Generated questions learning model (GQLM): Beyond learning styles

Figures & data

Figure 1. Generated questions learning model.

Figure 2. Learning tools as opposed to learning styles, which come together to allow question asking.

Figure 3. The elements of thought within the critical thinker (Paul & Elder, 2001).

Table 1. Comparison of the GQLM with Behaviorism, Cognitivism, and Constructivism according to Schunk’s (1991) qualifying questions

Factors for learning	Behaviorism model	Cognitivism model	Constructivism model	Generated questions learning model
1. How does learning occur?	By observing, integrating, and acting upon the probability of changes resulting from performance	By gaining discrete changes in knowledge	By being aware and cognizant of our experiences. The constructivists look at the learner as more than just an active processor of information; the learner elaborates upon and interprets the given information (Duffy & Jonassen, 1991)	Senses + environment = curiosity. By the questions generated inquiry comes about, which causes critical thinking to created new knowledge. By wondering, understanding, and retaining feedback to apply to the next situation
2. Factors influencing learning	Response adequacy (cognitive and physical); stimulus quality	Health of brain & cognitive structures; factors facilitating reception, organization, storage, and retrieval of information	How the learner is interpreting their experiences (memory, emotion, cognition)	The practitioners’ ability to model and inculcate critical thinking and question asking. By the practitioner creating a safe environment in which students feel comfortable enquiring
3. Role of memory	Connecting to prior successful learning experiences to repeat or improve upon	Manages reception, organization, storage, and retrieval of information	Allows for connection to prior meaning	Brings back answers from previous questions and previous answers
4. How does transfer occur?	Acting further based on the feedback received	By proper communication between cortico-cognitive structures	By connecting meaning stemming from experiences	By encountering contrast and conflicts, asking, receiving feedback and applying to the next context aided by the practitioner
5. Best explained for which learning?	All	All	All	All
6. Assumptions relevant to instructional design	Instructor needs to understand how to convey quality feedback, how to teach meta-analysis of one’s thinking upon performance	It is not about what learners do, but about the processes that allow to acquire information (Jonassen, 1991b)	The learner does not acquire but interpret the meaning of experiences; the learner builds knowledge gained by acting upon input to give it meaning; no “correct” meaning, learning is entirely subjective (Bednar et al., 1992).	Learners have the capacity to learn as many ways as there are assumed intelligences, curiosity aroused is the single most important driver of learning, it rests on the practitioner to build a world promoting curiosity
7. How should instruction be structured?	Provide capital feedback to help the learner assess if their response was adequate to stimulus, and practice adequate behavioral output	Adapt conveying of information to the learner’s cognitive structures; help learner organize, integrate and connect new information (Bower & Hilgard, 1981).	By showing learners salient information from which they can actively extract their own meaningfulness (requires flexibility from the instructor); promote group work to confront other’s meaningfulness and take a stand (Cunningham, 1992)	It should be structured around the practitioner playing a key role by facilitating and creating an environment in which students are comfortable. By weaving instruction with presenting provocative conflicting concepts and contrasts generative of questions

Figure 4. Generated question learning model in the classroom.

Table 2. Comparing students’ two modes of their evaluation of their professor showing their experience with the characteristics of the Pseudo-Socratic concepts of teaching, after a semester of implementation of PST in physics classes

PST concepts	Open-ended comments (%)	Survey responses (%)
Comfortability	71	93
Connectivity	75	91
Organization and preparedness	48	74
Critical thinking	40	79

Note: Data is represented in percent of comments per class fitting under these 4 pillars.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2001). The miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts & tools. Foundation Critical Thinking. ISBN 0944583105, 9780944583104.

 Google Scholar

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New York, NY: Macmillan.

 Google Scholar

Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology? Educational Technology, 31, 3–12.

 Google Scholar

Jonassen, D. H. (1991b). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39, 5–14. doi:10.1007/BF02296434

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp.17–33). ISBN 1136612270, 9781136612275.

 Google Scholar

Bower, G. H., & Hilgard, E. R. (1981). Theories of learning (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 Google Scholar

Cunningham, D. J. (1992). Assessing constructions and constructing assessments: A dialogue. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Construtivism and the Technology of Instruction-A Conversation (pp. 34-44). New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates..

 Google Scholar