NILAI ID KELAS E

KELAS : E			Bobot
NO	NIM	NAMA MAHASISWA	Kehadiran	Tugas	UTS	UAS
1	082122197	BAGUS SENTOSA	90	70	52	56
2	092122176	AIDA RACHMAWATI DAULAY	0	0	0	0
3	102122165	MOHAMMAD FAWZI HAKIM	75	0	44	44
4	102122166	FARHA SURI PRATIWI	50	0	32	32
5	102122167	SANDI RIZKI MAULANA	75	0	36	48
6	102122169	RINI FEBRIANI	95	90	36	72
7	102122170	EKO WAHYUDI	75	80	40	64
8	102122171	AGIT PUTRI PERMANTI	85	85	16	54
9	102122172	RIMA NURMALA FAUZIAH	100	90	44	68
10	102122173	RISA RAHAYU KUSMAYADI	50	85	52	44
11	102122175	SILMI RESMISARI	95	85	36	48
12	102122176	IRA TIRAWATI	85	70	36	48
13	102122178	ADE RIZA NURZAMAN	75	0	40	28
14	102122179	ITA PUSPITA	75	0	24	10
15	102122180	RISA NOVIANTI	100	90	64	52
16	102122181	HILMI HUMAEROH	75	75	28	28
17	102122184	NENDEN OKVIANTE	100	85	8	32
18	102122185	WIDI WANDA KURNIA	95	90	52	84
19	102122186	WINE SRI AGUSTIN	90	80	52	56
20	102122187	INDIRA MAS DEVIANTI	50	0	8	0
21	102122188	TENI PRATIWI	95	75	48	48
22	102122189	TITAN FITRIYANI GUNAWAN	40	85	48	52
23	102122190	RISMAWATI	100	75	60	84
24	102122191	RATNA AYU JUWITA	100	90	70	88
25	102122192	IGA YULIA GUNAWAN	60	80	52	64
26	102122193	METTY METHARIANI	95	70	44	32
27	102122195	SITI SOPIAH	30	0	24	24
28	102122197	AGUNG GUMILAR	75	90	44	40
29	102122198	TELA KANOVI	70	85	64	48
30	102122199	EGI JULIAMAN	70	90	44	48
31	102122200	IWAN KURNIAWAN	70	90	44	72
32	102122201	IIS MAYASARI	100	85	56	68
33	102122203	REZA PURNAMA DEWI EFFENDI	90	80	48	64
34	102122204	HILDA SWASTIKA NINGRUM	95	75	60	64
35	102122206	WINDI LESTARI	95	85	64	48
36	102122351	DERRY MELIANIE PUTRI	90	85	60	72
37	122122195	PUPU MARDIYAH APRILIA	70	90	68	72

