Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Educational models of knowledge prototypes development

Connecting text comprehension to spatial recognition in primary school

  • Published:
Mind & Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

May implicit and explicit collaboration influence text comprehension and spatial recognition interaction? Visuospatial representation implies implicit, visual and spatial processing of actions and concepts at different levels of awareness. Implicit learning is linked to unaware, nonverbal and prototypical processing, especially in the early stages of development when it is prevailing. Spatial processing is studied as knowledge prototypes, conceptual and mind maps. According to the hypothesis that text comprehension and spatial recognition connecting processes may also be implicit, this paper analyzes the possibility to identify and to define implicit non verbal criteria for organizing concepts into spatial representation. The focus of the research question is if prototypical processing (mainly implicit, but also explicit) criteria of conceptual organization may be model based. According to Thinking Prototypes Theory, explicit knowledge could be supported by implicit models of basic processing. On implicit side, conceptual development could be the resultant of the increasing complexity of prototypical implicit models interaction during individual lifespan, as in conceptual change research explicit conceptual development may be dependent on correlation. Unlike Theory Theory in Thinking Prototypes Theory implicit processing may collaborate with explicit knowledge without transforming itself from implicit to explicit. Prototypical implicit processing is considered as an entanglement of basic functions operating synergically in a complex way. Prototypical implicit processing units may be classified as far as they concern different basic thinking operations (add, chain, each, compare, focus and link). The experimental design was developed with primary school students in Naples.

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

Notes

  1. The computational theories of Human Information Processing (HIP) analyze problem solving through sequential processing stages (input decoding, processing, storage in memory, information retrieval, output encoding) and use cognitive structures such as a central unit which controls the information flow, one or more memory storage units, sensory devices and output peripherals (Baddeley 1992).

  2. Representational models study the cognitive formats whereby data can be processed: frames or representations of objects in Minsky, patterns or representations of events in Rumelhart, scripts or representations of sequences of actions in Schank.

  3. The earliest models of communication theory, like the one Broadbent developed in 1958 in Perception and Communication (a model which applied the analogy of computer-based processing of information to the study of attention) distinguish between short-term and long-term memory. In the following model, devised by Atkinson and Shiffrin in 1968, information is first processed in parallel by several sensorial storage units and then sent to a short-term storage unit (STM) with a limited capacity which, in turn, communicates with a long-term storage unit (LTM). Around the Seventies, more complex theories took the place of modal theories of information. One of these was Craik and Lockhart’s theory of Levels of processing (1972) which stated that the deeper the processing of some information, the better it will be remembered. Information processed at the superficial sensory level will produce relatively short-lasting traces; a phonological processing will produce a longer-lasting one, whereas a deep semantic processing will produce the most stable kind of learning, that is understood and meaningful. The prototype of expert systems was the General Problem Solver (GPS) devised by Newell, Simon and Shaw in 1958, which was in charge of solving complex problems by managing few simple heuristics. The latest generation of expert systems is based on the method of production systems, an example of which is the ACT (Adaptive Control of Thought) system, which Anderson devised in 1983. This model of the cognitive architecture describes the dynamics of the information flow inside the cognitive system and includes various types of memory (working memory, which manages the information currently being processed by the system; declarative memory, which contains propositions; and production memory, which regulates the actions carried out) as well as several types of processes (encoding, performance, storage, retrieval, execution, comparison).

  4. The spatial diagrams were derived inductively from a previous research survey in which a group of university students produced spatial diagrams that could be brought down to only a few classes, namely diffusion, hierarchical and comparative models (Santoianni 2006). This emerging data encounters research on knowledge prototypes, which identifies the early phases in knowledge construction in three categories of spatial models (Lambiotte et al. 1989). These spatial models, having a temporal and sequential nature, have been used to derive spatial diagrams 1 and 2 in the form proposed. On the other hand, the spatial model with sequential and derivative characteristics had already been illustrated in the literature concerning the construction of conceptual and mind maps and was used to draw spatial diagrams 2 and 5 in our form (Novak and Gowin 2001; Buzan and Buzan 2003). To draw spatial diagrams 3, 4 and 6 we used simplifications of concepts used in the teaching of maths (Mason et al. 2009).

  5. Logical relations concern the relations between concepts and syntactic structures, but also imply semantic structures. According to conceptual semantics—which is concerned with the forms of internal mental representation that constitute conceptual structure and with the formal relations between this level and other levels of representation—“the question at issue, then, is whether conceptual structure is somehow different from syntax … whether, when we enter the domain of meaning, the rules of the game should be changed” (Jackendoff 1999: 312).

  6. The Grounded theory methodology concerns the discovery of theory from data. Generating a theory from data means that most hypotheses and concepts not only come from the data, but are systematically worked out in relation to the data during the course of the research. The hypotheses are generated by constantly comparing conceptualized data on different levels of abstraction, and these comparisons contain deductive steps (Glaser and Strauss 1967).

