An introductory overview of this page is here`, especially the two paragraphs that begin "We define goals..." and "and More: ..."
I.O.U. — Currently this page is under construction. Hopefully, soon (by mid-March 2017) it will be more fully developed, with fewer unfinished loose ends.
This page is an outline of basic educational goals` — which include affective goals (for motivation & attitudes) and cognitive goals (for ideas & skills) and more* — that should guide our designing of curriculum & instruction.
* The "more" is necessary if we want to consider "promoting a wide range of desirable outcomes that are cognitive & affective & physical (health/fitness, skills), plus education for multiple intelligences, and character, and more." When we're thinking about worthy educational goals, some relevant questions — "How much should we invest in each of these potential goals? Can all of our goals be encompassed by ideas-and-skills, broadly defined? What are the most useful ways to think about our goals?" — are examined, but not answered, in this page.
A Time Dimension: We also can think about time-related educational goals, to help students in their present and future, to help them improve their present performing (for ideas-and-skills, and more) and, due to learning, their future performing. {goals for performing and/or enjoying and/or learning}
BELOW you'll find IDEAS FROM OTHER AUTHORS and MORE IDEAS FROM ME.
Ideas plus Skills: Many prominent educators emphasize the importance of defining knowledge widely, to include ideas-and-skills. The new Standards for K-12 Science Education (NGSS) recommend instruction that "integrates the knowledge of scientific explanations (i.e., content knowledge) and the practices [i.e., procedural knowledge] needed to engage in scientific inquiry and engineering design." (and I'm hoping NGSS won't increase the negative effects of exams) Also, Robert Marzano's New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives has three systems (Self-System, Metacognitive System, Cognitive System) and a Knowledge Domain that includes Information, Mental Procedures, Physical Procedures; and Models of Problem Solving & Learning (from educational researchers at CRESST) provide a framework for thinking about an ideas-and-skills curriculum that uses Design Process to improve the mutually supportive interactions between ideas and skills.
For the types of knowledge described below, think about the first question: "How much should we invest in each of these potential goals?"
In addition to cognitive ideas-and-skills, we should consider the affective aspects of instruction which include its influence on attitudes (about self, education, schoolwork) and motivations.
Several types of factors are included in educational models proposed by Robert Marzano & CRESST, and interactions between these factors are examined in Ideas-and-Skills Education.
A wider range of ideas-and-skills is described by Howard Gardner in his theory of Multiple Intelligences – linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily kinesthetic, naturalistic, intrapersonal, interpersonal.
Many educators stakeholders (teachers, curriculum developers, school board members, parents, students,...) think Character Education is very important.
I.O.U. — Eventually, but probably not until mid-2013, there will be a little more about Character Education, mainly links, plus a description of spiritual education, which can be appropriate in private schools but not public schools. / Also, I will find pages by Pacific Crest describing ideas-and-skills that contribute to successful performances in school and life.
Because our educational goals typically involve multiple ideas-and-skills across a wide range, and "different approaches are useful for teaching various aspects of these ideas-and-skills,... we should expect an eclectic blending of instructional approaches to be most educationally effective."
I recognize and appreciate the benefits of defining educational goals broadly, with many types of ideas & skills (involving multiple intelligences) plus affective factors and more, used in many ways in a variety of contexts. Therefore, the goals of educators should form a complex system, spanning a wide range of human abilities. But for simplicity, usually I'll focus on ideas-and-skills (= ideas + skills + ideas-with-skills) in this website, because its emphasis is the types of cognitive goals (and affective goals) that can be achieved more effectively by doing Design Activities and teaching Design Process.
My outline of basic goals for education defines ideas (what students know) as Conceptual Knowledge, and skills (what they can do) as Procedural Knowledge. This simple system (with two types of knowledge & brief definitions) can be supplemented by complex systems (with more types knowledge, and detailed definitions).