NILAI ID KELAS A DAN D

REKAP NILAI MATA KULIAH : INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN Tahun Akademik 2012/2013 KELAS : A No. NIM Nama Bobot Kehadiran Tugas UTS UAS 1 082122038 ADI AZIZ MULDANI 0 0 0 0 2 092122005 IHSAN RAHADIANSYAH HERYADI 50 25 44 52 3 092122025 APIPUDIN 0 0 44 40 4 102122001 GITA PUSPITA 100 90 60 68 5 102122002 SANTI SUSANTI 100 70 64 68 6 102122003 NINING SEKARTIANINGSIH 100 90 56 84 7 102122004 LINDA SRI WAHYUNI 100 90 60 68 8 102122005 DESI SITI HAJAR 100 90 44 48 9 102122006 WILDAN ANJANI 100 85 52 48 10 102122007 E L I S    K. 100 90 52 76 11 102122008 ARDAN MUHAMMAD RAMADHAN 100 60 36 52 12 102122009 MADDA DEWI MUZIA 100 90 52 60 13 102122011 AULIA NURROHMAH 100 70 64 60 14 102122012 RD.KURNIAWATI RAHAYU 100 70 56 76 15 102122013 IMAS DESI 100 90 64 92 16 102122014 CHRISTY RACHMAWATI 100 90 64 44 17 102122015 YUGA TRI MAULANI 100 90 72 76 18 102122016 FERA PUSPANITA 100 65 60 64 19 102122017 MARTHA MARINA 95 75 64 84 20 102122018 AAM ALLAMATUL AZIZAH 100 70 56 70 21 102122019 DIENI RAHMAWATI 100 90 68 76 22 102122020 WULAN WIDIAWATI 100 70 72 64 23 102122022 ANISA SOFARINI 100 85 72 88 24 102122023 WIWIN WANIAH 100 90 60 72 25 102122024 SUCI GUSTIANTINI 75 85 72 76 26 102122025 DIAH PUSPITASARI 75 90 48 40 27 102122026 FAUZAN ABDURAHMAN RAFY 75 60 68 36 28 102122027 VISTA VIDYA ANINDITHA 100 95 52 60 29 102122028 IHDA MAULIDA NOOR 100 90 72 76 30 102122030 ANA DWI RAKHMA 95 95 64 72 31 102122031 AYU RIKINA 100 65 44 48 32 102122032 ERWIN RAHAYU SAPUTRA 100 95 84 92 33 102122033 PIPIH NURLATIPAH 90 90 80 84 34 102122034 ANIDA DEVIANTHI 100 70 52 56 35 102122035 ELA ELAWATI 95 90 48 72 36 102122036 ANDHIKA SABAR MUKTI 100 60 56 68 37 102122037 TUTI SRIHASTUTI 100 90 76 96 38 102122038 TANTAN GEMA RAMADHAN 100 65 48 68 39 102122039 NURANI ARUM APSARI 100 90 80 72 40 102122041 RIRIS KHARISMA DEWI 100 90 80 72 REKAP NILAI
MATA KULIAH : INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
Tahun Akademik 2012/2013
KELAS : D
No.	NIM	Nama	Bobot
			Kehadiran	Tugas	UTS	UAS
1	082122123	RANTI DIAS PAMELASARI	30	0	32	28
2	092122131	ADY ACHMAD FAUZI	0	0	36	0
3	092122140	RAHMAT TAUFIQ	95	70	44	64
4	102122124	TARI DWIWANTI	100	70	60	44
5	102122126	RAHMI HIDAYATI	20	0	36	52
6	102122127	ANNISA RAHMATIKA	100	70	60	52
7	102122128	ADI DEMI NUGRAHA	100	70	52	64
8	102122129	DIAN HERDIANA	90	80	52	76
9	102122130	CITA YULISDA UTAMI	100	85	52	60
10	102122133	SANTI SUSANTI	100	85	52	76
11	102122134	M VEBBY ARBELA	100	80	56	56
12	102122136	AKHMAD MUJIONO	70	70	36	40
13	102122137	NORMA ANGGRAENI RAHAYU	100	70	56	64
14	102122138	GIN GIN SUDARYANTO	100	60	52	48
15	102122139	FITRI PUSPITASARI	60	60	64	28
16	102122140	ASTI NURLELAWATI PRATAMA	0	0	64	16
17	102122141	AFRIATNA SIDIQ	100	60	72	76
18	102122142	DIAN MAULANA	100	50	36	84
19	102122144	NURLINA ROSANIA	100	85	40	60
20	102122145	DIN KUSDINAR	75	60	52	40
21	102122146	DIAN RUSENDIJAYA	60	0	44	40
22	102122147	IRFA FAJRIAH	75	85	56	48
23	102122148	LIA KHUSNUL KHOTIMAH	75	85	60	28
24	102122149	ISTIQOMAH AMBARI	95	50	60	76
25	102122150	GINA AMELIA PUTRI	100	80	68	64
26	102122151	CECEP EKA KURNIA	35	85	60	48
27	102122153	LELYSA INDRIANI PUSPITA	0	0	64	20
28	102122154	MUTIA ULFA VERANITA	60	80	72	44
29	102122155	ZAMZAM NOOR ISMAIL	100	87	52	72
30	102122156	LINDA KRISTINE	75	80	68	52
31	102122158	FARID ACHMAD FADILAH	75	60	68	68
32	102122160	ASNA FAUZIAH	100	50	60	48
33	102122161	HENDRI MARDIAN ADRIANSYAH	75	0	52	56
34	102122163	IDA ROYANI	75	85	60	68
35	102122164	GINA ANGGIA	100	85	56	52
36	102122212	HERDIANA TAOFIK ISKANDAR	75	60	68	68