References

  • Baddeley A (1992) La memoria umana. Il Mulino, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzan B, Buzan T (2003) Mappe mentali. NLP Italy, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey S (1991) Knowledge acquisition: enrichment or conceptual change? In: Carey S, Gelman R (eds) The epigenesis of mind. LEA, Hillsdale, pp 257–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Case R (1996) Changing views of knowledge and their impact on educational research and practice. In: Olson DR, Torrance N (eds) The handbook of education and human development. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp 75–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Chun MM, Jiang Y (1998) Contextual cueing: implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychol 36:28–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke JH (1991) Using visual organizers to focus on thinking. J Reading 34:526–534

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleeremans A (1997) Principles for implicit learning. In: Berry D (ed) How implicit is implicit learning? Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 196–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins A, Ferguson W (1993) Epistemic forms and epistemic games: structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educ Psychol 28(1):25–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbin J, Strauss AL (1998) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford LE, Regier T, Huttenlocher J (2000) Linguistic and non-linguistic spatial categorization. Cognition 75:209–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dochy F, Segers M, Buehl MM (1999) The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: the case of research on prior knowledge. Rev Educ Res 69:145–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Don A, Glenn Schellenberg E, Reber AS, Di Girolamo KM, Wang PP (2003) Implicit learning in children and adults with Williams Syndrome. Dev Neuropsychol 23:201–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle N (1995) Frameworks for understanding as experienced in essay writing and in preparing for examinations. Educ Psychol 30:47–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle N, Smith C (2002) Personal understanding and target understanding: mapping influences on the outcomes of learning. Brit J Educ Psychol 72:321–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frauenfelder E, Santoianni F (1997) Nuove frontiere della ricerca pedagogica tra bioscienze e cibernetica. ESI, Napoli

    Google Scholar 

  • Frauenfelder E, Santoianni F (eds) (2003) Mind, learning and knowledge in educational contexts. Cambridge Scholars Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné RM (1973) Le condizioni dell’apprendimento. Armando, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner H (1987) Formae mentis. Saggio sulla pluralità dell’intelligenza. Feltrinelli, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner H (1988) La nuova scienza della mente. Feltrinelli, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker DJ, Dunlosky J, Graesser A (eds) (1998) Metacognition in educational theory and practice. LEA, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschfeld LA, Gelman SA (1994) Mapping the mind domain specificity in cognition and culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff R (1999) What is a concept, that a person may grasp it? In: Margolis E, Laurence S (eds) Concepts: core readings. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 305–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelso SJA (1995) Dynamic patterns. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerlinger F, Lee H (2001) Investigación del comportamiento: métodos de investigación en ciencias sociales. McGraw Hill, México

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambiotte JG, Dansereau DF, Cross DR, Reynolds SB (1989) Multirelational semantic maps. Educ Psychol Rev 1:331–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larkin J, Simon H (1987) Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Sci 11:65–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Doux J (1998) Il cervello emotivo. Baldini & Castoldi, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin J (1992) Fundamentos de Estadistica en la investigación social. Harla, México

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman DA (1990) Learning. Wadsworth, Belmont, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason J, Stephens M, Watson A (2009) Appreciating mathematical structure for all. Math Educ Res J 2:10–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak JD, Gowin B (2001) Imparando ad imparare. SEI, Torino

    Google Scholar 

  • Paoletti G (2000) Introduzione alla pedagogia sperimentale. Come fare ricerca in campo educativo. Carocci, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Parisi D (1989a) Intervista sulle reti neurali. Il Mulino, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Parisi D (1989b) La mente come cervello. Sistemi Intelligenti 2:213–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Parisi D (1991) Connessionismo oggi. In: Rumelhart DE, McClelland JL (eds) PDP Microstruttura dei processi cognitivi. Il Mulino, Bologna, pp 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Reber AS (1967) Implicit learning of artificial grammars. J Verb Learn Verb Be 6:855–863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reber AS (1989) Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. J Exp Psychol Gen 118:219–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reber AS (1992) The cognitive unconscious: an evolutionary perspective. Conscious Cogn 1:93–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reber AS (1993) Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. An essay on the cognitive unconscious. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Reber AS, Walkenfeld FF, Hernstadt R (1991) Implicit and explicit learning: individual differences and IQ. J Exp Psychol Learn 17:888–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart DE, Mc Clelland JL (1991) PDP Microstruttura dei processi cognitivi. Il Mulino, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Santoianni F (2003) La scienza della mente. In: Santoianni F, Striano M Modelli teorici e metodologici dell’apprendimento. Laterza, Roma-Bari, pp 24-46. Translated in Spanish as Santoianni F, Striano M (2006) Modelos teóricos y metodológicos de la enseñanza. Siglo XXI Editores, Messico

  • Santoianni F (2006) Educabilità cognitiva. Apprendere al singolare, insegnare al plurale. Carocci, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Santoianni F (ed) (2009a) Costruzione di ambienti per lo sviluppo e l’apprendimento. Il protocollo formativo CASA per la scuola primaria Progetto Interlink. Consorzio Editoriale Fridericiana, Napoli

    Google Scholar 

  • Santoianni F (2009b) Educational models of knowledge prototypes development. Report submitted to International Congress Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Technology. Abduction, Logic, and Computational Discovery, MBR09_BRAZIL. University of Campinas, Campinas, Brasil 17–19 December 2009

  • Santoianni F, Sabatano C (eds) (2007) Brain development in learning environments embodied and perceptual advancements. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich KE (2009) Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: is it time for a tri-process theory? In: Evans JS, Frankish K (eds) In two minds: dual processes and beyond. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 55–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg RJ (1990) Methaphors of mind conceptions of the nature of intelligence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabossi P (1988) Intelligenza naturale e intelligenza artificiale. Il Mulino, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldmann MR, Holyoak KJ, Fratianne A (1995) Causal models and the acquisition of category structure. J Exp Psychol Gen 124:181–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wattenmaker WD (1995) Knowledge structures and linear separability: integrating information in object and social categorization. Cognitive Psychol 28:274–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellman HM, Gelman SA (1997) Acquisition of knowledge. In: Khun D, Siegler RS (eds) Handbook of child psychology cognition. Perception and Language. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Naples Federico II, Via Porta di Massa 1, 80133, Naples, Italy

    Flavia Santoianni

Authors
  1. Flavia Santoianni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Flavia Santoianni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Santoianni, F. Educational models of knowledge prototypes development. Mind Soc 10, 103–129 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-011-0084-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-011-0084-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation