Current schema of learnings, the mental artefacts of the process of human learning, are deficient. They are neither comprehensive in construction or scope, nor in the range of learning artefacts canvassed across various learning and knowledge disciples such as Education, Knowledge Management, Organizsational Management and Information Science.
The most common reference to such schema elements (termed learning artefacts by the authors) is to Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom. However, there are claims in the literature for an expansion of the set of artefacts to include Meaning, Understanding, Reasoning and Enlightenment. The proposition to include Understanding is contested in the literature.
This paper argues for a cross-disciplinary learnings schema. The paper also considers the relationship between learning artefacts and learning processes and suggests a revised taxonomy of learning objectives grounded by underlying identifiable learning artefactsd. Finally, the paper considers the nature of the relationship between the elements of the schema that has variously been called a ‘continuum’, a ‘chain’ or a ’hierarchy’ and concludes …….
----------------------------------------------
Learning as artefact
The authors posit that a learnings schema comprises readily identifiable abstracted categories of learning that are mental artefacts of the human learning process. There is no generally agreed schema of learning artefacts.
In 1934 T.S. Eliot penned a poem that has been used as the basis for an evolving schema of learnings.
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
T.S. Eliot (1969) Choruses from The ‘Rock’ p. 147
According to Sharma (2005) The Data Information Knowledge and Wisdom Hierarchy (DIKW) has been gaining popularity. It is variously referred to as the ‘Knowledge Hierarchy” or “Knowledge Pyramid” in Knowledge Management traditions, the “Information Hierarchy” or “Information Pyramid” in Information Science, the “DIKW chain” (Hey, 2004), the “Understanding Continuum” (Clark, 2004) or “Learning Concepts” (Siemens, 2006).
In addition to Eliot’s initial four mental artefacts (of Data, Knowledge, Information and Wisdom) Ackoff (1989) proposed Understanding positioned between Knowledge and Wisdom. The most recent manifestation of learning concepts has been expanded with the suggestion for Meaning positioned between Knowledge and Understanding (Siemens, 2006) and also for the addition of Enlightenment beyond Wisdom (Zeleny, 1987).
The proposition that Understanding be considered as an element of the schema is contested by Bellinger, Castro and Mills (2004) who claim ‘understanding’ is not a separate level of its own but that ‘understanding’ supports the transition from each stage to the next. (refer to their diagrammatic representation below).
Source: Bellinger, Castro and Mills (2004)
Clark (2004) supports the contention that ‘understanding’ is not a separate level of its own (refer to his diagrammatic ‘Continuum of Understanding’ below).
The Continuum of Understanding Source: Clarke, 2004
According to Bellinger, Castro and Mills (2004) Akoff (1989) defined Understanding as an appreciation of ‘why”. However they argue that understanding is an interpolative and probabilistic process, cognitive and analytical, a process by which knowledge is synthesised from previously held knowledge. Like Clark (2004), Bellinger, Castro and Mills promulgate the in-elegancy that all elements in the schema are knowledge elements.He posits that one gains knowledge through context (experiences and understanding). In the authors’ opinion, there is an in-elegancy in Clark’s (2004) argument in that he uses the term knowledge to apply to all elements of his Understanding Continuum as well as using the term specifically ascribed to one of the higher order elements.
To explore the validity or otherwise of each of the learning artefacts suggested in the literature the authors will look to clear definitions of each element in the learning schema.
Definitional considerations
As can be seen in the table below, it is possible to construct clear definitions of each of the proposed learning schema elements.
Diagram after Rowley
Note A: Dimkovski suggests that ‘reasoning’ encompasses Understanding, Wisdom and beyond and that “intelligence functions’ are the processes that operate within the layers or across (in-between) layers, and perform the creation, transformations and management of the intelligence constructs,
Note B: Bierly also shows related learning processes p. 598
Leaning as process
As shown in Table X, Bierly, Kessler and Christensen (2000:598) link levels of learning artefacts to learning processes:
Source: Bierly et al 2000:598
Bierly, Kessler and Christensen (2000:599) compare their learning processes to Bloom’s (1956) cognitive skills that are levels of intellectual behaviour important in learning.
source: http://www.officeport.com/edu/blooms.htm
Bloom identified six levels of cognitive skills, from the simple (recall or of facts) at the lowest level, through increasingly more complex and abstract mental levels, to the highest level of evaluation. However, Bierly, Kessler and Christensen (2000:599) map the four data elements they considered to Bloom’s cognitive skills as follows:
Examining Bierly, Kessler and Christensen’s (2000) 'References' it is clear that they did not draw on Ackoff (1989) who had suggested Understanding positioned between Knowledge and Wisdom
Table x below compares the definitions of identifiable learning artefacts to the original and revised Bloom Taxonomy.
