A model is presented for analysing the learning activity through an engineering approach. The main components are: input (raw data), elaborational phase (data processing), output (processed data) and conditions of learning (bias). The components are interconnected in a closed loop feedback pattern, including ‘impedance matching’ to optimise the learning process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Pascual-LeoneJ., ‘Piagetian theory and neo-Piagetian analysis as psychological guides in education’ in GallagherJ. M. and EasleyJ. A. (Eds.), Knowledge and Development, 2, Plenum (1978).
2.
CaseR., ‘Gearing the demands of instruction to the development capacities of the learner’Review of Educational Research, 45, pp. 49–57 (1975).
3.
GlobersonT., ‘Disadvantaged, regular and talented children: comparison of thinking capability’, 5th Convention of the Israel Educational Research Assoc. (IERA), Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel (1981).
4.
FeuersteinR.RandY.HoffmanM. B. and MillerR., Instrumental Enrichment — An Intervention Program for Cognitive Modifiability, University Park Press, Baltimore (1980).
5.
WitkinH. A., ‘The role of cognitive style in academic performance and in teacher student interaction’, A paper presented at a symposium on Cognitive Styles, Creativity and Higher Education, Montreal (1972).
6.
MagerR. F., Preparing Instructional Objectives, Fearon, San Francisco (1962).
7.
FestingerL., A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press (1957).
8.
FrankensteinC., They Think Again: Restoring Cognitive Abilities Through Teaching, Van Nostrand Reinhold (1979).
9.
WaksS., Teaching Electronics to the Disadvantaged, Research Report, Technion Research and Development Foundation, Res. no. 231-035 (Supported by Ford Foundation), Haifa, Israel (October, 1980).
10.
BloomB. S., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, David McKay Company, Inc. (1956).
11.
DeanR. K. and PlantsH. L., ‘Divide and conquer or how to use a problem solving taxonomy to improve the teaching of problem-solving’, Frontiers of Education Conference Proceedings, pp. 268–275 (1978).
12.
WaksS. and LindenlaubJ., ‘Cognitive levels in a basic electrical engineering course’, Int. J. Elect. Enging. Educ., 18, pp. 101–111 (1981).
