Prior Knowledge
The "web model" of learning suggested above, and to be detailed as we progress, is a personal theory, schema (Goetz et al., p500) or mental model (Seifert, 1995, 2-2) to explain generative learning in terms of short-term memory and long-term recall. The mental model
provides "...a context for interpreting new information" (Seifert, 1995, 2-5) about learning. In my web model, short-term memory was "netted" and saved by the generation of links to existing knowledge structures - of how ideas go together and concepts are related. Based on my understanding and prior experience with links and structures used in computer hypermedia, it compares generative learning, short-term and long-term memory to the creation of hypertext links between web page documents.
Constructing hypertext links is a relatively simple process. With respect to generative learning, one could ask: "How is the link made?" Goetz et al. (p500) suggest two possibilities - the selective attention hypothesis and the slot-filling hypothesis. "According to the selective attention hypothesis, activated schemata identify certain text elements as important and direct increased attention toward those elements. According to the slot-filling hypothesis, schemata provide ready structures into
which relevant information can be assimilated without additional processing." The difference between the two hypotheses appears to be the active - passive nature of information processing.
The selective attention hypothesis suggests that a learner views new information through "rose-coloured" or "polarized" glasses; paying particular attention to familiar phrases or words because prior knowledge indicates that the particular piece of information is important. Goetz et al. (p501) suggest that "Because the text elements have been identified as schematically important, the reader allocates extra attention to their processing in order to incorporate the information into the activated schem
a." For example, students who have visited Europe may quickly identify parts of geography lessons of interest to them - textbook descriptions of the tropical beaches of Hawaii may stimulate little generation compared to lessons on Paris, if students have experienced Paris.
As with the selective attention hypothesis, the slot-filling hypothesis suggests that the importance of new information has been pre-determined by prior knowledge. However, instead of focusing attention on familiar phrases and words in new information, it simply falls into a pre-designed interpretation slot with reduced processing demands (Goetz et al., p501). An example of this may be the physics student who, despite a lack of emphasis during a lecture about electric fields, makes a note that the l
eft-hand rule must be important because the left-hand rule for magnetic fields was important.
As many examples justifying both hypotheses are possible, the important concern for teachers is not whether students learn by attention or slot-filling, but the influence of the
common denominator - prior knowledge. Seifert (1995, p2-8) suggests prior knowledge may interfere with learning if it is insufficient for constructing mental models of new information; if it is held too rigid and new information must be distorted to fit; or if there is a deficiency of generated links within prior knowledge, which may have led to compartmentalized, contexts-specific models. Insufficient, distorted and compartmentalized knowledge can lead to student misconceptions and erroneous assumptions
concerning new information.
"Students sometimes come to a learning situation with misconceptions and these misconceptions can interfere with learning" (Seifert, 1995, 2-8). Eaton et al. (p365) suggest that students' comprehension failures often result from "... misconceptions or inadequacies in their background knowledge." One way to discover these problems may be pretests (Eaton et al., p378) that ask students to explain their conceptions about topics to be taught. Students have trouble in high school when a teacher tries to
construct links to prior knowledge which was not learned, or learned but remembered differently. The Level II (Grade 11) mathematics teacher will have a problem with students who do not "understand" fractions despite the fact that fractions are taught in grades 7, 8 and 9. The problem is that high school courses require basic skill levels upon which to develop new strategies and experiment with new information. If fractions were improperly "understood" then the student has a faulty conceptual model or
framework on which to build new knowledge. Eaton et al. (p375) cautions that if new concepts are not "... explicitly stated and explained, they [students] are likely to adhere to a misconception that makes sense to them."
Misconceptions based on prior knowledge can result in selective attention to the wrong words and phrases, or the inappropriate construction of slots. Goetz et al. (p501) suggest that teachers can direct students attention to assume a particular perspective by supplying them with sets of instructional objectives or questions. They concluded that "importance ratings and the likelihood of recall were both affected by instructions to assume a particular perspective" (Goetz et al., p508). With respect t
o the slot-filling hypothesis, it would seem that inappropriately constructed or linked slots can not be eliminated, just redefined. Based on personal experience, a student will not accept a change in thinking without an explanation as to why their logic was incorrect. In a sense, the process of redefining slots could be called generative reconstruction.
During their research, Eaton et al. (p377) appear to be interested in one young student in particular - Denise. "Why did Denise learn?" They suggest that she did not like unanswered questions and knew how to seek answers to questions that troubled her. With respect to the topics of generative learning and prior knowledge, maybe she either could not or would not generate links to prior knowledge while she suspected that the links were misconceptions. Isn't this one of the reasons why we ask questio
ns - the clear up misconceptions? Eaton et al. (p377) suggest that "Denise and other students like her were exceptionally sensitive to the conflicts between what they read and heard and their own ideas, and they were not satisfied until they resolved those conflicts." Maybe she recognized that the new information and her existing slots were in conflict, and she needed additional information to regenerate or reconstruct those slots.
With respect to primary school teaching, it would seem that teachers need to be fluent in past student knowledge if they are to help generate the links to that knowledge! An often heard criticism of primary school teachers is that they make mistakes when they try to teach across the curriculum. It is possible to meet primary and elementary school teachers who have but a single university science course as their background, against which young students ask "today's questions." Teacher misconceptions
taught as fact can lead students to generate incorrect slots or schemata upon which to base later learning. This argument could lead to the suggestion of specialists as soon as possible in the school system.
Reflectively, the question has to be asked about selective attention to the readings upon which this paper is based, and whether or not some of the material was accepted automatically because it filled existing slots in my "web model" of learning. Goetz et al. (p500) suggest that "...information related to a reader's schema is better learned and recalled than information not related to the schema." However, my recall is based upon notes recorded in the margins of the papers - most of which relate to
mental imagery. Selective attention?