Taking Stock

            The problem was introduced in the introduction of this dissertation. The first of two problems that the FIT-C model addresses is the misconception that instructional theories like instructivism, constructivism, and so forth, are different views of the same phenomena. The second problem is the lack of a common-consensus map of education. The three theories and seven scenarios presented below will address these issues.

            The theories and scenarios provide an analysis to evaluate the applicability of the FIT-C model to the wide range of possible situations to which education can be extended. How does the FIT-C model as a framework inform the instructional designer and the content provider? Do the new perspectives that the FIT-C model provides, improve the design of educational events and consequently the event itself? These case studies address these questions about this descriptive theoretical model.

            This section proceeds as follows: Each of the three theories selected, were chosen from each of the three domains of Bloom’s taxonomy, namely the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains. These three theories are analyzed and discussed in the light of the FIT-C model. Following this discussion all three theoretical approaches, a comparison table is presented to indicate which areas of the FIT-C model are covered or not covered. This is followed by a discussion about the strengths and shortcomings of the three theories. Then the seven divergent scenarios are analyzed to see how each scenario maps to the FIT-C model. This will demonstrate the application value of the proposed model.

            In conclusion, the contribution of the FIT-C model is discussed to evaluate how it can be used to influence better design in education. Suggestions are made for further research that this model inspires.

Theory One — Cognitive-Constructivist

            The constructivist instructional design theory by David Jonassen (1999, pp. 217-39), as described in the article, Designing Constructivist Learning Environments, has been scrutinized, and each segment of the theory has been assigned to a domain or component of the FIT-C model. The headings below provide the framework of the FIT-C model. The numbers are provided to correspond with the numbering system of the table that follows.

1 Fundamentals

          “You should describe the physical, socio-cultural, and organizational climate surrounding the problem. Where and in what time frame does it occur? What physical resources surround the problem? What is the nature of the business, agency, or institution in which the problem occurs? What do they produce? Provide annual reports, mission statements, balance sheets, and profit-and-loss statements if they appropriately describe the situation. What is the history of the setting?” (p. 220).

          “the ability of highly skilled typists to engage in conversations with neighboring typists without any noticeable deterioration in either speed or accuracy of their typing” (p. 479).

2 Instructions

          “seek out and filtering information” (p. 228).

          “personal meaning making and so intentionally seeks to relate new ideas to experiences and prior learning” (p. 236).

3 Teachings

4 -5 Community

4 Gesellschaft

          “support collaboration among communities of learners” (p. 228).

          “. . . a group works toward developing a common conception of the problem, so their energies can be focused on solving it” (p. 228).

          “support discourse communities through different forms of computer conferences (listservs, electronic mail, bulletin boards, NetNews services, chats, MUDs, and MOOs” (p. 229)

          “knowledge-building communities” (p. 229).

          “communities of learners” (p. 229).

          “support collaboration within a group of participants” (p. 229)

          “The model conceives of a problem, . . . with various interpretive and intellectual support systems surrounding it” (p. 217).

          “learners . . . debate ideas, plan and conduct experiments, and communicate their findings” (p. 219).

          “Reflection through computer conferences also engenders . . .” (p. 230).

          “. . . accommodate environmental and contextual factors” (p. 230).

5 Gemeinschaft

6 Agenda

          “The focus of any CLE is the question or issue, the case, the problem, or the project that learners attempt to solve or resolve.” (p. 218).

          “The model conceives of a problem, question, or project as the focus of the environment” (p. 217).

7 Content

          “databases, spreadsheets, semantic networks, expert systems” (p. 227).

          “create a model by representing real-world phenomena and making connections among its parts” (p. 227).

8-13 Presentment

8 — tell (Presentation)

          “. . . they should be told stories about similar situations . . .” (p. 224).

          “. . . provide examples . . .” (p. 224).

9 — show (Presentation)

          “. . . it is necessary to collect a set of cases that are representative of the current one. . .” (p. 224).

          “Behavioral modeling”; “Cognitive modeling” (p. 231).

          “. . . performers should overtly model the kinds of argumentation necessary to solve the problem.” (p. 232).

10 — feedback (Presentation)

          “learners’ performances will likely improve with coaching.” (p. 232).

          “provide hints and helps” (p. 233).

          “prompt appropriate kinds of thinking” (p. 233).

          “prompt the use of collaborative activities” (p. 233).

          “prompt the use of specific cognitive tools” (p. 233).

11 — pressure (Presentation/Support)

          “The representation of the problem . . . must perturb the learner.” (p. 221).