the major differences among constructivism, cognivism, and behavourism

Understanding the theories allows the I.D to find the strategies and tactics in each for effective learning, know which ones to use, figure out how to integrate them into the learning environment and predict which will be most successful.
It offers a list of 7 questions that can be used to differentiate the theories.

1. How does learning occur?
2. Which factors influence learning?
3. What is the role of memory?
4. How does transfer* occur?
5. What types of learning are best explained by this theory?
6. What basic assumptions/principles of this theory are relevant to instructional design?
7. How should instruction be structured to facilitate learning?

*Transfer refers to the application of learned knowledge in new ways or situations, as well as to how prior learning affects new learning. (e.g. A student learns how to recognise/classify elms trees and then applies the same methods to maple trees)
Two opposing theories on the origin of knowledge – empiricism vs rationalism. Empiricism posits that knowledge comes from sensory input and our experiences, which we mesh together to form more complex associations. Seems reasonable. The learning focus comes in controlling the environment to maximise the occurence of associations.
Rationalism on the other hand says that learners discover what is already in their minds and knowledge is developed by reflection on what they already know in combination with the observations that trigger or reveal this knowledge. (This seems a little harder to grasp imho. The rationalist approach focuses on the best ways to structure new information so it is effectively encoded and sparks recall of related things that are already known. )
Behaviourism – learning (knowledge) takes the form of a response to stimuli (eg teacher holds up a flash card that says 4 + 2 = and the student says 6) – the primary focus is how the association between the stimulus and response is made, strengthed and maintained. Responses followed by reinforcement are more likely to recur in the future.
Behaviourism seems more useful (to me) in fact based situations. (As opposed to analytical / creative ones)
Hey, what do you know, the next question says much the same thing -
“These prescriptions have generally been proven reliable and effective in facilitating learning that includes discriminations (recalling facts), generalisations (defining and illustrating concepts), assocations (applying explanations), and chaining (automatically performing a specified procedure). However it is generally agreed the behavioural principles cannot adequately explain the acquisition of higher level skills or those that require a greater depth of processing (e.g., language development, problem solving, inference generating, critical thinking)(Schunk,1991)”
How Behaviourism is relevant to instructional design:

• An emphasis on producing observable and measurable outcomes in students [behavioural objectives, task analysis, criterion-reference assessment]
• Pre-assessment of students to determine where instruction should begin [learner analysis]
• Emphasis on mastering early steps before progressing to more complex levels of performance [sequencing of instructional presentation, mastery learning]
• use of reinforcement to impact performance [tangible rewards, informative feedback]
• Use of cues, shaping and practice to ensure a strong stimulus-response assocation [simple to complex sequencing of practice, use of prompts]

