An interesting post at D-Ed Reckoning.
She creates a new model, or an amended model, of learning.
Anyway, the important take-away revealed by this model is that teacher effects, student effects, and curriculum/presentation effects are all interrelated and affect what the student learns, doesn’t learn, or imperfectly learns.
I thought this was an interesting model, but while I was still working on the post, she came out with a different/better one.
Induction is Not Constructivism came about because of misunderstandings of her earlier model.
The point I’m trying to get across in the model is that the observed stimulus ALWAYS gets transformed as it becomes knowledge. I could have used an alternate model and placed the sub-induction directly under the “direct memory” process and indicated that the “sub-inductive” process was subsumed in the “deductive” and “inductive” reasoning processes to get the same point across.