Annotation:Text:Conceptual Models in Educational Research and Practice/Aknjthgz5s - Revision history

Sarah Oberbichler at 14:29, 23 July 2019

2019-07-23T14:29:03Z

Sarah Oberbichler at 17:34, 11 June 2019

2019-06-11T17:34:44Z

Sarah Oberbichler: Created page with "{{Argumentation2}} {{TextAnnotation |AnnotationOf=Text:Conceptual_Models_in_Educational_Research_and_Practice |LastModificationDate=2019-06-11T19:33:50.417Z |LastModificationU..."

2019-06-11T17:33:38Z

Created page with "{{Argumentation2}} {{TextAnnotation |AnnotationOf=Text:Conceptual_Models_in_Educational_Research_and_Practice |LastModificationDate=2019-06-11T19:33:50.417Z |LastModificationU..."

New page

{{Argumentation2}}
{{TextAnnotation
|AnnotationOf=Text:Conceptual_Models_in_Educational_Research_and_Practice
|LastModificationDate=2019-06-11T19:33:50.417Z
|LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler
|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Aknjthgz5s","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ26Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ27Ӻ","endOffset":734°Ӻ,"quote":"There is no denying the uncertainty inherent in all conjectures about another’s mental states and processes. Yet, it would be foolish to say that, because their accuracy is inherently uncertain, such conjectures should be considered useless. This inherent uncertainty pertains not only to psychology and its investigations of the mind but also to the “hardest” of the sciences (cf. Popper, 1963). In this respect, then, a cognitively oriented educational methodology differs radically from behavioristically oriented ones. If the educator’s objective is the generation of certain more or less specific behaviors in the student, the educator sees no need to ask what, if anything, might be going on in the student’s head. Whenever the student can be made to produce the desired behaviors in the situations with which they have been associated, the learning process will be deemed successful. Students do not have to see why the particular actions lead to a result that is considered “correct”; what matters is that they produce such a result. From our point of view, this exclusive focus on performance differentiates what we would call training from the kind of teaching that aims at understanding (cf. von Glasersfeld, 1989). \nIn contrast, cognitively oriented educators will not be primarily interested in observable results, but rather in what students think they are doing and why they believe that their way of operating will lead to a solution. The rationale of this shift of focus is simply this: if one wants to generate understanding, the reasons why a student operates in a certain way are far more indicative of the student’s stage of conceptual development than whether or not these operations lead to a result that the teacher finds acceptable. Only when teachers have some notion of the conceptual structures with which students operate, can they try to intervene in ways that might lead students to change something in these conceptual structures.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery3210446846850196055742":^°°,^"jQuery3210446846850196055742":^°°,^"jQuery3210446846850196055742":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1560274416641°
}}

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 {{TextAnnotation
 |AnnotationOf=Text:Conceptual_Models_in_Educational_Research_and_Practice
-|AnnotationComment=if one wants to generate understanding, the reasons why a student operates in a certain way are far more indicative of the student’s stage of conceptual development than whether or not these operations lead to a result that the teacher finds acceptable. Only when teachers have some notion of the conceptual structures with which students operate, can they try to intervene in ways that might lead students to change something in these conceptual structures.
+|LastModificationDate=2019-07-23T16:29:12.615Z
 |LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler
-|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Aknjthgz5s","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ26Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ27Ӻ","endOffset":734°Ӻ,"quote":"There is no denying the uncertainty inherent in all conjectures about another’s mental states and processes. Yet, it would be foolish to say that, because their accuracy is inherently uncertain, such conjectures should be considered useless. This inherent uncertainty pertains not only to psychology and its investigations of the mind but also to the “hardest” of the sciences (cf. Popper, 1963). In this respect, then, a cognitively oriented educational methodology differs radically from behavioristically oriented ones. If the educator’s objective is the generation of certain more or less specific behaviors in the student, the educator sees no need to ask what, if anything, might be going on in the student’s head. Whenever the student can be made to produce the desired behaviors in the situations with which they have been associated, the learning process will be deemed successful. Students do not have to see why the particular actions lead to a result that is considered “correct”; what matters is that they produce such a result. From our point of view, this exclusive focus on performance differentiates what we would call training from the kind of teaching that aims at understanding (cf. von Glasersfeld, 1989). \nIn contrast, cognitively oriented educators will not be primarily interested in observable results, but rather in what students think they are doing and why they believe that their way of operating will lead to a solution. The rationale of this shift of focus is simply this: if one wants to generate understanding, the reasons why a student operates in a certain way are far more indicative of the student’s stage of conceptual development than whether or not these operations lead to a result that the teacher finds acceptable. Only when teachers have some notion of the conceptual structures with which students operate, can they try to intervene in ways that might lead students to change something in these conceptual structures.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery3210446846850196055742":^°°,^"jQuery3210446846850196055742":^°°,^"jQuery3210446846850196055742":^°°Ӻ,"text":"if one wants to generate understanding, the reasons why a student operates in a certain way are far more indicative of the student’s stage of conceptual development than whether or not these operations lead to a result that the teacher finds acceptable. Only when teachers have some notion of the conceptual structures with which students operate, can they try to intervene in ways that might lead students to change something in these conceptual structures.","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1560274416641°
+|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Aknjthgz5s","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ26Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ27Ӻ","endOffset":734°Ӻ,"quote":"There is no denying the uncertainty inherent in all conjectures about another’s mental states and processes. Yet, it would be foolish to say that, because their accuracy is inherently uncertain, such conjectures should be considered useless. This inherent uncertainty pertains not only to psychology and its investigations of the mind but also to the “hardest” of the sciences (cf. Popper, 1963). In this respect, then, a cognitively oriented educational methodology differs radically from behavioristically oriented ones. If the educator’s objective is the generation of certain more or less specific behaviors in the student, the educator sees no need to ask what, if anything, might be going on in the student’s head. Whenever the student can be made to produce the desired behaviors in the situations with which they have been associated, the learning process will be deemed successful. Students do not have to see why the particular actions lead to a result that is considered “correct”; what matters is that they produce such a result. From our point of view, this exclusive focus on performance differentiates what we would call training from the kind of teaching that aims at understanding (cf. von Glasersfeld, 1989). \nIn contrast, cognitively oriented educators will not be primarily interested in observable results, but rather in what students think they are doing and why they believe that their way of operating will lead to a solution. The rationale of this shift of focus is simply this: if one wants to generate understanding, the reasons why a student operates in a certain way are far more indicative of the student’s stage of conceptual development than whether or not these operations lead to a result that the teacher finds acceptable. Only when teachers have some notion of the conceptual structures with which students operate, can they try to intervene in ways that might lead students to change something in these conceptual structures.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery3210198867490764852772":^°,"sizzle1563883467587":^"undefined":^"parentNode":Ӷ38717,31,trueӺ°°°,^"jQuery3210198867490764852772":^°,"sizzle1563883467587":^"undefined":^"parentNode":Ӷ41209,31,trueӺ°°°,^"jQuery3210198867490764852772":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1560274416641°
 }}
 {{Thema
 |field_text_autocomplete=Lernen
 }}