↓ Skip to main content

A Biofunctional Perspective on Learning Environments

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Biofunctional Perspective on Learning Environments
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01973
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryan Alverson

Abstract

This paper proposes that the principles of learning, as highlighted by Bransford and colleagues, require biological grounding. This process essentially amounts to the facilitation of, and development of, an enriched capacity for ongoing biofunctional activity (OBA)-physical biology in action. The learning sciences' principles of active learning, i.e., accessing prior understanding, organizing knowledge through schemas, and self-monitoring are psychological-understanding vehicles that work only in the ground of biofunctional (deep) understanding. Biofunctional understanding is a form of understanding that rises out of OBA. In this sense, biofunctional understanding juxtaposes and inherently complements psychological understanding. Without biofunctional understanding, psychological understanding becomes synonymous with superficial understanding. By contrast, in the illuminating context of biofunctional understanding, psychological understanding enables accomplishments of the kind enjoyed by experts in the rich and deep, metaphorically speaking, experiences of their respective fields of specialization. In this perspective article, I show how and why the psychological principles of active learning are ready for grounding in biofunctional understanding.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 17%
Lecturer 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Other 4 22%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 3 17%
Arts and Humanities 2 11%
Linguistics 2 11%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Other 6 33%
Unknown 1 6%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 December 2015.
All research outputs
#20,299,108
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,127
of 29,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#327,693
of 390,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#391
of 417 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,825 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 390,595 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 417 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.