The cognitive revolution and its implications for creating knowledge tools needed in achieving a sustainable society

J. Miller
{"title":"The cognitive revolution and its implications for creating knowledge tools needed in achieving a sustainable society","authors":"J. Miller","doi":"10.1109/KTSC.1995.569179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The last 30 years have witnessed a qualitative change in our conception of how people learn (usually called the \"cognitive revolution\"), so that we think today not only in terms of acquiring discrete facts and skills but also in far more powerful terms of acquiring new ways of thinking. Of particular importance is the process of acquiring the habits of systematic and disciplined inquiry characteristic of organized science. To the social theorist and policy maker, however, the existence of a new, more powerful view of learning is a mixed blessing. Decisions of how best to implement the lessons of the cognitive revolution require technocratic know-how as well as social and political judgment. I discuss the cognitive revolution by offering a comparison of two contrasting views of education that it has produced, which I call \"institution-centred\" and \"person-centred\" methodologies. In terms of their pedagogical effectiveness, both methodologies have been shown to be successful, when implemented in a congenial social environment by competent professionals. The essential difference is political. An institution-centered methodology has as side-effect to encourage a greater sense of commitment, loyalty and perhaps even dependence in regard to teachers, educational and social institutions and authority figures in general; in contrast, a person-centered methodology encourages a greater sense of autonomy and self-reliance. Cognitive methods can be useful for policy makers with a wide range of priorities and commitments, if correctly chosen.","PeriodicalId":283614,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings 1995 Interdisciplinary Conference: Knowledge Tools for a Sustainable Civilization. Fourth Canadian Conference on Foundations and Applications of General Science Theory","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1995-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings 1995 Interdisciplinary Conference: Knowledge Tools for a Sustainable Civilization. Fourth Canadian Conference on Foundations and Applications of General Science Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/KTSC.1995.569179","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The last 30 years have witnessed a qualitative change in our conception of how people learn (usually called the "cognitive revolution"), so that we think today not only in terms of acquiring discrete facts and skills but also in far more powerful terms of acquiring new ways of thinking. Of particular importance is the process of acquiring the habits of systematic and disciplined inquiry characteristic of organized science. To the social theorist and policy maker, however, the existence of a new, more powerful view of learning is a mixed blessing. Decisions of how best to implement the lessons of the cognitive revolution require technocratic know-how as well as social and political judgment. I discuss the cognitive revolution by offering a comparison of two contrasting views of education that it has produced, which I call "institution-centred" and "person-centred" methodologies. In terms of their pedagogical effectiveness, both methodologies have been shown to be successful, when implemented in a congenial social environment by competent professionals. The essential difference is political. An institution-centered methodology has as side-effect to encourage a greater sense of commitment, loyalty and perhaps even dependence in regard to teachers, educational and social institutions and authority figures in general; in contrast, a person-centered methodology encourages a greater sense of autonomy and self-reliance. Cognitive methods can be useful for policy makers with a wide range of priorities and commitments, if correctly chosen.
认知革命及其对创造实现可持续社会所需的知识工具的影响
在过去的30年里,我们对人们如何学习的概念发生了质的变化(通常被称为“认知革命”),因此,我们今天不仅要从获得离散的事实和技能的角度来思考,而且要从获得新的思维方式的角度来思考。特别重要的是养成有组织科学特有的系统的、有纪律的探究习惯的过程。然而,对于社会理论家和政策制定者来说,一种新的、更有力的学习观点的存在是喜忧参半的。决定如何最好地实施认知革命的教训需要技术专家的知识以及社会和政治判断。我通过比较它所产生的两种截然不同的教育观来讨论认知革命,我称之为“以机构为中心”和“以人为中心”的方法论。就其教学效果而言,这两种方法在由有能力的专业人员在适宜的社会环境中实施时已被证明是成功的。本质的区别是政治上的。以机构为中心的方法的副作用是鼓励对教师、教育和社会机构以及一般的权威人士产生更大的承诺感、忠诚感甚至依赖性;相反,以人为本的方法鼓励更大的自主权和自力更生的意识。如果选择正确,认知方法对具有广泛优先事项和承诺的决策者是有用的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信