Stimulus is about something that the learner needs to know – generally as a question or an instruction to complete a task, the response is the answer or the successful completion of the task. Cues can be presented to facilitate the learning needed to create the correct response – examples of the correct answer or way to do something and repetition and reinforcement lead to the correct response being provided without the learner needing to rely on cues.
Cognitivism – this focusses more on more complex cognitive processes such as thinking, problem solving, language, concept formation and information processing.
It seems to be about equipping learners with effective learning strategies to process the information that they are given – as well as factoring in the students own beliefs and thought processes in interpreting/measuring how well they understand the knowledge.
Much more emphasis on connecting prior knowledge (which might not be exactly the same but close) to new knowledge – use of analogy to make new concepts seem familiar more quickly.
Sort of about identifying patterns which could be useful in problem solving by showing the learner what information they need to access to deal with a new situation that may resemble something they already know.
More about how to learn than how to teach.
“Knowledge acquisition is described as a mental activity that entails internal coding and structuring by the learner. The learner is viewed as a very active participant in the learning process” – I have to say here that this strikes me as the way that knowledge is acquired under any system – even behaviourism. This kind of statement assumes that in a behaviourist model (where it is implied that knowledge is simply branded onto the brain through sheer repetition) the learner doesn’t make any effort to apply their own meaning to the instruction/information being imparted and that they don’t relate it to other things that they have learnt. This process may not be built into the learning experience by the teacher but I would be surprised if it didn’t happen in the learner regardless.
Cognitivism, like behaviourism, emphasises the role that environmental conditions play in facilitating learning. Instructional explanations, demonstrations, illustrative examples and matched non-examples are all considered to be instrumental in guiding student learning. Similarly, emphasis is placed on the role of practice with corrective feedback.
Cognitive theories contend that environmental “cues” and instructional components alone cannot account for all the learning that results from an instructional situation. Additional key elements include the way that learners attend to, code, transform, rehearse, store and retrieve information. Learners’ thoughts, beliefs, attitudes and values are also considered to be valuable in the learning process.
Learning results when information is stored in the memory in an organised, meaningful manner. Teachers/designers are responsible for assisting learners in organising that information in some optimal way. Designers use techniques such as advance organisers, analogies, hierarchical relationships and matrices to help learners relate new information to prior knowledge. - This seems to say that the brain is a big filing cabinet and it’s easier to find something when it’s organised alphabetically. If teachers present information in a way that is structured differently to the behaviourist approach of simply dealing with the facts, are they simply presenting more facts or are they facilitating greater understanding? I guess if it is able to create more meaning for the learner, then it will be more memorable.
Transfer in Cognitivism works in the same way as in Behaviourism – “when a learner understands how to apply knowledge in different contexts, then transfer has occurred.”
“Specific instructional or real-world events will trigger particular responses but the learner must believe that the knowledge is useful in a given situation before he will activate it” – This is just a matter of knowing what you know and why it is useful. It’s about being able to create associations with existing knowledge and new input.
Cognitive theories are usually considered more appropriate for explaining complex forms of learning (reasoning, problem-solving, information processing) than are those of a more behavioural perspective.
Two techniques used by both camps in achieving this effectiveness and efficiency of knowledge transfer are simplification and standardisation. That is, knowledge can be analysed, decomposed and simplified into basic building blocks. Knowledge transfer is expedited if irrelevant information is eliminated. Well duh.
Behaviourists would focus on the design of the environment to optimise that transfer while cognitivists would stress efficient processing strategies.
So essentially, cognitivists teach study skills or they present cues that are more psychologically oriented to understanding. (Taking understanding to equal knowledge that a learner can ascribe personal meaning to)
The actions undertaken by the teacher or instructional designer seem to be the same (aside from the emphasis given to creating links to prior knowledge) , it’s mainly the language that has changed. Behaviourism revolves around the teacher, cognitivism revolves around the learner.
Both use feedback – B’s for “reinforcement”, C’s to “guide and support mental connections”.
Both use learner/task analysis – B’s to see what the learner already knows (and thus where to begin) and what “reinforcers should be most effective”. C’s to determine the learners predisposition to learning and how to design the most effective learning experience.
I guess the cognitivist approach in this case seems a more compassionate one however ultimately they both dumb down or ramp up the material depending on the learners capacities.
Techiques in the Cognitivist approach