It can be noted that there is general alignment between the identified data elements and the levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (apart from Enlightenment, the element most recently suggested).
During the 1990’s, Lorin Anderson (a former student of Benjamin Bloom) led a team of cognitive psychologists in revisiting the taxonomy with the view to examining the relevance of the taxonomy as we enter the twenty-first century. As a result of the investigation a number of significant improvements were made to the existing structure. Source: http://rite.ed.qut.edu.au/oz-teachernet/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=29
The Learning Typhoon
The suggestion from the literature is that there are six or seven discernable learning processes of increasing levels of abstraction.
Source: Rowley, 2006:256
References
Ackoff, R.L. (1989). From data to wisdom, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, Vol. 16. pp. 3-9.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition, New York: Longman.
Bellinger, G., Castro, D. and Mills, A. (2004). Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom, Systems Thinking. Accessed 24th October 2006 from http://www.systems-thinking.org/dikw/dikw.htm
Clark, D, (2004). Continuum of understanding, Accessed 24th October 2006 from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/performance/understanding.html
Bierly, P.E., Kessler, E.H. and Christensen, E. W. (2000). Organizational learning, knowledge and wisdom, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 13 No. 6 pp. 595-618. Accessed 28th October 2006 from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.une.edu.au/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=/published/emeraldfulltextarticle/pdf/0230130607.pdf
Brinklow, T. (2004). Domains, ontologies, models, and the knowledge creation cycle, Occasional / Working paper series, Brighton Business School, University of Brighton: Brighton. Accessed 28th October 2006 from http://www.brighton.ac.uk/bbs/workingpapers/domain.pdf
Dimkovski, M. and Deeb K. (2005). Knowledge technology through functional layered intelligence, First International Conference on Semantics, Knowledge and Grid: SKG p. 21 Accessed 26th October 2006 from
Eliot, T. S. (1969). The Complete Poems and Plays of T.S. Eliot, Book Club Associates: Great Britain
Rowley, J. (2006). Where is the wisdom that we have lost in knowledge?, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 251-270. Accessed 25th October 2006 from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.une.edu.au/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=/published/emeraldfulltextarticle/pdf/2780620205.pdf
Sharma, N. (2005), The origin of the “Data Information Knowledge Wisdom” hierarchy, Accessed 26th October 2006 from http://www-personal.si.umich.edu/~nsharma/dikw_origin.htm
Siemens, G. (2006). Connectivism: Learning and knowledge today, Global summit 2006: Technology connected futures, education.au: Australia. Accessed 25th October 2006 from http://www.educationau.edu.au/jahia/webdav/site/myjahiasite/users/root/public/globalsummit/gs2006_siemens.pdf
Objective:
Domains : Cognitive comprehension & affective Condition:
Audience: academic readers
Behavior:
Degree:
Cognitive comprehension: Given sufficient argument the publisher will accept the contentions of the paper as adding new information and meaning,
Affective:
Source: http://otec.uoregon.edu/data-wisdom.htm
Hicks, Dattero & Gallup – 5 Tier KM http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.une.edu.au/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=/published/emeraldfulltextarticle/pdf/2300100102.pdf
Below is a diagram from the following book: Web Work: Information Seeking and Knowledge Work on the World Wide Web
This monograph is co-written by Chun Wei Choo ( choo@fis.utoronto.ca), Brian Detlor, and Don Turnbull. The manuscript was completed in 1999, and the book was published in September 2000 by Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Source: http://choo.fis.utoronto.ca/Kluwer/DataInfoKnow.html
Source: Brinklow (2004:6)
Source: Brinklow (2004:6)
An alternate model of the Bloom’s taxonomy is provided by http://www.answers.com/ Remembering Comprehension Applying Analysing & synthesising Evaluating Creating Data Information Knowledge Meaning Understanding Wisdom Enlightenment
