Proceedings of E-Learn 2003, November, 2003, Phoenix, 2003
We are developing a general framework, called RASHI, to support inquiry learning. We have begun u... more We are developing a general framework, called RASHI, to support inquiry learning. We have begun using RASHI to build inquiry learning environments in human biology, environmental engineering (water quality), geology (interpreting seismic activity), and forest ecology (interpreting a forest's history) (Woolf et al. 2003, Murray et al. 2003). In this paper we will focus on our most fully developed project, in the human biology domain, a highly successful college course taught by two experts in the case-based teaching methodology. At this point RASHI has been pilot tested with four students in a clinical setting, and, following a number of modifications, is slated to be used for one unit (one or two weeks) in a Human Biology course in the Fall of 2003. Cognitive tools that scaffold problem solving in specific domains not only help students but enable inquiry-style learning to occur in situations where there would not otherwise be enough human teaching resource available, as in large classes or when the instructor is not fully skilled in the methods of these types of pedagogies. Our software incorporates some of the pedagogical expertise from expert teachers and should thus allow broader use of inquiry-based teaching methods.
Uploads
Papers by Tom Murray
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). Wayang Outpost has several distinctive features: a large
breadth of problems with multimedia animations and sound in the help, problems embedded
in narrative and fantasy contexts, alternative teaching strategies for students of different
mental rotation abilities and memory retrieval speed. We present evaluations of the tutor
that lead to conclusions of effectiveness, which depend on the interaction of teaching
strategies and cognitive abilities. A student model built from student interactions with the
tutor is described.
There have already been many attempts to integrate these two domains. For example: using quantum mechanics to explain consciousness; showing how stale science can be re- enchanted through a captivating story of the evolution of the cosmos; doing a statistical analysis of religious beliefs in a population; or fMRI measurements of the brains of meditation adepts. Yet spiritual thinking and scientific thinking are rarely integrated. Or to put it another way, the metaphysical claims and esoteric experiences of spirituality have an uneasy relationship with logical or "rational" modes of meaning-making. It is a given that science and rationality are important, both in their proven products in a technologically advanced society, and also in their ability to critique and sanitize the "irrationality" within metaphysical, religious, dogmatic, and emotion-laden thought. But the role of pre-rational making-making is less well appreciated; and when it is acknowledged, it is through its more romantic characteristics. One thing I will argue is that the pre-rational mind (its magical and mythical layers) is actually an essential foundation upon which all rational (including scientific) thought is built. The pre-rational layers, often maligned in modernity, contain life-and-meaning generative capacities that are sorely need. But that is getting ahead of our story.
Here what I want to point out is what scientific (or hyper-rational) and spiritual (or religious and metaphysical) modes of discourse tend to have in common: the certainty or confidence of their claims. This text is, in one sense, a deep critique of how certainty is performed in both spiritual (or metaphysical) and scientific (or modern hyper-rational) circles—actually in all realms of thought and belief. I will argue for the increasing importance of "negative capability"—i.e. for humility, tolerance for uncertainty, and openness to multiple perspectives. —And for an appreciation of the (now proven) fundamental limitations of reason, logic, theoretical models, and even the foundational flaws in the ability for language and concepts to capture reality.
That knowledge is incomplete and fallible and that beliefs tend to be biased—these are well-oiled aphorisms. But to develop a transformative and actionable understanding of personal meaning-making and social knowledge-building processes one needs a deep
understanding of exactly how belief and knowledge are fallible. And it is a transformative or radical understanding that is called for. For most of humanity's history the main social "project" was about understanding and taming nature. We have entered a new era wherein the vast majority of human problems are caused by human nature, and so the most important inquiries now should be into self-understanding to allow the self- transformation and self-liberation that might, if we are lucky, reverse, or at least adapt to, the ultimately tragic ends that human "reason" has wrought through modern technologies and social structures.
"Know thyself" has become more than a philosophical and ethical imperative—it has become a species-existential one. And our focus here will be on knowing how and what we don't know—i.e. on unknowing. In another sense our exploration will be about the importance of reducing or releasing complexity in the psyche and in socio-cultural structures—at a time in which it might seem that we cannot avoid increasing complexity.
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). Wayang Outpost has several distinctive features: a large
breadth of problems with multimedia animations and sound in the help, problems embedded
in narrative and fantasy contexts, alternative teaching strategies for students of different
mental rotation abilities and memory retrieval speed. We present evaluations of the tutor
that lead to conclusions of effectiveness, which depend on the interaction of teaching
strategies and cognitive abilities. A student model built from student interactions with the
tutor is described.
There have already been many attempts to integrate these two domains. For example: using quantum mechanics to explain consciousness; showing how stale science can be re- enchanted through a captivating story of the evolution of the cosmos; doing a statistical analysis of religious beliefs in a population; or fMRI measurements of the brains of meditation adepts. Yet spiritual thinking and scientific thinking are rarely integrated. Or to put it another way, the metaphysical claims and esoteric experiences of spirituality have an uneasy relationship with logical or "rational" modes of meaning-making. It is a given that science and rationality are important, both in their proven products in a technologically advanced society, and also in their ability to critique and sanitize the "irrationality" within metaphysical, religious, dogmatic, and emotion-laden thought. But the role of pre-rational making-making is less well appreciated; and when it is acknowledged, it is through its more romantic characteristics. One thing I will argue is that the pre-rational mind (its magical and mythical layers) is actually an essential foundation upon which all rational (including scientific) thought is built. The pre-rational layers, often maligned in modernity, contain life-and-meaning generative capacities that are sorely need. But that is getting ahead of our story.
Here what I want to point out is what scientific (or hyper-rational) and spiritual (or religious and metaphysical) modes of discourse tend to have in common: the certainty or confidence of their claims. This text is, in one sense, a deep critique of how certainty is performed in both spiritual (or metaphysical) and scientific (or modern hyper-rational) circles—actually in all realms of thought and belief. I will argue for the increasing importance of "negative capability"—i.e. for humility, tolerance for uncertainty, and openness to multiple perspectives. —And for an appreciation of the (now proven) fundamental limitations of reason, logic, theoretical models, and even the foundational flaws in the ability for language and concepts to capture reality.
That knowledge is incomplete and fallible and that beliefs tend to be biased—these are well-oiled aphorisms. But to develop a transformative and actionable understanding of personal meaning-making and social knowledge-building processes one needs a deep
understanding of exactly how belief and knowledge are fallible. And it is a transformative or radical understanding that is called for. For most of humanity's history the main social "project" was about understanding and taming nature. We have entered a new era wherein the vast majority of human problems are caused by human nature, and so the most important inquiries now should be into self-understanding to allow the self- transformation and self-liberation that might, if we are lucky, reverse, or at least adapt to, the ultimately tragic ends that human "reason" has wrought through modern technologies and social structures.
"Know thyself" has become more than a philosophical and ethical imperative—it has become a species-existential one. And our focus here will be on knowing how and what we don't know—i.e. on unknowing. In another sense our exploration will be about the importance of reducing or releasing complexity in the psyche and in socio-cultural structures—at a time in which it might seem that we cannot avoid increasing complexity.