Negative Knowledge and Instructional Design

Winn (2003) acknowledged that the instructional design field was currently being forced to rethink the procedures it applies to instructional design when it accepts the assumptions of cognitive theory. One such cognitive theory that appears worth exploring is Bickhard’s (2001) naturalized model of rationality with a focus on the dynamics of learning about error—what counts as error—and handling error knowledge—developing a kind of internalized variation and selection, or quasi-evolutionary reflective process. Designing learning environments to construct this type of “negative” knowledge seems largely neglected in instruction, and yet is relevant for providing learners with an understanding of why and how “positive” knowledge works.

Various findings from studies involving error detection and feedback seem to substantiate the potential boon of negative knowledge to learners. For example, some human-computer interface researchers found that learners were willing to learn by exploration but were often lost, even with the aid of manuals, when they encountered irrecoverable errors (Carroll, 1981; Carroll, Mack, Lewis, Grischowsky & Roberston, 1985; Rieman & Young, 1996). Also, students in a foreign language study revealed they learned more from self-correction (Chandler, 2003). Further, Chambers (1994) reported that learners sometimes got conflicting explanations about their errors from teachers and that teachers and researchers who know a subject well had difficulty seeing things from learners’ perspectives. Furthermore, a study recommended that assessment developers design tests that enable learners to demonstrate their skills and knowledge and for teachers to help learners apply appropriate problem solving and metacognitive skills (Boston, 2003). Each of these studies seems to support a need for instructional designs based on a rationality model for constructing and evaluating knowledge about errors or error types to enhance student learning.