstract
elements. A disposition to dichotomies obscures a stability roles
before trust plays in a some-more encompassing trust structures.

Third, one
contingency be clever about a standing that is attributed to prior
knowledge. Researchers have termed before trust “preconceptions.” “alternative
conceptions,” “naive conceptions”
“misconceptions” as good as “naive theories” and “alternative
theories.” Each tenure is installed with fanciful connotations,
that competence be utterly indeterminate and inaccurate, even if unintentionally
so.

Terms that
pertain a standing of a “theory” to before trust are particularly
misleading. For example, some researchers have drawn analogies
between students ideas and chronological theories, such as medieval
procedure speculation (McCloskey, 1983). However, children are not “short
scientists” nor are typical adults “medieval scientists.” All
people, including scientists, build trust from a pool of
supportive metaphors like “balancing” and “dying out.” This pool
of metaphors is not structured like a theory; it is not necessarily
consistent, complete, or deductively sound. Rather it is a
lax total of useful ideas that can be flexibly applied.
Although children and typical adults infrequently furnish explanations
that sound like Gothic theory, they do indispensably reason their
trust in a same courtesy that a scientist binds a theory.

Terms that
concentration on a mistaken or choice standing of before knowledge
are also misleading. Prior trust can furnish mistakes,
yet it also can furnish scold insights. Sometimes a same
member of before trust can yield both an improper alternative
to one speculation and be a member of a scold speculation in another
theme area. For example, cruise a common suspicion of “force
as a mover,” that binds that an practical force formula in a
proportional quickness (diSessa, 1983). This is mostly misapplied
to conditions in that a unchanging force acts on a frictionless
object. Conventional electromagnetism texts, however, assert
that “an nucleus moves with a quickness proportional to the
practical electromotive force.” Thus
“force as a mover,” can be possibly a myth or a sanctioned
displaying concept, depending on a context of use. The consequence
of such observations is that educators should yield before knowledge
as a store of generative metaphors, not a collection of wrong
theories. Prior trust is like a set of building blocks, and
not like an rivalry fortress.

Fourth,
one contingency beware of a reductionist disposition in theorizing about
before knowledge. In general, investigate has focused on identifying
a really tiny array of trust elements and attributing great
energy to each. Studies of scholarship learning, to a contrary,
remind us is that systematic meditative is comprised of many
opposite components. Learning can start by recontextualizing,
re-prioritizing, or enlightening a parts. For example, many “misconceptions” are
scold elements of trust that have been over generalized.
By naming a narrower operation of situations, a concepts
spin “correct.” In mathematics, for instance, students often
have a myth that a x-intercept of a line is equal
to a opposite of a “b” tenure in equations of a form “y
= mx + b.” This judgment is correct, yet customarily in a box where
a slope of a line is 1 (Moschkovich, 1992). One step in
enlightening trust is adjusting a context in that a knowledge
is applicable.

Similarly,
as students learn science, trust elements change in priority
(diSessa, 1993). For example, we customarily cruise of surfaces
as rigid. To know a normal force, however, we must
reduce a priority of acerbity and lift a priority of springiness.
In examining a book on a table, for instance, a scientist
sees a complicated intent compressing a aspect of a list slightly,
giving arise to a restoring force upwards. Thus a scientist,
while bargain that books and tables are mostly rigid,
gives a aloft priority to springiness. Both elasticity and
acerbity are commonsense concepts; to accommodate Newtonian
theory, customarily their family priority shifts.

Likewise,
Roschelle (1991) investigated how students arise a concept
of matrix further suitable for bargain acceleration.
Relevant before trust for matrix further includes a commonsensical
idea of addition, as good as concepts of pulling, guiding,
and hinging. Through petrify believe over time, students
form a fake matrix further judgment that draws on these
initial metaphors, yet is extremely some-more accurate and specific.
According to diSessa (1993), scholarship training involves many
such shifts in generality, priority, and refinement. The net
outcome is a mutation of a lax total of knowledge
into a bright structure of timeless priorities,
tuned to a final of required systematic theory.

In summary,
we see that students fast appropriation many opposite kinds
of knowledge, yet customarily solemnly acquire a ability to coordinate
and confederate these opposite sources of understanding. Students
can learn to calculate from mathematical formulas, and can
learn to give qualitative explanations yet it takes a long
time to acquire to a ability to coordinate qualitative explanations
with mathematical formulas that paint a theory.

In a previous
territory on scientists use of before knowledge, it was emphasized
that trust changes solemnly by restructuring, not replacement.
This is equally loyal for scholarship students. Moreover, to overcome
a antithesis of smoothness for scholarship learning, we should attend
to several fortify for interpreting before knowledge:

Study success,
not customarily failure, and brand how before trust enables
success.
Use methods that concede observations of students constructing
integrated wholes, not customarily changeable valences on a bipolar scale.
Be heedful of observation before trust as an rivalry fortresses that
is wrong, alternative, or fanciful in character, and instead
see before trust as a random collection of building
blocks.
Expect training to start by light excellence and restructuring
of tiny member capabilities in a large, distributed system,
with augmenting coordination.

To a list
discussed above, we would supplement that theories of before knowledge
tend to have an individualistic and psychological bias. This
disposition is partially reflecting in a preference of
“concepts” as a concentration of study. On any arise of concept
use, however, a tyro is in a amicable and earthy situation;
these situations strenuously outcome a training that takes place
(Roschelle Clancey, 1992).