• Emphasis on the active involvement of the learner in the learning process [learner control, metacognitive training (e.g. self-planning, monitoring and revising techniques)]
• Use of hierarchical analyses to identify and illustrate prerequisite relationships [cognitive task analysis procedures]
• Emphasis on structuring, organising and sequencing information to facilitate optimal processing [use of cognitive strategies such as outlining, summaries, synthesisers, advance organisers]
• Creation of learning environments that allow and encourage students to make connections with previously learned material [ recall of prerequisite skills, use of relevant examples, analogies]

Cognitivism seems to be more about making knowledge more meaningful by helping learners link it to existing knowledge. Learning needs to be more tailored to the learners needs and abilities. Use of analogies and metaphors is one cognitive strategy. Other cognitive strategies include the use of framing, mnemonics, concept mapping, advance organisers and so forth.
If the teacher does the work in shaping the information so that it is more easily absorbed by the learner, the learner still seems like a fairly passive participant in this process, just a better taught one.
Let’s see if the Constructivist approach brings the learner into the process any more.
Constructivism
Knowledge “is a function of how the individual creates meaning from his or her experiences”
I’m not sure that I understand how knowledge can be a function – this implies a process rather than an outcome or something relatively concrete. Knowledge of something can evolve over time as contexts change but ultimately it seems like something that is fixed.
Most cognitive psychologists think of the mind as a reference tool to the real world; constructivists believe that the mind filters input from the world to produce it’s own unique reality.
Is this to suggest that cognitivists take a near solipsistic view of the world and assume that all knowledge is already held in the mind? My understanding of cognitivism from the earlier part of the article suggests nothing of the sort.
The evolution of educational philosophies here seems at best to be that greater attention is paid to the (probably ever-present) ability of the learner to filter received information and process it.
I get the distinct impression that the people putting forward one theory/philosophy tend to misrepresent that which came before in an attempt to make the new seem more enlightened and progressive. (Or it could just be the authors of this article and/or the people that they are referencing).
Of course people apply their own experiences to data that they take in and of course they make links to other similar knowledge that they have in the course of giving it meaning, which is unavoidably personal. Encouraging and stimulating this is a sound method for encouraging learning but it’s hardly been invented in the last 20 years.
Constructivists do not share with cognitivists and behaviourists the belief that knowledge is mind-independent and can be “mapped” onto a learner. Constructivists do not deny the existence of the real world but contend that what we know of the world stems from our own interpretations of our experiences. Humans create meaning as opposed to acquiring it. Since there are many possible meanings to acquire from any experience, we cannot achieve a predetermined “correct”meaning.
Again, I’m not sure that this fairly represents the views of behaviourists or cognitivists at all. Cs and Bs from my reading focus on methods of delivering instruction, not the philosophical vagueries of whether something exists because one person has had a different experience of it to another. A nutritionist sees a banana as a source of potassium, a creationist as evidence of God and a farmer as a source of income but none will deny that it is a piece of fruit. (But maybe this is a difference between meaning and truth/facts – I think meaning shapes a view of truth but can’t change it and just because something thinks something is so, doesn’t mean it is.)
Knowledge emerges in contexts within which it is relevant.
Fair enough.
Constructivists argue that knowledge is situationally determined (Jonassen, 1991a) Just as the learning of new vocabulary words is enhanced by exposure and subsequent interaction with those words in context (as opposed to learning their meanings from a dictionary), likewise it is essential that content knowledge be embedded in the situation in which it is used.
Again, makes a lot of sense
(I wonder if my work in the fact based, highly practically oriented VET sector is colouring my views on these philosophies to a degree. Some of this particularly meta stuff seems interesting but irrelevant at times). This bit is good though.
Just as shades of meaning of given words are constantly changing a learner’s “current” understanding of a word, so too will concepts continually evolve with each new use.
Again, in the VET sector this seems a little overstated. Things seem a little more static here. I see what they mean though.
For this reason, it is critical that learning occur in realistic settings and that the selected learning tasks be relevant to the student’s lived experience.
The goal of instruction is not to ensure that students know particular facts but rather that they elaborate on and interpret information.
This type of learning serves a different purpose to that in a behavioural model.
