[quoting Hedden, 23 Jan 97, quoting Quinn] This model includes [a] motivating the learning by demonstrating the practical applications and importance of the knowledge...Isn't motivation really something quite different from merely demonstrating the practical applications and importance of something? None of the research/theory on motivation, of which I am aware, suggests that motivation stems from demonstrations of importance, practicality, or applicability. Instead, motivation (that which determines what action an organism takes) seems to come from sources within an individual.
We have a bit of a terminology problem, but there is an issue as well. What I am talking about is making the material/skill to be learned meaningful to the learner. There are different ways to do this: giving them a problem to solve that's interesting, demonstrating a catastrophic outcome of the lack of the skill, etc. What I mean here is that they have to see some way in which this skill helps solve a real problem. This may be a rather loose use of the term "motivating" in the sense you mean.
[b] providing a conceptual description of the skill.Isn't this didactic instruction at its best (worst)? In what sense are conceptual descriptions engaging?
It doesn't necessarily mean presenting it didactically (although Laurillard seems to use it that way), it means having the information available so that when the problems (carefully designed :-) require accessing information to solve them, the information is available.
[c] demonstrating the application of the knowledge to practical problems...How is this different from "...demonstrating the practical applications and importance..."?
I see the confusion, mea culpa. In the first case, I mean showing that the information has useful application in the real world. In the latter, I mean actually showing the application of the skill to a particular problem. For example, in the former you might show that bad interface design led to plane crashes, while in the latter you might actually demonstrate an interface evaluation of a microwave oven.
[d] providing practice opportunities with support in the form of scaffolding...Perhaps--if you are teaching a skill. But practice implies repetition that is both necessary for, and that leads to, mastery. But what about cognitive goals, for which practice may be irrelevant? How does this element contribute to a model that improves upon "drill and kill" (or does it)?
I don't see how practice is irrelevant for cognitive skills. If we are focusing on a skill like argument analysis (I really think a critical skill for people today is to be able to understand what an advertisement really is saying), you need practice across different types of uses of the particular approaches (e.g., guilt by association) in different contexts to make the skill transfer outside the learning situation.
The improvement should be that the problems are embedded in a thematically coherent story that makes the practice interesting, varied, and of increasing difficulty.
and, [e] facilitating transfer through guided reflection on the activity to integrate the practical issues with the underlying conception.Guided reflection? Hmm. I like the sound of that. What is it? How does one guide reflection (a presumably wholly personal or subjective experience)? What is the relevance of reflection to practical applications?
Whoa, too many questions at once. I'll deal with them in smaller groups. Reflection is a process of reviewing an activity (an instance of the application of knowledge), and relating that activity to the underlying theory or model. (Diana Laurillard talks very eloquently about the importance and process of this.) Unguided reflection does not guarantee a full understanding, so it is best to have a discussion (and here's where a record of the activity is useful) where a mentor/tutor/advisor can question and probe to help guide the reflection. Note, again, that I think reflection is critical to learning, but not necessarily the role of the game.
Is Clark seeking an operationalization of "understanding," If so, how would it be measured? Of course, transfer would only be relevant if there is both a simulation of something and another something that is different from it or more "real"--e.g., in cases where the learning is not of the thing itself, but a representation of the thing.
I am seeking such an operationalization. Whether I'm achieving it is a different matter. The measure depends on your pedagogical goal. For skills, I would look for transfer to a new problem where the skill is relevant but has not been practiced, and looking for successful application.
My sense is that the model is contradictory in some elements and ambiguous in others.
I hope that I have cleared up some of the ambiguity and the contradictions. I agree that it is a coarse model, but I still believe it's useful.
Please push me further if it still sounds like snake oil, and thanks for the queries.