Theoretical Support for Story-Centered Curricula
Story-Centered Curricula (SCC) are, perhaps, the ultimate form of integrated learning
experience to date. An SCC has no classes, no required lectures, and no tests. Instead,
students work in teams on authentic, realistically complex projects. A project comprises a
carefully designed progression of tasks, each designed to require targeted knowledge and
skills for successful completion. Student teams working on these tasks are coached by
both academic faculty and experienced industrial practitioners. They also have access to
reading materials (and sometimes even video lecture material and other resources such as
simulations) indexed to specific aspects of tasks. Thus, they learn just in time in a context
that is likely to promote transfer to similar problem solving in the future. Student
performance is evaluated according to the quality of authentic deliverables produced by a
team. Individual achievements are differentially weighed by mentor evaluations of their
interactions with students and by employing peer evaluations in which students evaluate
their own and other students’ performance at the conclusion of each task according to a
well-defined, task-appropriate rubric.
The design of Story-Centered Curricula draws on theoretical work and empirical results
from many researchers. Its theoretical basis is Schank’s theory of Dynamic Memory
(Schank 1982, 1999) which posits that memory is primarily an organization of specific
experiences and that expectation failures in the application of those experiences to new
situations are the basic triggers for learning. Reliable transfer of experience only occurs
when the learning context is highly similar to the application context (Bransford, J. D.,
Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., & Sherwood, R. D. 1989; Tulving, E., & Thompson, D. M.
1973), and such transfer can be potentiated by transfer-appropriate processing (Morris,
Bransford, and Franks 1977).
In addition to our own work on Goal-Based Scenarios (e.g., Schank, R., A. Fano, B. Bell,
and M. Jona. 1993; Bell, B., R. Bareiss, and R. Beckwith. 1993), other researchers have
addressed the creation of authentic, contextualized learning experiences (e.g., Brown, J.
S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. 1989; Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt.
1991; Lave, J., & Wenger, E. 1991; Greeno, J. G., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. B. 1995;
Collins, A. 1996; Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R., Eds. 2000). Two
lines of research stand out as particularly relevant: One, Cognitive Apprenticeship
(Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. 1989), suggests that problem solving skills can
be taught in the context of scaffolded problem solving by observation of modeling by
expert practitioners and by reflection on student experiences. The second, Anchored
Instruction (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. 1991), defines the
characteristics of a problem solving context that supports the acquisition of transferable
skills.
In the specific area of professional education, Story-Centered Curricula are most similar
to Problem-Based Learning (e.g., Barrows, H. S. 1998; Hmelo, C. E. 1994) in that PBL
replaces conventional curricula, e.g., in medicine, with team-based, student-directed
learning in the context of authentic cases. Note, however, that Story-Centered Curricula
differ from “classic: problem-based learning, in that:
-
-
students work within a single coherent framework for the duration of the curriculum
thus minimizing the need for repeated “incidental” learning of case materials
the progression of tasks builds organically on earlier tasks (in contrast to PBL in
which a series of cases is organized primarily by difficulty)
the student is expected to act (e.g., to implement a solution) and sees the outcome of
his or her actions (in contrast to classic PBL in which the foci are diagnosis and
perhaps treatment planning, but the student does not get to actually implement the
treatment and see the result)
SCC’s are designed to make the supporting resources -- reference materials such as
books, articles, videos, access to experts -- that the student is most likely to need
readily available with clear pointers, instead of requiring him or her to interrupt
problem solving, perhaps for an extended period, to search for them. (PBL has a very
strong emphasis on developing self-directed learning/research strategies; while SCC’s
emphasize this too, the primary emphasis is on successful task performance.)
In addition to cognitive, learning benefits working in the context of an authentic “story”
also has motivational benefits for students (e.g., McCombs, B. L. 1996; Schank, R., &
Neaman, A. In Press).
References
Barrows, HS, (1998). The essentials of problem-based learning. Journal of Dental
Education. 62:9, 630-633.
Bell, B., R. Bareiss, and R. Beckwith. 1993. Sickle Cell Counselor: A Prototype GoalBased Scenario for Instruction in a Museum Environment. Journal of the Learning
Sciences 3:4. 347-386.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How People Learn:
Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., & Sherwood, R. D. (1989). New approaches to
instruction: because wisdom can't be told. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity
and Analogical Reasoning (pp. 470 - 497). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of
Learning. Educational Researcher(January-February), 32 - 42.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. 1991. The Jasper Series: A generative
approach to improving mathematical thinking. In This Year in School Science.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. Cited in Bruer, J. (1993) Schools
for Thought: A Science of Learning in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. B. (1995). Cognition and Learning. Handbook
of Educational Psychology.
Hmelo, C. E. (1994). Development of independent learning and thinking: A study of
medical problem solving and problem-based learning. Unpublished Dissertation,
Vanderbilt University, Nashville.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
McCombs, B. L. (1996). Alternative perspectives for motivation. In L. A. Baker, P.; and
Reinking, D. (Ed.), Developing Engaged Readers in School and Home communities (pp.
67-87). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus
transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16,
519-533.
Schank, R., & Neaman, A. (In Press). Motivation and Failure in Educational Simulation
Design. In K. Forbus & P. Feltovich (Eds.), Smart Machines in Education . New York:
AAAI Press.
Schank, R. C. (1982). Dynamic Memory: A theory of reminding and learning in
computers and people. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schank, R., A. Fano, B. Bell, and M. Jona. 1993. The Design of Goal-Based Scenarios.
Journal of the Learning Sciences 3:4. 305-345.
Schank, R. C. (1999). Dynamic Memory Revisited. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Tulving, E., & Thompson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in
episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352-373.