When we (Andrew Boudreaux and Andy Elby) examined student responses to questions about the direction of the static friction force in various situations, we both had strong ideas about how to write a tutorial to promote deeper understanding. But our ideas were quite different. In this theoretical paper, we present the two contrasting tutorials and show how their differences can be traced to different theoretical orientations toward cognition and learning. We don’t claim that one tutorial—or the theoretical framework loosely associated with it—is superior. Instead, we hope to illustrate two claims. One, we show in detail how curriculum designers’ cognitive “theories” (frameworks), even if largely tacit during the act of creation, shape the resulting tutorials. Two, we show how, at least for us, articulating and discussing our respective theoretical orientations and their influence on our tutorial-writing enables a rethinking of long-standing tutorial-writing habits. So, we argue that instructional intuition—shaped by explicit and tacit theoretical assumptions—functions well in guiding the design of curriculum, as our contrasting tutorials illustrate; but more systematic attention to the underlying theoretical assumptions can productively inform refinements.

中文翻译：

---

课程开发者的认知理论如何影响课程开发

当我们（安德鲁·鲍德洛（Andrew Boudreaux）和安迪·艾尔比（Andy Elby））检查学生对有关各种情况下静摩擦力方向的问题的回答时，我们两个人都对如何编写教程以加深理解有强烈的想法。但是我们的想法截然不同。在这篇理论论文中，我们介绍了这两个对比的教程，并展示了如何将它们的差异追溯到认知和学习的不同理论取向。我们并不声称一个教程（或与它松散相关的理论框架）是优越的。相反，我们希望说明两个说法。首先，我们详细展示了课程设计者的认知“理论”（框架），即使在创作过程中大部分是默契的，也会如何影响最终的教程。第二，我们至少向我们展示如何 阐明和讨论我们各自的理论取向及其对我们教程写作的影响，使人们能够重新思考长期存在的教程写作习惯。因此，正如我们的对比教程所说明的那样，我们认为由直觉和默契理论假设构成的教学直觉在指导课程设计方面起着很好的作用。但是对潜在的理论假设进行更系统的关注可以有效地为改进提供依据。