Educational
experiments that work with before trust have satisfied considerable
success in inspiring and ancillary unpractical change. Clement,
Brown Zeitsman (1989) have grown a scholarship curriculum
shaped on “anchoring analogies” – bland concepts from which
systematic concepts can grow. Similarly, Minstrel (1989) has
grown classroom techniques for gradually restructuring
students conceptions. White (1993) has grown a computer-based
curriculum called “ThinkerTools” that develops a scientific
judgment of suit gradually over several months. White’s curriculum
embody pithy courtesy to differences between scientific
sermon and typical sermon (e.g. a definition of “law”),
and organizes a amicable context that some-more closely resembles
a collegial sourroundings of systematic work than a authoritarian
classroom. Roschelle (1991) complicated students’ training from
identical resource module and resolved that students learn
a systematic judgment of acceleration by a array of
light transformations of their before knowledge.

In reviewing
training methods that work, Scott, Asoko, and Driver (1991)
note dual successful strategies, one shaped on categorically working
with conflicts, and a other shaped on building on correct
before knowledge. In any educational situation, there is likely
to be some conflict, and some extensions to before knowledge.
Learners can attain in unpractical change as prolonged as appropriate
caring is taken in acknowledging students ideas, embedding them
in an suitable socially discourse, and providing plenty support
for a cognitive struggles that will occur.

In summarizing
a extended brush of research, maybe a many vicious lessons
are these. First, we contingency give adult a idea of transmitting
trust to absorbent minds; training is a routine of conceptual
change. Second, unpractical change is a slow, transformative
process. Rather than rejecting before trust and accepting
educated knowledge, learners contingency gradually labour and restructure
their before knowledge. Third, to overcome a antithesis of continuity,
we should investigate success, equivocate dichotomy-based experimental methods,
see before trust as providing building blocks, demeanour for
training as long-term mutation trust into larger,
some-more evenly concurrent wholes.

Prior Knowledge
in Theories of Learning

Research in
scholarship and arithmetic training has not nonetheless constructed a successful
speculation of learning, nor are theories permitted in other subjects.
The tide state of a art, as described above, merely suggests
a set of framing assumptions that disintegrate a antithesis of continuity
amply to concede credentials to proceed.

But how
does trust change and grow? To answer this question, we
contingency spin to some-more ubiquitous theories of learning. Philosophically,
a emanate of before trust arises in Epistemology, a study
of fit loyal faith (Edwards, 1967) Kant was concerned
with identifying certain knowledge. He renowned between “a
prior” and “a posterior” knowledge.
“A prior” schemata include of elementary structures that capacitate us
to detect regularities in a environment. Space and time were
Kant’s primary possibilities for “a priori”
status. Most other trust comes from fake combination
of schemata with experience.

Most theories
of unpractical change hang with this horizon of “a priori” structures
mixing synthetically with new experience, yet they vary
a notions of schemata, experience, and a construction process
in that schemata and believe come together. They also differ
in emphasis: Piaget emphasizes psychological changes to schemata,
Dewey emphasizes a transformative possibilities in experience,
and Vygotsky emphasizes a purpose of amicable communication in reconstructing
a attribute of structures to experience. In a few short
pages permitted here benefaction a discerning debate of how these theories
yield a emanate of before knowledge.

Piaget:
Developmental Growth of Schemata
Piaget’s speculation (Inhelder Piaget,
۱۹۵۸; Ginsburg
Opper 1979; Gruber Voneche, 1979) concerns a development
of schemata in propinquity to new experience. Children, like adults,
mix before schemata with experience. However, children’s notions
of space and time qualitatively differ from adults’ (Piaget,
۱۹۷۰) ۱٫ Piaget provides a speculation of unpractical change that focuses
on a expansion of schemata from childhood to maturity.

Piaget provides
a characterization of children’s trust during 4 stages of
maturity, termed sensi-motor, preoperational, petrify operational,
and grave operational (Corsini, 1994). At any successive
stage, some-more encompassing structures spin permitted to children
to make clarity of experience. For example, Piaget demonstrates
that children can't perform tranquil experiments with variables,
or reason with ratios, before a grave operational stage.
Prior knowledge, in a form of constructional schemata, so play
a final purpose in how children make clarity of interactive
experience.

In Piaget’s
comment of unpractical change, trust grows by reformulation.
Piaget identifies a set of immutable change functions, which
are innate, universal, and age independent. These are assimilation,
accommodation, and equilibration. Assimilation increases knowledge
while preserving of structure, by integrating information into
existent schemata. Accommodation increases trust by modifying
structure to comment for new experience. For Piaget, a critical
episodes in training start when a tragedy arises between assimilation
and accommodation, and conjunction resource can attain on its
own. Equilibration coordinates acclimatization and accommodation,
permitting a tyro to qualification a new, some-more awake balance
between schemata and feeling evidence. Reformulation does not
reinstate before knowledge, yet rather differentiates and integrates
before trust into a some-more awake whole.

Piaget influences
educators not customarily by his theory, yet also by his method. He
spent prolonged hours entrance to know children’s modes of thinking
(using a clinical interview, discussed later). After Piaget,
we contingency assume that children will make clarity of experience
regulating their possess schemata. Yet, we also contingency delicately interview
children, seeking an bargain of their form of coherence.
Most supporters of Piaget are constructivists who cultivate
a low appreciation of children’s sense-making, and design
interactive use accordingly.

Piaget generated
many innovative task-settings in that children spin involved
in active strategy of earthy objects. Trying to achieve
a suspicion in earthy charge can foster dispute between assimilation
and accommodation in a concomitant psychological task. Moreover,
choice earthy actions can advise opposite conceptual
operations, and so opportunities that arise in earthy activity
can enthuse mental restructuring. Using these insights, Kuhn
et al. (1988) shows that children can learn to coordinate theory
and justification in a duration of several weeks if supposing with
engaging, playful, thought-provoking tasks. Harel Papert
(۱۹۹۱) extend this indicate by suggesting that a best tasks
for constructing ideas are those in that children have to
build something that works. While “construction” and “constructivism”
are not indispensably linked, they go good together. Dewey’s theory,
discussed in a subsequent section, also identifies designing, making,
and tinkering genuine things as vicious to unpractical change.

In summary,
Piaget suggests that learners overcome a antithesis of continuity
with a assistance of slow, maturational processes that operate
when doing a charge provokes dispute between accommodation and
assimilation, and support for equilibration between these.
He suggests that designers of interactive use invest
a experimental bid indispensable to conclude learner’s perspective.
From an bargain of this perspective, one can pattern tasks
that are expected both to attract learners, to incite disequilibration,
and to support a required yet formidable work of knowledge
reformulation. Tasks should be elementary and direct, with individual
petrify operations mapping closely to a unpractical operations
during stake. Experience in that learners erect a working
earthy arrangement are mostly absolute for constructing knowledge;
for example, a best proceed to swell past your before understanding
of a portrayal competence be to try to paint one like it.

Dewey:
The Conditions for Reflective Experience
Whereas Piaget
develops a speculation of a expansion of structuring schemata,
Dewey elaborates a experiential side of training (Dewey,
۱۹۳۸b). Piaget exposes Kant’s “a priori” structures as genetic
variants, not firm truths. Dewey exposes a problematic
inlet of experience, that is not “given” to us either,
yet rather is combined in a exchange with inlet and
with any other, and so is contingent on a before knowledge
that we pierce to it.

In Dewey’s
comment of training (Dewey, 1916; Dewey, 1938a; McDermott 1981),
cryptic believe comes to a fore. For Dewey, primordial
believe occurs in a earthy and amicable situation. Moreover,
learners are not “in” a conditions like paint is “in” a bucket;
rather believe is an active transaction that coordinates
doing and undergoing (Dewey, 1938b). Even in hearing a painting,
we actively proceed a gaze, and bear a mutation of
a margin of vision. Experiential exchange have simple
qualities that we can directly apprehend; e.g., they can be
joyful, frightening, tasty, or harmonious.

In most
of life, we ensue uniformly from one transaction to a next,
regulating and enjoying a objects of a experience. But sometimes,
believe has a peculiarity of being problematic. By this Dewey
means that we feel confused, uncertain, incoherent, unable
to act. We are incompetent to coordinate before trust and prior
robe to cope with a exigencies of a moment. In a situation
of cryptic experience, we can rivet a opposite mode of
life from use and enjoying, that Dewey calls inquiry.

Inquiry
(Dewey, 1938a).is a contemplative mutation of perception,
thought, and action, re-unifies believe into a some-more satisfactory
whole. The routine of scrutiny involves thoughtfulness on experience;
we request collection like concepts, drawings, and gestures to point
to facilities of believe that are troublesome. At a same
time, we request collection to plan probable solutions. Through
hearing and reflection, both schemata and notice are
solemnly remade to pierce coherence, coordination, and meaning
to a transactions.

Inquiry
involves psychological, physical, and amicable interaction. Schûn
(۱۹۷۹) gives a good example. A organisation of engineers was trying
to pattern a fake paint brush, yet a paint would not
go on smoothly. One operative motionless to demeanour really carefully
during how a bristle brush works. As he solemnly painted, a others
watched. Slowly they saw that a genuine brush was not like a
sponge. Metaphors of “pumping” and “channeling”
came into contention to report how paint flowed uniformly down
a bristles. Over time, a engineers remade their notion
of portrayal from interesting paint, to pumping and channeling paint.
This enabled them to pattern a successful fake brush.

In this
example, we see how a cryptic believe involves prior
knowledge. Prior trust was invoked both in formulating the
bizarre cryptic (seeing a brush as releasing paint) and
a new bargain (metaphors of pumping and channeling).
The routine of scrutiny involves psychological, social, and
earthy communication that gradually enabled a engineers to
renovate their astonishment into a new understanding.

Dewey is
mostly noticed as a child-centered educator, who emphasized growth
of a child’s seductiveness and capabilities over a mandates
of a curriculum. However, Dewey took heedfulness to dispute any attempt
to place a child’s before trust and a curriculum’s desired
trust in dispute or dichotomy (Dewey, 1938b). We should
conjunction champion children’s internal desires over a hard-earned
believe of disciplines, nor immobile views into children’s minds.
Dewey urged a outlook of children’s trust as fluid, flexible,
generative, and unformed. By conceptualizing suitable experiences,
an clergyman should be means to pierce from children’s interest
and capabilities towards a some-more stable, definite, and structured
calm of orderly theme matters. Thus an educators responsibility
is both to capacitate a child to rivet in inquiry, and to guide
scrutiny so it leads towards broader appearance in a culture
a child is to enter.

Dewey’s
life work was endangered with bargain a conditions that
capacitate scrutiny to proceed, and herein lies a many salient
impulse for designers of interactive experiences. The key
doctrine is this: Attend to that that is cryptic in an experiential
transaction, from a indicate of outlook of a learner, and allow
time and space for scrutiny to start as an activity in a own
right. A delegate regard is yield collection that capacitate inquiry
to be effective. Inquiry occurs not in a head, yet in direct
rendezvous with a universe and with others. To succeed, learners
need ways to blueprint and try ideas and phenomena, and to
exam alternatives experimentally. Moreover, denunciation (which
Dewey calls a “tool of tools”) can be an useful means
for re-describing, re-orienting, and restructuring experience.
Attempts to coordinate one person’s bargain with another
gradually shifts sold ideas towards a common ground.
Thus educators meddlesome in operative with children’s prior
knowledge, should demeanour for situations in that that before knowledge
becomes problematic, and should emanate 3 conditions that
capacitate scrutiny to ensue successful: time, tools, and talk.

