CFT

I am so glad that I read the Fitzgerald article first. It was a great introduction to cognitive flexibility theory (CFT). I really liked the idea that learners create their own knowledge base. That the learner is active and scaffolding is provided. I also liked that they emphasized prior knowledge.

Then I moved onto the Jacobsen articles. In both articles the authors discuss how a student’s epistemology affects their reaction to CFT. At first my brain froze over, and then I realized how true this is. I took a class that incorporated a lot of CFT. We had individual projects that were part of a collective larger project. The teacher served as an expert and also as a colleague. The professor participated in several of the assignments with us. There was little lecture or regurgitation. Some students found this frustrating. They wanted to know what they needed to do to get a good grade. They thought that the collaborative work session were a waste of time. I remember being extremely frustrated at the time with these students. However, these articles helped me understand that it may have been that these students didn’t think they were learning. In the same way that I get frustrated in a fill and spill course they don’t like a CFT course.


The Jonassen article was interesting. I have to admit it was a little scary to realize that medical professionls have been taught in such a narrow sighted way until recently.

I was saddened and excited to read the short piece on the EASE program at MSU. I have taken several undergraduate and graduate courses in the history and social studies arena had have not been introduced to this resource. I think it a wonderful model.

I really liked CFT. I think it would avoid over simplification. I also like that it like case based pulls on students’ prior knowledge. Making connections in unstructured environments to me is life.