A Individuals Actively Construct And Organize Their Interpretations Of Their Experiences

By Author: Jordon
Total Articles: 91
Comment this article

Many educators have observed situations when two students have contrasting reactions to seemingly similar experiences. Such reactions often reflect different cognitive frameworks that guide students' interpretations of the task or situation at hand. (For an excellent example in the context of writing learning contracts, see Taylor, 2006.) A variety of terms have been used to refer to the cognitive frameworks that individuals use to guide their interpretive processes. Piaget (1970) called these structures dissemble (structured wholes); since then, such frameworks have been referred to Replica Omega as cognitive structures, knowledge structures, meaning-making structures or orientations, stages, positions, levels, mental models, and more recently, schemas. I note these different labels not to present an exhaustive list nor to trace the lineage or discuss nuances in the meaning, but to show that the idea of an overarching framework that encompasses defining aspects of a person's cognitive approach or way of thinking is an enduring concept that has strongly ...
... influenced scholarship in the field.

The phenomenon of organizing one's experiences is also captured within cognitive schema theory, where a cognitive schema refers to the structure of an individual's knowledge that is used to interpret a new experience or stimulus. One of the core ideas from cognitive science informing schema theory is "that an individual processes or interprets experience according to organizing, conceptual structures in the mind that have developed from or are influenced by experience" (Narvaez & Bock, 2002, p. 298). This approach posits that individuals attempt to match new experiences to existing cognitive schema, using the organization of prior knowledge to make sense of new experiences. Where there are similarities to Replica Breitling prior experiences, these are brought to bear in decision-making in new experiences. Derry (1996) identified three classes of schemas that interact during the process of learning: memory objects (related characteristics), cognitive fields (sets of memory objects), and mental models (overall meaning structures).

Narvaez and Bock (2002) noted that cognitive schema theory is based on organizing conceptual structures and apply cognitive schema theory to the study of moral judgments. They offered the following illustrative example. (In the dilemma, to which they refer, Heinz has stolen a life-saving drug for his wife because he did not have the money to pay for it; thus, respondents are asked to weigh two competing values, saving a life, and respecting another's property.) We might say that those with more complex moral judgments have a larger and better organized set of memory objects that can be activated within multiple cognitive fields and form part of complex mental models. Although research would need to determine the architecture in actuality, we can speculate about a mental model for the dilemma, Heinz and the drug. Such a mental model might include cognitive fields for marriage, stealing, human rights, and so forth. Each of these cognitive fields would be comprised of memory objects. For example, "marriage" might include memory objects like "marriage duties" and "love." The memory object "marriage duties" might consist of related characteristics such as "faithfulness" and "commitment." There may be many layers of memory objects and cognitive fields that comprise a mental model. An expert will have layer upon layer of interrelated schemas about the "Heinz and the drug" dilemma.