Dewey overcomes
a antithesis of smoothness by focusing on a inlet of experience.
Under a right conditions, a tyro intent with a problematic
believe can outcome a mutation of before knowledge.
This mutation restructures thought, perception, and action
elements into a some-more integrated, awake whole. Over a long
time, with clever guidance, a net outcome of many internal transformations
can be an altogether set of ideas and practices approximates the
executive core of an orderly theme matter.

Vygotsky:
Social Reconstruction of Prior Knowledge
Vygotsky developed
his work partially in response to Piaget’s slight of social
interaction. Whereas Piaget emphasizes a maturation of
schemata within a individual, Vygotsky(1986) argued that
modernized concepts seem initial in amicable interaction, and
customarily gradually spin permitted to an individual. Thus Vygotsky
essentially elaborated a purpose of amicable communication in transformation
of before knowledge.

In one of
his studies, Vygotsky (1986) privately examined a role
of before trust is scholarship learning. He argued that children
have extemporaneous concepts and systematic concepts, and that
these are not in conflict, yet rather are prejudiced of a unitary
process. In this process, Vygotsky sees extemporaneous concepts
flourishing upwards in generality, scheming a belligerent for more
systematic reasoning. Simultaneously systematic concepts, which
are introduced by instruction, grow downwards to classify and
implement a extemporaneous concepts. Upon achieving a through
and systematic intertwining, a tyro gains both a power
of a epitome (maximum substitutability) and of a concrete
(maximum applicability).

The restructuring
routine that a intertwines extemporaneous and specialized concepts
occurs in amicable interaction, and is mediated by pointer systems,
such as denunciation and drawing. Whereas Piaget focuses on disequilibrium
among schemata, and Dewey focuses on cryptic experiences,
Vygotsky turns a courtesy to a “Zone of Promixal Development
(ZPD)” (Wertsch, 1985; Newman, Griffith, Cole, 1989). The
ZPD is shaped by a disproportion between what a child can do
yet assistance and a capabilities of a child in interaction
with others. In this construction zone, a child can participate
in informative practices somewhat above his or her possess individual
capability. Successful appearance can lead to internalization.
In Vygotsky’s account, a primary resources for restructuring
before trust come from culture. Moreover, a restructuring
routine itself occurs externally, in amicable discourse. Children
share, negotiate and try out meanings in amicable experience,
and adults can figure those meanings by bringing them into the
horizon of informative practice.

Recent translations
of Vygotsky have desirous designers of interactive experience
in several ways. First, a judgment of a ZPD suggests that
designers yield “scaffolding”
to capacitate learners to attend in a some-more formidable discourse
than they could hoop on their possess (Brown Ferrara, 1985).
This scaffolding can be in a form of amicable processes that
conduct some of a complexity of a charge for learners, allowing
them to attend while focusing customarily on one aspect. In addition,
educators can rivet in “cognitive modeling” whereby they act
out and contend a explanation routine that customarily occurs only
in an expert’s conduct (Palinscar
Brown, 1984). Thus learners can acquire explanation practices
by fabrication and tutelage (Collins, Brown, Newman, 1989;
Rogoff, 1990). Finally, Vygotsky inspires designers to emanate “mediational
means” that capacitate learners to negotiate a definition of a concept
verbally (Hickman, 1985). Meditional means can be a distinguished notation
complement or a set of linguistic conventions that extend students
ability to speak about and act on a propinquity between their
bargain and another person’s understanding.

Like the
other theorists, Vygotsky overcomes a antithesis of continuity
by suggesting that training coordinates extemporaneous and specialized
concepts in a light transformative process. Unlike Piaget’s
maturational account, Vygotsky sees structure entrance from culture
and gradually expanding into people psychological repertoire
by amicable communication in a ZPD. By scaffolding, modeling,
and negotiating, gifted adults are means to beam learning
so as to pierce a tyro into a specialized informative community.

Information
Processing and Situated Learning
Piaget, Dewey, and Vygotsky
any grown their theories in a initial half of a 20th
century. In a second half of a century, information processing
views have dominated, customarily recently to be challenged by a
loosely joined set of ideas called “situated cognition.” We
fast consult a additional resources that these advances
minister to an bargain of before knowledge.

Information
estimate psychology builds on a embellishment of mind as a computer
of mystic information (Newell
Simon, 1972; Posner, 1989). Successful information processing
(IP) models implement mechanisms identical to those described by
Piaget: accommodation modifies a schema, or acclimatization modifies
information to fit an existent schema. However, IP displaying has worked
best in areas where before trust is weakest- in rule-dominated
explanation and gaming tasks. Modeling training in areas were commonsense
is abounding has proven to be an measureless task. Moreover, a analogy
between minds and computers fast breaks down where before knowledge
is concerned: we can reprogram a computer, totally replacing
a existent module with a opposite one, since tellurian minds
contingency make new trust from old. Likewise, resource models have
bankrupt capabilities for believe and amicable interaction.

To those
meddlesome in before trust and learning, a vital contribution
of IP is a prolongation of innovative representational systems
and sound systematic methodology for examining training processes.
The applicable methodological contributions of IP are briefly
epitomised after in this paper. The representations can help
in dual ways. First, they can make it easier to report prior
trust precisely. For example, VanLehn (1989) showed how
a concepts underlying mistakes in further problems could
be given a accurate description. From this specific diagnosis,
a clergyman could yield some-more focused instruction. Second, representations
can be a apparatus that allows a tyro to reflect. For example,
children can use
“semantic networks” to map a associations among ideas before,
during and after learning. Likewise, tree diagrams can assistance students
know processes that are hierarchically stoical rather
than linearly composed, such as a era of a geometric
explanation (Koedinger Anderson, 1990). Providing a apparatus for representing
before trust can capacitate learners to simulate some-more systematically
on before knowledge.

Situated
Learning (Brown, Collins, Duguid, 1989; Lave, 1988) has emerged
in a final decade as a critique of IP’s concentration on internal
schemata and slight of earthy and amicable context. Situated
learning, like Deweyian theory, binds that all training occurs
within experiential transactions- coordinations between personal
organisation and environmental structures. Like Vygotsky, situated
training also importance a amicable construction of knowledge.
Most distinguished in propinquity to a IP accounts, is a overall
source of training as enculturation. In place of relations
between schemata and experience, situated accounts concentration on
training in terms of family between people, earthy materials,
and informative communities (Lave Wenger, 1989). Knowledge is
developed, shared, and upheld on to a subsequent era by
internal communities that contend a sold sermon or work
practice, such as a qualification guild or educational discipline. Growing
ability to attend in a community-based enlightenment has precedence
over a ability to know. In fact, situated training has relatively
tiny to contend about “prior knowledge” as such, yet focuses
instead on how typical work and sermon practices can become
specialized, and how identities develop.

In a present
(and fast evolving) state, situated training offers a constructive
critique of Kantian-derived conceptions of learning. First,
it reminds us that trust and amicable temperament are tightly
intertwined. A person’s before trust is prejudiced of his or her
personal temperament in society. Conceptual change roughly always
involves a mutation of identity- a specialization of
concepts about suit not customarily enables a child to cruise more
like a scientist, yet also allows a child to swell towards
apropos a scientist. Becoming a member in a community
can be a stronger proclivity a gaining trust This is
a useful visual to educators who concentration on a “right knowledge” and
forget to ask who a tyro is becoming.

Lave and
Wenger (1989) offer a idea of “legitimate marginal participation” (LPP)
to make this some-more precise. LPP suggests that “becoming ” requires
appearance in a activities of a community. However, learners
mostly can't attend in a core activities of a specialized
group, e.g. an typical chairman can't join a systematic laboratory.
Thus training mostly occurs on a periphery of a community,
in specialized places that have been legitimized as entrance points.
Museums, schools, and clubs (e.g. 4H) can offer this purpose.
LPP guides us to arise interactive use that form
prejudiced of a legitimate arena towards full membership in
a specialized informative community. Because mutation of
temperament and unpractical change both work gradually over
a prolonged duration of time, it is vicious to mention an overall
arena that could capacitate a tyro to pierce from a periphery
to a core of a community.

At a cutting
corner of tide work on before knowledge, we find researchers
endangered with a mutual communication of amicable sermon practices
with constructive, participatory experiences.

How to Investigate
Prior Knowledge

Due to a pervasive
change of before trust on learning, good designers of interactive
use need to favour a attraction to a opposite points
of outlook that learners will pierce to an experience. This sensitivity
is best gained by initial palm believe with other’s points of
view; no outline in a novel can wholly communicate a character
and structure of a learners’ before knowledge. Fortunately, becoming
supportive to before trust is not tough to do. One contingency simply
demeanour and listen closely as learners use your materials. When something
bizarre and unintelligible occurs, don’t give in to temptation
to brush it aside; take a occurrence as eventuality to learn.

Understanding
before trust is 90% perspiration and 10% method. Standard
tests are useless, given they are roughly always combined from
a outlook of a expert. Instead, it is essential to get
learners to speak and afterwards to compensate clever courtesy to what
they contend and do. Three specific methods from investigate community
can be helpful:

Piaget developed
a clinical speak as a routine for questioning children’s
sense-making. A clinical speak (Posner Gertzog, 1982;
White, 1985; ) customarily involves a charge in that a learner
manipulates some earthy materials. Good tasks are simple
and concentration firmly on a judgment during stake. Thus, a strange
set of actions in a charge straightforwardly indicates a opposite sensibility.
The interviewer afterwards probes a learner’s bargain by
seeking questions about things a tyro has pronounced or done
and avoiding heading questions. As a speak progresses,
it is mostly useful to ask a tyro to cruise alternatives
to see how fast a sold judgment is. A twin of
a ensuing speak provides a good bargain of fact about
before knowledge.

Researchers
in information estimate speculation have grown a technique
of a think-aloud custom (Ericsson
Simon, 1984; Simon Kaplan, 1989), that collects information
about a learner’s problem elucidate process. The tyro is trained
to “think aloud” while they perform on a elementary task, like addition.
Thinking aloud means simply verbalizing a tide of consciousness,
and not explaining or justifying actions to a interviewer.
The interviewer does not ask questions, yet merely prompts the
tyro to “say what we are thinking” whenever a tyro stops
talking. Then a tyro is given a aim problem-solving
task, and available on audio tape. The ensuing “protocol” can
afterwards be analyzed for justification of a before trust and differences
in meditative processes (Robertson, 1990).

