How curriculum developers’ cognitive theories influence curriculum development

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Curriculum Development: Theory into Design.] When we examined student responses to questions about the direction of the static friction force in various situations, we both had strong ideas about how to write a tutorial to promote deeper understanding...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Andrew Boudreaux, Andy Elby
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	American Physical Society 2020
Materias:	Special aspects of education LC8-6691 Physics QC1-999
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/6b32e67cd90e4482857222b3f8645bd4
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:6b32e67cd90e4482857222b3f8645bd4
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:6b32e67cd90e4482857222b3f8645bd42021-12-02T14:09:02ZHow curriculum developers’ cognitive theories influence curriculum development10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.0201442469-9896https://doaj.org/article/6b32e67cd90e4482857222b3f8645bd42020-12-01T00:00:00Zhttp://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020144http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020144https://doaj.org/toc/2469-9896[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Curriculum Development: Theory into Design.] When we examined student responses to questions about the direction of the static friction force in various situations, we both had strong ideas about how to write a tutorial to promote deeper understanding. But our ideas were quite different. In this theoretical paper, we present the two contrasting tutorials and show how their differences can be traced to different theoretical orientations toward cognition and learning. We do not claim that one tutorial—or the theoretical framework loosely associated with it—is superior. Instead, we hope to illustrate two claims. One, we show in detail how curriculum designers’ cognitive “theories” (frameworks), even if largely tacit during the act of creation, shape the resulting tutorials. Two, we show how, at least for us, articulating and discussing our respective theoretical orientations and their influence on our tutorial writing enables a rethinking of long-standing tutorial-writing habits. We argue that instructional intuition—shaped by explicit and tacit theoretical assumptions—functions well in guiding the design of curriculum, as our contrasting tutorials illustrate; but more systematic attention to the underlying theoretical assumptions can productively inform refinements.Andrew BoudreauxAndy ElbyAmerican Physical SocietyarticleSpecial aspects of educationLC8-6691PhysicsQC1-999ENPhysical Review Physics Education Research, Vol 16, Iss 2, p 020144 (2020)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Special aspects of education LC8-6691 Physics QC1-999
spellingShingle	Special aspects of education LC8-6691 Physics QC1-999 Andrew Boudreaux Andy Elby How curriculum developers’ cognitive theories influence curriculum development
description	[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Curriculum Development: Theory into Design.] When we examined student responses to questions about the direction of the static friction force in various situations, we both had strong ideas about how to write a tutorial to promote deeper understanding. But our ideas were quite different. In this theoretical paper, we present the two contrasting tutorials and show how their differences can be traced to different theoretical orientations toward cognition and learning. We do not claim that one tutorial—or the theoretical framework loosely associated with it—is superior. Instead, we hope to illustrate two claims. One, we show in detail how curriculum designers’ cognitive “theories” (frameworks), even if largely tacit during the act of creation, shape the resulting tutorials. Two, we show how, at least for us, articulating and discussing our respective theoretical orientations and their influence on our tutorial writing enables a rethinking of long-standing tutorial-writing habits. We argue that instructional intuition—shaped by explicit and tacit theoretical assumptions—functions well in guiding the design of curriculum, as our contrasting tutorials illustrate; but more systematic attention to the underlying theoretical assumptions can productively inform refinements.
format	article
author	Andrew Boudreaux Andy Elby
author_facet	Andrew Boudreaux Andy Elby
author_sort	Andrew Boudreaux
title	How curriculum developers’ cognitive theories influence curriculum development
title_short	How curriculum developers’ cognitive theories influence curriculum development
title_full	How curriculum developers’ cognitive theories influence curriculum development
title_fullStr	How curriculum developers’ cognitive theories influence curriculum development
title_full_unstemmed	How curriculum developers’ cognitive theories influence curriculum development
title_sort	how curriculum developers’ cognitive theories influence curriculum development
publisher	American Physical Society
publishDate	2020
url	https://doaj.org/article/6b32e67cd90e4482857222b3f8645bd4
work_keys_str_mv	AT andrewboudreaux howcurriculumdeveloperscognitivetheoriesinfluencecurriculumdevelopment AT andyelby howcurriculumdeveloperscognitivetheoriesinfluencecurriculumdevelopment
_version_	1718391911530627072

How curriculum developers’ cognitive theories influence curriculum development

Ejemplares similares