Rejoinder in Defense of the Standard model of the Mind: From Whimsical to Systematic Science

Abstract

This rejoinder discusses the issues raised by the three commentators of the target article. In agreement with Hunt, it is accepted that, as any overarching theory in any science, it does involve postulates about the mind that must be scrutinized by further research. However, its main postulates are well supported by the findings of specifically designed experiments. In response to Olson, it is maintained that this theory, as an integration of the standard models of the human mind in cognitive, psychometric, and differential psychology, deals better than its competitors with educationally important questions about what, how, and when to teach important knowledge. In fact, the mechanisms of specified understanding are refined enough to explicate what meaning making is possible at different ages. In agreement with Anderson, it is noted that the theory may direct curriculum developers how to develop the curriculum in different subjects and teachers colleges how to educate teachers so that learning in the classroom may become deeper, more stable, and transferable, thereby increasing the understanding and learning autonomy of students. © 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.