For example, Ton de Jong & Monica Ferguson-Hessler (in Types and Qualities of Knowledge) adopt a knowledge-in-use perspective to construct a classification system with 4 types of knowledge (situational, conceptual, procedural, strategic) and 5 qualities of knowledge (level, structure, automation, modality, generality). They combine these to types & qualities to form 20 characteristics of knowledge, and explain how their system can help us design instruction to more effectively teach knowledges, and assessments to more accurately measure knowledges. {details of their system}
Their complex system is useful for precise description because, with a simple two-term system for ideas & skills, sometimes the distinction between knowledge that is conceptual (ideas) and procedural (skills) is not clear, because of dual characteristics. For example, Conditional Knowledge is typically Conceptual Knowledge that is being used as Procedural Knowledge. When we ask “is it conceptual or procedural?” there is no easy answer, and some educators define Conditional Knowledge as a third basic type of knowledge.* In the system of de Jong & Ferguson-Hessler, conditional knowledge has some characteristics of all four knowledge-types: it's conceptual (contains ideas) and procedural (useful for doing a skill), but more specifically is situational (i.e., conditional) and strategic (because it's used for metacognitive Coordination Strategies to guide a process of design, which is a multi-part procedural skill).
The skills we use to answer questions (in science-inquiry) and solve problems (in design-inquiry) are mental skills. Making an either-or distinction — is it conceptual or procedural? — can be difficult for skills that are mainly mental (or mental-and-physical) instead of mainly physical, because mental skills (procedural knowledge) often use cognition/metacognition involving conceptual knowledge about cognition-and-metacognition. For mental skills, the concept of meta-skills (definition & exploration) can be useful. / Another complicating factor is the mechanism(s) for storing-and-accessing knowledge, which can vary in several ways along a range from conscious to unconscious-and-intuitive.
In this section, the final two questions from the introduction are "examined but not answered" because the purpose of this page is just to share ideas that may stimulate useful thinking when we ask, "What are the most useful ways to think about our goals?"
"Can all of our goals [affective, cognitive & metacognitive, for multiple intelligences and character, as described earlier] be encompassed by ideas-and-skills, broadly defined?" If yes, how should we broaden the way we view-and-define ideas? and skills? If not, then what else is needed?
* To describe ideas-and-skills, many systems of knowledge have been constructed, using different combinations of terms and definitions of terms. Typically these are variations on similar basic themes, but with terms & definitions that can vary between fields (education, psychology, philosophy,...) and also within fields. Some changes are minor — such as replacing Conceptual Knowledge with Declarative Knowledge, which usually (but not always) have the same meaning — while other changes are more significant.
A change that is simple-yet-significant is including Conditional Knowledge (or another term with a related meaning) as a basic type of knowledge. This can be a useful way to think about knowledge, but I'm not using it in this website now, although later I might. My decision for a two-way split is partly because this is more common among educators. Also, the simplicity of using two terms allows a discussion of "ideas & skills and their productive interactions" throughout the website. And, most important, Conditional Knowledge functions as a type of Procedural Knowledge (so it fits into this category) because it's a skill that is used to coordinate a process of design.
|
Knowledge-Types and Knowledge-Qualities Described in the context of problem solving, the system of de Jong & Ferguson-Hessler` has: types of knowledge — situational (about typical problem-situations in a domain), conceptual (knowing facts, understanding concepts & principles), procedural (for actions that can be used to solve problems), strategic (knowing what to do and when, by making plans & decisions about effective uses of actions); qualities of knowledge — the modality (is knowledge mentally represented as verbal propositions and/or visual images), generality (is it general or domain-specific), automation (can it be verbally described, or is it tacitly automated), structure (are knowledges coherently organized in ways that will be conceptually and procedurally useful), level (ranging from superficial to deep, with increasing comprehension, abstraction, and evaluative judgment); then they combine these 4 types and 5 qualities, with types and qualities considered independent, to form a matrix with 20 knowledge characteristics (combinations of type-and-quality) that can be objectives for instruction and assessment. {note: As a term, instead of quality I would prefer property due to its neutrality, because quality can imply “better” which is generally appropriate for some properties (structure and level) but not for others (modality, generality, automation) where “different” seems more accurate.} The authors claim "a number of advantages" for their approach, but recognize that their framework "might be extended and improved" and "many other approaches are possible" so they "invite others to continue the discussion in order to find an efficient and parsimonious system for a description of knowledge-in-use." But their goals extend beyond merely finding a classification system for the many characteristics of knowledge. They want a system that will be useful for achieving valuable educational goals, for guiding the design of instruction that can effectively teach knowledges, and assessments that can accurately measure knowledges. |
Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) -- http://www.casel.org/what-is-sel/
Whole-Person Education
Whole-Life Capabilities: We want to help students improve a wide range of personal capabilities that are COGNITIVE (for ideas-and-skills in many areas of school and life, using multiple intelligences*) and AFFECTIVE (for motivation & attitudes with social-and-emotional learning) and PHYSICAL (for specific physical skills plus general health-and-fitness by using nutrition, exercise, and rest), plus other worthy goals (for compassion, ethics, character,...). Therefore we must ask, “How much of our educational resources (time, people, money,...) should be invested in each goal?” The discussion below recognizes this wider context but will focus on cognitive goals for ideas-and-skills. {* Multiple Intelligences (Spatial, Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical, Bodily-Kinesthetic, Musical, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Naturalistic) are inherited and developed.}
from ws.htm -- We define goals for ideas (what students know) that are conceptual knowledge, and skills (what they can do) that are procedural knowledge. Our goals for ideas-and-skills include ideas, and skills that are applied in skills-with-ideas (when creative-and-critical thinking skills interact with ideas in productive thinking when solving problems with design-inquiry using General Design, and answering questions with science-inquiry in Science-Design). {what is inquiry?}
and More: In an overall system of goals, we want to help students achieve a wide range of desirable outcomes that are COGNITIVE (for ideas-and-skills in many areas of school and life, using multiple intelligences) and AFFECTIVE (for motivation & attitudes) and PHYSICAL (for nutrition, health & fitness, physical skills), plus other worthy goals (for compassion, ethics, character,...). Therefore we must ask, “How much of our educational resources (time, people, money,...) should be invested in each goal?” The discussion below recognizes this wider context but will focus on cognitive goals for ideas-and-skills. {Educational Goals for Many Types of Knowledge}
There also is a time-dimension when we think about goals to improve students' current performing/enjoying and future performing/enjoying, for overall satisfactions now and later. We want to optimize the total value of their performing and/or enjoying and/or learning.
website.htm -- Ideas-and-Skills: We can define goals for ideas (what students know) that are conceptual knowledge, and skills (what they can do) that are procedural knowledge. Our goals for ideas-and-skills include ideas, and skills, and skills-with-ideas (i.e. skills combined with ideas in productive interactive combinations, as when solving problems with design-inquiry in General Design, or answering questions with science-inquiry in Science-Design).
and More: In a wider view, we can think about a system of goals — to promote a wide range of desirable outcomes that are COGNITIVE (for ideas & skills, using multiple intelligences) and AFFECTIVE (for motivation & attitudes`) and PHYSICAL (for nutrition, health & fitness, physical skills), plus other worthy goals (for compassion, ethics, character,...) — and ask, “How much of our educational resources (time, people, money,...) should be invested in each goal?” The discussion below recognizes this wider context, but will focus on cognitive goals for ideas & skills. {Educational Goals for Many Types of Knowledge}
cm.htm -- * Can "ideas-and-skills" define our goals?
Should we move beyond just ideas-and-skills? Can all of our goals be encompassed by ideas-and-skills, if these are more broadly defined? We can think about a system of broader educational goals, to promote a wide range of desirable outcomes that are cognitive & affective & physical (nutrition, health & fitness, physical skills), plus education for multiple intelligences, and character, and more. How much should we invest in each of these potential goals? What are the most useful ways to think about our goals? These questions, about aiming for an optimal combination of outcomes over "a wide range of desirable outcomes," are discussed in Educational Goals for Many Types of Knowledge along with ideas about potential meanings of ideas-and-skills.
mc-op.htm -- For this "P = p - f" formula, let's look at each causal factor in the bottom row:
• Abilities that help you (to think, learn, perform, and/or enjoy) include multiple intelligences – Spatial, Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical, Bodily-Kinesthetic, Musical, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Naturalistic – that are inherited or developed. People who have an incremental theory of intelligence are more likely to believe they can improve their intelligences by development.