The situated
training village is building techniques for regulating video
recordings to investigate before trust in full amicable and environmental
context (Roschelle Goldman, 1991; Suchman
Trigg, 1991; Jordan, in preparation). Typically, a tiny group
of learners is available on video fasten as they work on and discuss
a common task. The camera is set to a constant, wide-angle shot
and left unattended, so as to equivocate intrusion. Care is taken
to get good audio. When a video is finished it competence be put to
several uses. Learners competence hearing a video with an interviewer,
formulating an eventuality to conclude their possess behavior. In addition,
it is mostly useful to watch a video with a multidisciplinary
row of colleagues; surprisingly opposite interpretations will
mostly emerge. Finally, a strongest advantage of video is that
when a cryptic eventuality occurs, a questioner can review
it repeatedly. With steady observation and unwavering cultivation
of mixed perspectives, an questioner will start to sense
any participant’s before trust and dispositions.

Conclusions:
Prior Knowledge and Museum Assessment

Prior knowledge
has opposite and pervasive effects on a learning. Museum experiences
can't discharge or invalidate before knowledge, yet rather contingency work
with it. Thus museums, like all educational institutions, must
come to grips with a antithesis of continuity: before trust is
both required and problematic. Conceptual change contingency somehow
resolve, overcome or equivocate this paradox.

Prior knowledge
is concerned in both disaster and success; so trust is
best seen as tender member to be refined. Instead of assuming
bipolar dichotomies where preferred trust replaces prior
knowledge, designers should pattern training to start through
a transformative, restructuring routine that produces integrative
wholes that coordinate pre-existing parts. Refinement and restructuring
occurs incrementally and gradually; unpractical change is hard
work and takes a prolonged time.

Museums
are potentially well-positioned as sites for unpractical change.
Museums yield a caller with opportunities to experience
authentic objects directly. Cognitive confrontations provoked
by communication with objects are during a heart of Piaget’s theory,
as good as Dewey’s. Museums concede visitors to learn socially
in small, intentional groups. Social sermon is a vital means
of unpractical change in Vygotsky’s theory, as good as a contemporary
views of situated learning. Museums can yield novel and challenge
settings with opportunities for interaction, contemplation,
and inquiry. Dewey focuses courtesy on a cryptic nature
of training experiences, and a need for educators to anticipate
a resources that learners will need to solve a conceptual
struggles that arise. Museums can yield intellectual, physical,
and amicable resources to assist in a fortitude of problematic
experience.

But too
mostly in my experience, museums do not arise to this challenge;
rather than acknowledging and operative from a learner’s point
of view, museums benefaction an aggressively veteran point
of view. Too mostly vaunt seem to assume that a good presentation
will make underlying concepts obvious, and therefore provide
tiny or no resources when we find a vaunt problematic:
alien, awkward, confusing, frustrating, inaccessible, incomprehensible,
mysterious, offensive, opaque, strange, or customarily too exotic.
Too mostly museums slight a amicable inlet of visits, and
we find communication formidable or uncomfortable.

Success,
however, need not be tough to come by. Success starts with cultivation
of a ability to look, listen, and know a learner’s
viewpoint, and to learn a seeds from that trust and
temperament can grow. Other institutions, generally schools,
do a officious awful pursuit of support unpractical change, as is
well-documented via a literature. People are naturally
active, life-long learners. As Csikszentmihalyi points out,
museums need not do many some-more than yield a high peculiarity experience
that engages before trust in an practicable intellectual
challenge, and assistance visitors arrange a physical, intellectual
and amicable resources they will need to succeed. Unlike schools,
museums don’t have to make visitors learn on a sold schedule;
museums can concentration on catalyzing a extemporaneous greeting involving
before knowledge, authentic objects, amicable interaction, and
resources for inquiry.

Assessing
long-term success is a some-more formidable matter. As became clear
in during a conference, museums have goals over subject
matter content: enlivening curiosity, caring and exploration;
providing a positive, noted experience; ancillary constructivist
training processes; and building a clarity of personal, cultural
and village identity. An extreme concentration on trust can
work to a wreckage of these other goals, and skip a importance
of museum training entirely. Throughout this chapter, we have
argued that thespian unpractical change is a slow, unpredictable,
formidable process. It is so inapt to pattern deep
unpractical change to predictably start in a singular or short
array of visits. Conversely, when low unpractical change does
occur, it will roughly positively rivet resources over the
museums control such as books, videos, scholarship kits, classes,
clubs, etc. Assigning prejudiced credit for long-term learning
accomplishments is a indeterminate business during best. Finally, narrowing
a museum’s concentration to changes in unpractical calm competence harm
other, equally estimable goals. For example, oddity and exploration
competence tumble by a wayside in an try to concentration on theme matter,
and personal and informative temperament competence spin tangible primarily
in propinquity to a village that owns a theme matter,
rather than opening to opposite modes of participation.

Prior knowledge
nonetheless is concerned in all a museums goals. Curiosity,
caring, and scrutiny start with what we know now. A memorable
believe reaches unites before knowledge, benefaction experience,
and destiny functions in a awake way. Constructivist learning
requires courtesy to a smoothness of knowledge. Knowledge
and temperament are firm together- we select personal futures
shaped on what we know and know today. Thus in assessing
museum learning, we can conjunction magnify nor omit prior
knowledge.

This suggests
that long-term museum comment should concentration on how museums
activate visitor’s before knowledge, opening new and effective
roads for long-term learning. Do museums lift visitors awareness
of choice perspectives? Do visitors delineate personally
applicable questions? Do visitors comprehend how they can daub their
tide trust to enter a new margin of inquiry? Do museums
yield models of constructive training processes with which
visitors can go on learning? Do visitors spin wakeful of books,
videos, and other resources that start from what they know
already? Are museums a place where visitors can use before knowledge
to assistance their friends and family learn? Do museums provide
a sourroundings for integrating opposite that make a abounding understanding?

The many
absolute and touching stories associated during a discussion suggest
that museums do activate before trust in these and other
remarkably absolute ways. While comment won’t infer that
museums means long-term unpractical change, a accumulation of methods
could pierce to light a opposite ways in that museums can
start with entrance points tighten to what a caller knows already
and can open a embankment to those modes of inquiry, participation,
and believe that a multitude values many highly.

References

Anzai, Y. Yokohama,
T. (1984). Internal models in prolongation problem solving. Cognition
and Instruction, 1, 397-450.
Berieter, C. (1985). Towards a resolution of a training paradox. Review of Educational
Research, 13, 233-341.
Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Boyd, R. (1986). Metaphor and speculation change: What is “metaphor” a embellishment for?
In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, A.L.. Ferrara, R.A..(1985). Diagnosing zones of proximal development.
In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., Duguid, P. (1989). Situated discernment and a culture
of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
Carey, S. Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Champagne, A.B., Gunstone, R.F., Klopfer, L.E. (1985). Consequences of knowledge
about earthy phenomena. In L.H.T. West and A.L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive Structure
and Conceptual Change. New York: Academic Press.
Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P.J., Glaser, R. (1980). Categorization and representation
of prolongation problems by novices and experts. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
Clement, J., Brown, D.E., Zietsman, A. (1989). Not all preconceptions are misconceptions:
Finding “anchoring conceptions” for credentials instruction on students’ intuitions.
Paper presented during a annual assembly of a American Educational Research Association,
San Francisco, CA.
Cohen, R., Eylon, B., Ganeil, U. (1983). Potential differences and current
in elementary electric circuits: A investigate of students’ concepts. American Journal
of Physics, 51, 407-412.
Collins, A., Brown, J.S, Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching
the qualification of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing,
learning, and instruction: Essays in respect of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Confrey, J. (1990). A hearing of a investigate on tyro conceptions in mathematics,
science, and programming. Review of Research in Education.
Corsini, R.J. (1994), Encyclopedia of Psychology, 2nd Edition, New York: John
Wiley, p 86-89.
Dewey, J. (1938a). The explanation of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt.
Dewey, J. (1938b). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan Company.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan Company.
diSessa, A.A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction,
۱۰(۲ ۳), ۱۰۵-۲۲۵٫
diSessa, A.A. (1983). Phenomenology and a expansion of intuition. In D. Gentner
A.L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
diSessa, A.A. (1982). Unlearning Aristotelian physics: A investigate of knowledge-based
learning. Cognitive Science, 6, 37-75.
Edwards, P. (1967). The thesaurus of philosophy. New York: Macmillan.
Einstein, A. (1961). Relativity: The special and ubiquitous theory. New York: Crown
Publishers.
Einstein, A. (1950). Out of my after years. New York: Philosophical Library.
Ericsson, K.A. Simon, H.A. (1984). Protocol Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Eylon, B. Linn, M.C. (1988). Learning and instruction: An hearing of four
research perspectives in scholarship education. Review of Educational Research, 58(3),
۲۵۱-۳۰۱٫
Gentner, D. Gentner, D.R., (1983). Flowing waters or plentiful crowds: Mental
models of electricity. In D. Gentner A.L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models. Hillsdale,
NJ: Earlbaum.
Ginsburg, H. Opper, S. (1979). Piaget’s speculation of egghead development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Glaserfeld, E.V. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watlawick
(Ed.), The invented reality. New York: W.W. Norton.
Gruber, H.E. Voneche, J.J. (Eds.) (1977). The essential Piaget. New York: Basic
Books.
Halhoun, I.A., Hestenes, D. (1985a). The initial trust state of college
physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1043-1055.
Halhoun, I.A., Hestenes, D. (1985b). Common clarity concepts about motion. American
Journal of Physics, 53, 1056-1065.
Hammer, D.M. (1991). Defying commonsense: Epistemological beliefs in an introductory
physics course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California,
Berkeley.
Harel, I. Papert, S. (Eds.) (1991). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hickman, M. (1985). The implications of sermon skills in Vygotsky’s developmental
theory. Brown, A.L.. Ferrara, R.A. (1985). Diagnosing zones of proximal development.
In J.V.Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Inhelder, B. Piaget, J. (1958). The expansion of judicious meditative from childhood
to adolescence: An letter on a construction of grave operational structures.
London: Routledge.
Jordan, B. (In preparation). Interaction analysis: Foundations and theory.
Keil, F.C. (1979). Semantic and unpractical development. An ontological perspective.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Knorr, Karin. (1981). The make of knowledge: An letter on a constructivist
and contextual inlet of science. Oxford: Pergammon Press.
Koedinger, K.R. Anderson, J.R. (1990). Abstract formulation and perceptual chunks:
Elements of imagination in geometry. Cognitive Science, 114(4), 511-550.
Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., O’Loughlin, M. (1988). The expansion of systematic thinking
skills. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of systematic revolutions. Chicago: University
of Chicago.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Larkin, J.H. (1983). The purpose of problem illustration in physics. In D. Gentner
A.L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Larkin, J.H., McDermott, J., Simon, D.P., Simon, H. (1980). Expert and novice
performance in elucidate prolongation problems. Science, 208, 1335-1342.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J. Wenger, E. (1989). Situated learning: Legitimate marginal participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, E.L. (1991). The routine of systematic trust merger of middle
school students training thermodynamics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University
of California, Berkeley.
Lightman, A.P. (1989). Magic on a mind: Physicists’ use of metaphor. The American
Scholar, Winter issue, 97-101.
McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner A.L. Stevens
(Eds.), Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
