Accommodating ways of human knowing in the design of information and instruction

The ways that we organise and represent knowledge in curricula, learning environments, and information and knowledge management systems are known as ontologies. Ontologies are meant to reflect the types of knowledge being represented in the system. The most commonly used ontologies reflect ontological knowledge types (declarative, structural, and conceptual knowledge) in hierarchical lists of subject matter topics. Ontologies may also reflect epistemological knowledge types (procedural, situational, and strategic knowledge) based on how processes are performed or phenomenological knowledge types (tacit, compiled, socio-cultural and experiential knowledge) based on human experiences. Ontological representations describe knowing that, while epistemological representations describe knowing how. Phenomenological (experiential) knowledge representations in the form of stories are the most natural, comprehensible, and memorable representations of knowledge. Why is the least meaningful form of knowledge representation the most commonly used to design knowledge-based systems?

[1]  R. Gagne.  Conditions of Learning , 1965 .

[2]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Case-based reasoning and instructional design: Using stories to support problem solving , 2002 .

[3]  Anne Katz Rn,et al.  A New Perspective , 2003 .

[4]  P. Preece,et al.  Mapping Cognitive Structure: A Comparison of Methods. , 1976 .

[5]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Conceptual Change within and across Ontological Categories: Examples from Learning and Discovery in Science , 1992 .

[6]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing? , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[7]  Rod D. Roscoe,et al.  THE PROCESSES AND CHALLENGES OF CONCEPTUAL CHANGE , 2002 .

[8]  D. Jonassen.  The mediation of experience and educational technology: A philosophical analysis , 1984 .

[9]  Lauren B. Resnick.  Syntax and Semantics in Learning to Subtract. , 1982 .

[10]  A. Reber.  Implicit learning and tacit knowledge , 1993 .

[11]  G. Kelly.  A theory of personality : the psychology of personal constructs , 1963 .

[12]  P. Alexander,et al.  Coming to Terms: How Researchers in Learning and Literacy Talk About Knowledge , 1991 .

[13]  Robert D. Tennyson,et al.  An Empirically Based Instructional Design Theory for Teaching Concepts , 1986 .

[14]  P. Hewson.  Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice , 2003 .

[15]  Benjamin S. Bloom,et al.  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. , 1957 .

[16]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures , 1978 .

[17]  G. Ryle,et al.  心的概念 = The concept of mind , 1962 .

[18]  R. Shavelson.  Some Aspects of the Correspondence between Content Structure and Cognitive Structure in Physics Instruction. , 1972 .

[19]  P. Alexander,et al.  The Interaction of Domain-Specific and Strategic Knowledge in Academic Performance , 1988 .

[20]  G. Diekhoff.  Testing Through Relationship Judgments. , 1983 .

[21]  Anthonius J.M. de Jong,et al.  Types and qualities of knowledge , 1993 .

[22]  M. Chi,et al.  From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts , 1994 .

[23]  Janet L. Kolodner,et al.  An introduction to case-based reasoning , 1992, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[24]  Richard E. Osgood,et al.  ASK Systems: An Approach to the Realization of Story-Based Teachers , 1992 .

[25]  Susan M. Land,et al.  Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. , 1999 .

[26]  A. T. Schreiber,et al.  Reusable and shareable Knowledge Bases: A European Perspective , 1994 .

[27]  Stella Vosniadou,et al.  New Perspectives on Conceptual Change , 1999 .

[28]  P. Pintrich,et al.  The role of intentions in conceptual change learning , 2003 .