Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A new model of concept teaching and learning

  • Development
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Current models of instructional design assume that concepts are (a) classifying rules, (b) components of a more complex network or schema in memory, and (c) evaluated/taught by classification performance. Based on current research and theory, however, concepts should be viewed as conceptual tools rather than classification rules. Concepts may be schemas or networks in themselves, as a complex arrangement of declarative, procedural, and inferential knowledge. Concept learning may be measured by concept use and inferences as well as classification and taught via analogies, learning strategies, use/inference practice, and rational-set generators.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, J. R., & Pirolli, P. L. (1984). Spread of activation.Journal of Educational Psychology, 10(4), 791–799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C. (1973). How to construct achievement tests to assess comprehension.Review of Educational Research, 42(1), 145–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., & Ortony, A. (1975). On putting apples into bottles: A problem of polysemy.Cognitive Psychology, 7, 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (1982). Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts.Memory and Cognition, 10(1), 82–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (1985). Ideals of central tendency and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 11(4), 629–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biederman, I., & Shiffrar, M. M. (1987). Sexing day-old chicks: A case study and expert systems analysis of a difficult perceptual learning task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 13(4), 640–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bower, G. (1970). Organizational factors in memory.Cognitive Psychology, 1, 18–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camp, C. J., Lachman, J. L., & Lachman, R. (1980). Evidence for direct-access and inferential retrieval in question-answering.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 583–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. B. (1964). Words, meanings and concepts.Harvard Educational Review, 34, 178–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1972). How to make a language user. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.),The organization of memory. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, M. P., & Tessmer, M. A. (1985). The rational set generator: A method for creating concept examples for teaching and training.Educational Technology, 25(2), 29–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, J. A., Wulfeck, W. A., Konoske, P. J., & Montague, W. A (1986). Effect of generic advance instructions on learning a classification task.Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 294–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feltovich, P. J., Spiro, R. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1988). The nature of conceptual understanding in biomedicine: The deep structure of complex ideas and the development of misconceptions.Technical report #3, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.

  • Gage, N. L., & Berliner, D. C. (1988).Educational Psychology (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, E. (1985).The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston: Little, Brown, & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. (1985).The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1987).Principles of instructional design (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M., & Driscoll, M. P. (1988).Essentials of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G. (1978). Understanding and procedural knowledge in mathematics instruction.Educational Psychologist, 12, 262–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. W. (1987).Concepts and schemata. London: Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, M. (1983).Mastery teaching. Segundo, California: Tip Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. (1984). Developing a learning strategy using pattern notes: A new technology.Programmed learning and educational technology, 21(3), 163–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1985).Models of teaching (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klausmeier, H. J. (1980).Learning and teaching concepts: A strategy for testing applications of theory. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Koedinger, K. (1988).Conceptual change and fuzzy induction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  • Markle, S. M. (1975).They teach concepts, don't they? Invited address at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.

  • Markle, S. M. (1977). Teaching conceptual networks.Journal of Instructional Development, 1(3), 13–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. & Tennyson, R. (1977).Teaching concepts: An instructional design guide. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naveh-Benjamin, M. McKeachie, W., Lin, Y., & Tucker, D. (1986). Inferring students' cognitive structures and their development using the “ordered tree” technique.Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 130–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newby, T. J., & Stepich, D. A. (1987). Learning abstract concepts: The use of analogies as a mediational strategy.Journal of Instructional Development, 10(2), 20–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortony, A. (1975, Winter). Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice.Educational Theory, 45–53.

  • Park, O., & Tennyson, R. D. (1980). Adaptive design strategies for selecting number and presentation order of examples in coordinate concept acquisition.Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(3), 362–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pogrow, S. (1985).Higher order thinking skills project (HOTS). Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

  • Pollock, J. (1974).Knowledge and justification. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Meaningfulness and instruction: Relating what is being learned to what a student knows.Instructional Science, 12, 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., Merrill, M. D., & Bunderson, C. V. (1978). The structure of subject matter content and its instructional design implications.Instructional Science, 7, 107–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive reference points,Cognitive Psychology, 7, 532–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salisbury, D. F., Richards, B. F., & Klein, J. D. (1985). Designing practice: A review of prescriptions and recommendations from instructional design theories.Journal of Instructional Development, 8(4), 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J. (1974). Methods for examining representations of subject matter structure in a student's memory.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(3), 231–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, M. (1985).The heuristic power of transmediation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

  • Slavin, R. (1986).Educational Psychology: Theory into Practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981).Categories and concepts. Cmabridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Striley, J. (1988). Physics for the rest of us.Educational Researcher, 17(6), 7–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suhor, C. (1982).Reading in a semiotics-based curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Reading Association, Chicago.

  • Tennyson, R. D. (1987).Computer-based enhancements for the improvement of learning. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for educational Communications and Technology, Atlanta, GA.

  • Tennyson, R. D., & Park, O. (1980). The teaching of concepts: A review of instructional design research literature.Review of Educational Research, 50(1), 55–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennyson, R. D., & Cocchiarella, M. J. (1986). Concept learning effectiveness using prototype and skill development presentation forms.Review of Educational Research, 56, 40–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennyson, R. D., Park, O., & Christensen, D. (1985). Adaptive control of learning time and content sequence in concept learning using computer-based instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 481–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tessmer, M. A., & Driscoll, M. P. (1986). Effects of a diagrammatic display of coordinate concept definitions upon concept classification performance.Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 34(4), 195–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tessmer, M. A., & Jonassen, D. P. (1988). Learning strategies: A new instructional technology. In D. Harris (Ed.),World Yearbook of Education for 1988: Education for the new technologies. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tessmer, M. A., Jonassen, D. P., & Caverly, D. C (1989).A nonprogrammer's guide to designing instruction for microcomputers. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity.Psychological Review, 84(4), 327–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, J. (1984). Concept structuring: The technique and empirical evidence. InSpatial Learning Strategies. New York: Academic Press, 127–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, M., & Rohwer, W. D. (1981). Age differences in the elaboration of inferences from text.Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(5), 728–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, A. N. (1954).Dialogues of Alfred North Whitehead. New York: Mentor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. (1986). What is a concept? Concept teaching and cognitive psychology.Performance and Instruction, 25(10), 16–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B., & Tessmer, M. (1989).Concept teaching: A comprehensive view. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Education Communications Technology, Dallas, TX.

  • Wilson, J. (1971).Thinking with concepts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instructional Design and the Department of Instructional Technology, Media and Telecommunications Division, University of Colorado at Denver, 80204-5300, Denver, CO

    Martin Tessmer (Assistant Professor) & Brent Wilson

  2. Florida State University, 32306, Tallahassee, FL

    Marcy Driscoll

Authors
  1. Martin Tessmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brent Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcy Driscoll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tessmer, M., Wilson, B. & Driscoll, M. A new model of concept teaching and learning. ETR&D 38, 45–53 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298247

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298247

Keywords

Search

Navigation