I’m finding that I’m quoting a lot more from this section of the article as it’s hard to summarise what the constructivists are about. Knowledge seems to be a dirty word though.
Representations of experiences are not formalised or structured into a single piece of declarative knowledge and then stored in the head. The emphasis is not on retrieving intact knowledge but on providing learners with the means to creat novel and situation-specific understandings by “assembling” prior knowledge from diverse sources appropriate to the problem at hand.
Isn’t this just association by another – ridiculously long – name? Taking a range of information that you have processed and added meaning to and applying it in a different situation. (After all, in any theory, you aren’t going to take prior knowledge from inappropriate sources, are you. )
I’m starting to actually appreciate heuristics now – any idea that you can’t express clearly in a handful of words is starting to feel like padding and technocrat-ese.
Constructivists emphasise the flexible use of pre-existing knowledge rather than the recall of pre-packaged schemas
Ok good, so it encourages problem solving – but doesn’t cognitivism
The point seems to be that constructivism offers an approach which is more about context than any system before.
There is no need for the mere acquisition of fixed, abstract, self-contained concepts or details. To be successful, meaningful and lasting, learning must include all three of these crucial factors : activity (practice), concept (knowledge) and culture (context). (Brown et al. 1989)
But I thought that “experiences are not… structured into a single piece of declarative knowledge and then stored in the head”?. And doesn’t the behaviourist and cognitivist approach make use of activity(practice) in reinforcement?
Context seems to be the big revelation of constructivism. (A worthwhile addition to the previous theories but not awe-inspiring).
Something else about the discussion of constructivism so far – I’m yet to see a single concrete example of how this is applied in the learning environment – but I’ll read on now.
Now I consider myself a good progressive lefty but the more I read about the underlying philosophy of constructivism, the more I am reminded of the words of Cartman, E (2001) – “It’s all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy crap”. There’s nothing new here that isn’t simple commonsense and there is a lot of touchy-feely-nobody -can-be-wrong-because-everyones-opinion-is-valid-but-come-assessment-time-this-is-out-the-window bullshit. (I like blogging, there is no way I could say this in an essay)
I’m also thinking of heuristics as I’m going here – my favourite so far is Constructivism is a bunch of tree hugging hippy crap.
Can you tell that it’s late and I”m getting tired – I’m sure that at the heart of the constructivist philosophy are some valuable and useful insights but the language surrounding it is horrendously obtuse, ideologically driven and seemingly irrelevant to the needs of actual learners.
The constructivist position assumes that transfer can be facilitated by involvement in authentic tasks anchored in meaningful contexts.
Yes, the context in which learning occurs adds to the learners ability to bring their other experiences to the fore in creating associations which help them to understand the things that they are being taught. (Oh, shouldn’t say taught, I think the point of constructivism is to remove teachers from the context entirely). This seems to be the only new thing so far.
Ooh, got another one – Hulk inspired this time. Constructivism make Col mad – Col smash.
Ok, this seems to be the crux of it all – the goal of instruction is to accurately portray tasks, not to define the structure of learning required to achieve a task
“introductory knowledge acquisition is better supported by more objectivistic approaches (behavioural and/or cognitive) but suggests a transition to constructivistic approaches as learners acquire more knowledge which provides them with the conceptual power needed to deal with complex and ill-structured problems”
Ok, now we are getting somewhere. It’s more about working at a higher level , not learning about things but learning how to apply the things that you would already know in the course of doing a particular job – say working as an Instructional Designer.
“For example, a typical constructivist’s goal would not be to teach novice I.D. students straight facts about Instructional Design but to prepare students to use ID facts as an ID might use them. As such, performance objectives are not related so much to the content as they are to the processes of construction.”
Ok, so that sheds new light on that other article I was – uh – less flattering about. The Tse-Kian one. Still, the whole emphasis on the use of multimedia there seemed way off track and I stand by that.
“Some of the specific strategies utilised by constructivists include situating tasks in real world contexts, use of cognitive apprenticeships (modeling and coaching a student toward expert performance), presentation of multiple perspectives (collaborative learning to develop and share alternative views), social negotiation (debate, discussion, evidence-giving), use of examples as real “slices of life”, reflective awareness and providing considerable guidance on the use of constructive processes”
The following are several specific assumptions or principles from the constructivist position that have direct relevance for the I.D

• An emphasis on the identification of the context in which the skills will be learned and subsequently applied [anchoring learning in meaningful contexts]
• An emphasis on learner control and the capability of the learner to manipulate information [actively using what is learnt]
• The need for information to be presented in a variety of different ways [revisiting content at different times, in rearranged contexts, for different purposes and from different conceptual perspectives]
• Supporting the use of problem-solving skills that allow learners to go “beyond the information given” [developing pattern-recognition skills, presenting alternative ways of representing problems]
• Assessment focused on the transfer of knowledge and skills [presenting new problems and situations that differ from the conditions of the initial instruction]

Ok,this is all making a lot more sense now. I guess the problem with summing up peoples opinions about a new field that they are quite invested in is that they will tend to couch the discussion in far more ideological and evangelical terms than others.
As one moves along the behaviourist-cognitivist-constructivist continuum, the focus of instruction shifts from teaching to learning, form the passive transfer of facts and routines to the active application of ideas to problems.
Meaning is created by the learner: learning objectives are not pre-specified nor is instruction pre-designed.
Are you sure this isn’t just a high-falutin way for teachers to get out of delivering instruction?
All that said, I think teachers still have a strong responsibility to facilitate this learning by providing adequate and timely support and feedback.
Ah, just like it says here I guess
Here the task of the designer are two-fold: 1) to instruct the student on how to construct meaning, as well as how to effectively monitor, evaluate and update those constructions; and 2) to align and design experiences for the learner so that authentic, relevant contexts can be experienced.
Ok, so in a nutshell – this is probably closer to an actual, usable heuristic – constructivist learning is contextually problem based. It’s all about already having a base level of knowledge and being put in a real world situation with a job to do where you have to work out how to use what you know and how to learn what you don’t know but need to finish it.
Not so hard after all.
Overall then,
What might be most effective for novice learners encountering a complex body of knowledge for the first time, would not be effective, efficient or stimulating for a learner who is more familiar with the content. Typically, one does not teach facts the same way that concepts or problem-solving are taught; likewise one teaches differently depending on the proficiency level of the learners involved.
(Holy crap – just did a quick word count – this weighs in at 3733 so far – no wonder it’s taken a while – I think I need to do this differently. Still, I feel like I’ve learnt a lot from this)
A behavioural approach can effectively facilitate mastery of the content of a profession (knowing what); cognitive strategies are useful in teaching problem-solving tactics where defined facts and rules are applied in unfamiliar situations (knowing how); and constructivist strategies are especially suited to dealing with ill-defined problems through reflection-in-action.
Well, why didn’t you say so in the first place.
Tasks requiring a low level of processing (eg basic paired associations, discriminations, rote memorisation) seem to be facilitated by… a behavioural outlook (eg stimulus-response, contiguity of feedback/response)
Tasks requiring an increased level of processing (eg classifications, rule or procedural executions) … have a stronger cognitive emphasis (eg schematic organisation, analogical reasoning, algorithmic problem solving)
Tasks demanding high levels of processing (eg heuristic problem solving, personal selection and monitoring of cognitive strategies) are frequently best learned with … the constructivist perspective (eg situated learning, cognitive apprenticeships, social negotiation)
The approach of cherry-picking the best strategies from the three, based on the complexity of the task and the knowledge level of the learners is known as “systematic eclecticism”
OK, that’s it.