Miriam Cherkes-Julkowski

Principles of Self-Organization: Learning as Participation in Autocatakinetic Systems

Modem science has been built on a Cartesian or Newtonian (mechanical) world view giving rise to an artifactual view of mind and suggesting that particles (learners) are continuously working to destroy order (are recalcitrant), which can only be maintained by an external artificer (the teacher). At the core of the Cartesian worldview is the absolute separation of mind and matter. Beginning with the separation of mind and body, Cartesianism is grounded in a set of dualisms that separate individual from environment and leads to the belief that knowledge refers to a self-sufficient immaterial substance that can be understood independently from the individual, environment, and context in which it is situated. In contrast, we make the argument for an alternative set of assumptions predicated on a relational ontology and grounded in recent developments in the understanding of self-organizing systems. In our view, knowing, meaning, and cognition are actualized through the dynamic between learner (self) and enviro...

Self-Organization of Mother-Child Instructional Dyads and Later Attention Disorder

Instructor-learner interactions are viewed from the perspective of dynamically self-organizing, coordinated systems. Mothers were asked to instruct their preterm and full-term 24-month-old children to sort blocks according to size and color (a challenging task for children of this age). Dyads were observed for their ability to find a mutual and stable instructional relationship. Dyads in which the child was later identified as having attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) were marked by significantly less stable organization, less mutuality, and greater perturbations in the system. Mothers of children later found to have ADHD tended to apply stronger constraints than those whose children grew up to have no identified school problems. Implications are drawn for optimal instruction of children who are at risk for central nervous system disorders.

Differences in Cognitive Processes Among Handicapped and Average Children A Group Learning Approach

This study investigated the ability of LD, slow learning and average children to adapt learning strategies to different stimulus demands. Small group learning situations were used to encourage subjects to verbalize their strategies to each other and to create the expectation that, since other children have different approaches, the process of strategy selection is critical. Findings demonstrated a distinctly different pattern of strategy usage associated with performance in each of the three diagnostic categories as well as an ability in all three groups to differentiate among stimulus demands.

How Can I Know What I Think Till I See What I Say

We began this survey of the spontaneous strategic behavior of handicapped children with a discussion of some of the differences in cognitive processes between handicapped and nonhandicapped learners. Competent learners produce a variety of strategies, depending on task demands, whereas ineffective learners tend not to generate their own strategies in the absence of adult guidance. Transfer or generalization has been noted many times to be particularly difficult for handicapped students; when the student is presented with a new and slightly different task, the previous knowledge is either not applied or is applied exactly as taught, without adaptation to the requirements of the new situation.

To Err is Human, to Reorganize Divine

Very few systems can operate without error. Even a system that has existed for some time and has operated with a high degree of effectiveness is likely to include some error production. In such a system errors could be a result of a simple mismatch of situation and response; that is, the system attempts to subject a situation to its mode of processing or analysis even though the information is not suitable. Mismatches of this kind can be an accident that allows the system to work effectively in successive instances. Alternately, they can reflect a change in the internal or external environment in which the system operates that requires a reorganization in order for that system to become operative again.

Back to the Classroom

Throughout this discussion of cognitive strategies used by successful and less successful students, we have tried to keep one foot firmly in the classroom. After all, that is where theories and findings are put to the test. In this final chapter we will attempt to pull together some of the strands that have developed along the way and suggest some of the implications of our discussion for the education of children, especially those with learning problems. How can we best meet the needs of handicapped children, working with their natural inclinations rather than against them, while at the same time guiding them into more productive ways of using their abilities? One of the major issues to consider is the question of mainstreaming; however, this is not a simple “yes” or “no” matter. Mainstreaming is not an invariant entity; it is a plastic concept that can be (and is) molded to suit the beliefs and needs of any situation. It can mean lunch in the cafeteria, or checking in with the special education teacher and disappearing for the rest of the day. It is a topic that rouses strong feelings and is often politicized, the needs of the system frequently taking priority over those of the children. Our interest here is to include in our review a consideration of how education as a whole, including mainstreaming as well as other programmatic options, can best address some of the special characteristics of handicapped children, such as their need for mediated learning experiences and their difficulties in making use of group interaction.

Cogito Ergo Sum

Stereotypes about “good learning” and “effective instruction” have begun to give way to a regard for the idiosyncracies that each learner brings to each situation. This change has taken place in the context of an increasing interest in cognitive psychology. The effect on special education is only now beginning to be felt (Cawley, 1985; Reid & Hresko, 1981). Until now the understanding of handicaps to learning has been rooted in developmental and behavioral psychology. The developmental view has provided a standard according to which growth could be measured. Once a child’s accomplishments along developmental continua had been identified, his or her disorder could be defined in terms of relative delays in one or more areas (e.g., in reading, language, or both). Behavioral psychology provided the solution by establishing procedures to evoke performance at those levels not yet attained.

Man Is the Measure of All Things

Our ability to observe spontaneous strategy usage or to instill effective strategies depends on how well we can observe them in their users. In this chapter we will focus on some of the methods that have been used to examine strategy use on a number of problem-solving and memory tasks in handicapped and non-handicapped populations. Some of these measurement techniques have been developed to tap well-known and successful learning strategies, both verbal and nonverbal, such as rehearsal and categorization. The most widely researched strategies have tended to be those that can be most satisfactorily measured. Nevertheless, numerous ingenious systems have been devised to overcome some of the measurement problems involved in accessing more elusive strategic behavior. We will describe some of these studies in detail and attempt to evaluate the degree of success with which they have achieved their goal. This brief survey does not presume to be a comprehensive review of all possible types of strategic behavior or measurement techniques. Our aim is to offer a sampling of various measurement possibilities, verbal and nonverbal, direct and indirect, covering a range of behaviors including memory, problem-solving, and academic skills.

Self-Selected Strategies

It could be argued that all behavior is strategic. However, use of the term in the learning and memory literature has generally been limited to a type of behavior that implies specific attributes. These specifics are not always agreed upon; there is controversy regarding the extent to which the strategy must be deliberately instigated (Brown, 1975), goal directed (Paris, Newman, & Jacobs, 1985), and potentially conscious (Flavell, 1977). Pressley, Forrest-Pressley, Elliott-Faust, and Miller (1985) have discussed these elements in some detail and argue that, since strategy use can be (and arguably should be) automatized and strategies may not be consciously selected, strategic behavior need not be deliberately instigated. The following description includes all the elements that specify a useful, working definition: A strategy is composed of cognitive operations over and above the processes that are a natural consequence of carrying out the task, ranging from one such operation to a sequence of interdependent operations. Strategies achieve cognitive purposes (e.g. comprehending, memorizing) and are potentially conscious and controllable activities (Pressley, 1982, p. 4).