McDermott, J.J. (1981). The truth of John Dewey. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
McDermott, L.C. (1984). Research on unpractical bargain in mechanics. Physics
Today, 37, 24-32.
Minstrell, J. (1989). Teaching scholarship for understanding. In L.B. Resnick L.
Klopfer (Eds.) Towards a meditative curriculum (133-149). Alexandria, VA: Association
of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Moschkovich, J.N. (1992). Making clarity of linear equations and graphs : an analysis
of students’ conceptions and denunciation use. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of California, Berkeley.
Newell, A. Simon, H.A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Newman, D., Griffith, P., Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: operative for
cognitive change in school. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, A.I. (1986). Imagery and systematic thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nercessian, N.J. (1988). Reasoning from imagery and analogy in systematic concept
formation. PSA, 1, 41-47.
Palinscar, A.S. Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal training of comprehension-fostering
and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Earlbaum.
Piaget. J. (1970). The child’s source of transformation and speed. New York: Basic
Books.
Posner, G.J. Gertzog, W.A. (1982). The clinical speak and a measurement
of unpractical change, Science Education, 66, 195-209.
Posner, G.J, Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W., Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation
of a systematic conception: Towards a speculation of unpractical change. Science Education,
۶۶(۲), ۲۱۱-۲۲۷٫
Posner, M.I. (Ed.) (1989). Foundations of cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Resnick, L.B. (1983). Mathematics and scholarship learning: A new conception. Science,
۲۲۰, ۴۷۷-۴۷۸٫
Resnick, M. (1992). Beyond a centralized mindset: Explorations in massively
parallel microworlds. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.
Robertson, W.C. (1990). Detection of cognitive structure with custom data:
Predicting opening on prolongation send problems. Cognitive Science, 14, 253-280.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive expansion in social
context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roschelle, J. (May 1994). Collaborative Inquiry: Reflections on Dewey and Learning
Technology. The Computing Teacher. 3-9.
Roschelle, J. (1991). Students’ construction of qualitative prolongation knowledge:
Learning about quickness and acceleration in a resource microworld. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Roschelle, J. and Clancey, W.J. (1992). Learning as amicable and neural. Educational
Psychologist, 27, 435-453.
Roschelle, J. Goldman, S. (1991). VideoNoter: A capability apparatus for video
data analysis. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 23, 219-224.
Schûn, D. (1979). Generative metaphor. A outlook on problem-setting
in amicable policy. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Scott, P.H., Asoko, H.M., Driver, R.H. (1991). Teaching for unpractical change:
A hearing of strategies. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, H. Niedderer, Research in
Physics Learning: Theoretical issues and experimental studies. Kiel, Germany: IPN.
Simon, H.A. Kaplan, C.A. (1989). Foundations of Cognitive Science. In M.I.
Posner (Ed.), Foundations of Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Smith, J.P., diSessa, A.A., Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived:
A constructivist investigate of trust in transition. Journal of a Learning
Sciences, 3(2), 115-163.
Songer, N.B. (1989). Promoting arrangement of educated and healthy universe knowledge
in thermodynamics. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of California,
Berkeley.
Spohrer, J.C., Soloway, E., Pope, E. (1989). A goal/plan investigate of buggy
Pascal programs. In E. Soloway J.C. Spohrer (Eds.) Studying a beginner programmer
(pp. 355-399). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Strike, K.A. Posner, G.J. (1985). A unpractical change outlook of training and
understanding. In L.H.T. West and A.L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive Structure and
Conceptual Change. New York: Academic Press.
Suchman, L. Trigg, R. (1991). Understanding practice: Video as a middle for
reflection and design. In J. Greenbaum M Kyng (Eds.), Designing by doing: A
tool box proceed to collaborative complement design. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Toulman, S. (1972). Human Understanding. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Trowbridge, D.E. McDermott, L.C. (1980). Investigation of tyro understanding
of acceleration in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 50, 242-253.
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1982). Judgment underneath uncertainty: Heuristics and
biases. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, A. Tversky (Eds.) Judgment underneath uncertainty:
Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
VanLehn, K. (1989). Mind bugs: The origins of procedural misconceptions. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wertheimer, M. (1982). Productive Thinking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wertsch, J.T. (1985). Vygotsky and a amicable arrangement of mind. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard.
West,L.H.T. Pines, A.L. (Eds.) (1985). Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change.
New York: Academic Press.
White, B.Y. (1993). ThinkerTools: Causal models, unpractical change, and science
education. Cognition and Instruction, 10(1), 1-100.
White, R.T. (1985). Interview protocols and measure of cognitive structure.
In L.H.T. West and A.L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change.
New York: Academic Press.
Wiser, M. Carey, S. (1983). When feverishness and feverishness were one. In D. Gentner
A.L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.

۱ Piaget
so undercut Kant’s position that one couldn’t reason without
certain before concepts of space and time. Children have different
concepts that Kant assumed, yet can reason nonetheless. Piaget
showed that really elemental elements of explanation develop
as children mature. Einstein likewise showed that fundamental
concepts of space and time also contingency change for prolongation to
mature. Piaget and Einstein so almost extend a consideration
of what changes in unpractical change; children and scientists
change a really foundations of what they know. Of course, such
extended changes start really slowly.


Reproduced
with permission, from Public Institutions for Personal Learning:
Establishing a Research Agenda
.
© ۱۹۹۵, a American Association of Museums. All rights reserved.


Institute
for Inquiry Home

Article source: https://www.exploratorium.edu/ifi-archive/resources/museumeducation/priorknowledge.html

پاسخ دهید

نشانی ایمیل شما منتشر نخواهد شد.

*

code