From kjohnson@math.wisc.edu Sat Feb 17 15:03:17 1996 Received: from lucy.cs.wisc.edu by sea.cs.wisc.edu; Sat, 17 Feb 96 15:03:15 -0600; AA20630 Received: from conley.math.wisc.edu by lucy.cs.wisc.edu; Sat, 17 Feb 96 15:03:14 -0600 Received: from riemann.math.wisc.edu.wisc.edu by conley.math.wisc.edu; id AA10676; 4.1/42; Sat, 17 Feb 96 15:05:37 CST Received: by riemann.math.wisc.edu.wisc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA14727; Sat, 17 Feb 96 15:00:49 CST Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 15:00:49 -0600 (CST) From: "Kurt N. Johnson" To: eta-people@lucy.cs.wisc.edu Subject: Meeting 2/16 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Present: Jim, Chris, Kathy, Dave, Kurt Dave and I had worked on a proposed learning model (trying to incorporate as many elements of the various models we have worked with so far as possible), and we came up with a two-level model. Dave began the meeting by presenting the higher level, a modification of the helix. First he discussed the pros and cons of several models we've worked with so far. A linear model is simple, but doesn't capture the iterative and multilevel aspects we seem to be aiming for. The spiral shows the iteration: the learner starts in the middle with preliminaries and moves outward to ownership, but then scaling the whole spiral down shows that there is another similar spiral outside the original one, and so on. (Or the whole thing can be thought of as moving into the center instead of out.) The onion model shows multilevel containment: preliminaries are the core, and each stage of learning is built upon and enfolds the one before it. Our synthesis then was to return to the helix -- a 3D spiral -- but enrich it in two ways (yielding a helix with a twist). The first addition is on a macro level: corresponding to the layers in the onion, to include horizontal layers that the spiral passes through (I think of it as like a spring embedded in one of those multilayer jello salads -- not too appetizing, I admit). These layers are the levels of learning that are attained in traveling along the helix. The second addition is to include microstructure -- perhaps in "hypertext" -- for each of the stages (prelim, initial exposure, internal processing, etc.) the learner passes through, to show the details of each of these more explicitly. I then began to present proposed outlines for the microstructure of the stages, but two issues arose. First, do we want a process-oriented model showing the progression of learning with time, or do we want a structural model showing the elements that make up or contribute to each stage? (My outlines were structural.) Second, Kathy pointed out that my terminology was teaching-focused rather than learning-focused (e.g. as elements of the initial exposure I had lectures, labs, reading, etc.). We then began discussing more about the importance of the process of learning. Does motivation affect how learning actually occurs? Is the experience of learning -- how you get from here to there -- important? Dave brought up the distinction between focusing on the learned (the material that gets absorbed) and focusing on the learner (who is actually changed by the process). Jim pointed out that the speed of travel along the helix can differ from learner to learner. To address some of these issues, Chris made the suggestion of regarding the helix not as a single path but as a channel or tube that can have multiple pathways within it; motivation can be considered the potential difference between the two ends. For next time: Chris is planning to revise (with Dean?) the diagrams of the microstructure of the learning stages and present them at the next meeting. -- Kurt