          “provoke reflection” (p. 233).

          “perturb learner’s models” (p. 234).

          “encourage conversations about the problems and projects” (p. 229).

12 — nurture/backup (Support)

          “provide motivational prompts” (p. 233).

13 — prune/focus (Support)

          “you should provide cognitive tools that scaffold the learners’ abilities to perform those tasks.” (p. 225).

          “. . . scaffolding represents any kind of support for cognitive activity.” (p. 235).

          “restructure the task” (p. 235).

14-17 Verification

14 — self (mentally active)

          Students acquire knowledge and requisite thinking skills by studying cases . . . (p. 219).

          “Understanding any problem requires . . . constructing mental models of it.” (p. 223).

          “the inner game that takes place in the mind of the player and is played against such obstacles as lapses of concentration, nervousness, self-doubts, and self-condemnation” (p. 478).

15 — self (physically active)

          “Students acquire knowledge and requisite thinking skills by studying cases and preparing case summaries or diagnoses” (p. 219).

          “learners . . . must manipulate something (construct a product, manipulate parameters, make decisions) and affect the environment in some way” (p. 222).

          “Understanding any problem requires experiencing it . . .” (p. 223).

          “Visualization tools help learners to construct those mental images and visualize activities” (p. 226).

          “When humans first encounter a situation or problem, they naturally first check their memories for similar cases that they may have solved previously” (p. 223).

16 — formal (passive)

17 — formal (active)

          “Building models of real-world phenomena is at the heart of scientific thinking and requires diverse mental activities such as planning, data collecting, accessing information, data visualizing, modeling, and reporting” (p. 227).

Theory Two – Psychomotor

            The categorization below evaluates the theory by Romiszowski (1999, p. 457-81), as discussed in the article titled The Development of Physical Skills: Instruction in the Psychomotor Domain. Each segment of the theory has been assigned to a domain or component of the FIT-C model.

1 Fundamentals

          Reproductive Skills (p. 463).

          “Prerequisite subskills that are initially below the minimum threshold levels should, however, be developed prior to the practice of the whole task. (p. 472)

          “the growing practice of engaging in relaxation exercises and mental imagery prior to work” (p. 477).

2 Instructions

          Productive Skills (p. 463).

          “. . . while functional fidelity (realistic cause-effect relationships) is more important in the case of productive skills that depend on deeper cognitive processing of task information” (p. 476).

3 Teachings

          “The aim is develop greater levels of control over the inner self, that is, the feelings and beliefs that influence peak performance” (p. 477).

4-5 Community

4 Gesellschaft

          “Progress to full (higher fidelity) simulation appears to be governed by several interacting factors: the context of the training, the task content, the learners, and the stage of learning.”

5 Gemeinschaft

6 Agenda

          “Teach integrated and coordinated activities by the whole-task method” (p. 472).

          “Setting a specific goal can lead to more rapid mastery of a skilled activity” (p. 473).

7 Content

          “Supply verbal coding, or cuing, of the steps in an action pattern accompanying a model demonstration, to help the learner to form a mental representation of the action” (p. 471).

8-13 Presentment

8 — tell (Presentation)

          “Imparting the essential information to the trainee” (p. 469).

          “. . . followed by expository review” (p. 470).

9 — show (Presentation)

          “then demonstrate and explain simultaneously” (p. 469).

          “model performance” (p. 470).

          “let the student observe a sequential action pattern before attempting to execute it” (p. 470.)

          “Demonstrate a task from the viewpoint of the performer” (p. 471).

          “provide sensory information required by the trainee” (p. 476).

10 — feedback (Presentation)

          “In general, learning feedback (results information) promotes learning” (p. 473).

          “In general, feedback is more effective in promoting learning when it transmits more complete information” (p. 473).

          “it is necessary to engage in an analysis of the causes of an observed discrepancy, reflect on the plans that were implemented, and evaluate the reasons for their shortcomings” (p. 474).

11 — pressure (Presentation/Support)

12 — nurture/backup (Support)

13 — prune/focus (Support)

14-17 Verification

          “Transfer and retention of motor skills are improved by overlearning” (p. 475).

          “Avoid too fast a progression to more difficult tasks. Information overload generally results in a deterioration of task execution” (p. 475).

14 — self (mentally active)

          “let the student observe a sequential action pattern before attempting to execute it” (p. 470).

          “promote and encourage the mental rehearsal of a task, to enhance its initial learning and long-term retention” (p. 470).

          “learning is enhanced though mental rehearsal during rest intervals” (p. 472).

          “Thinking oneself into the role of a known expert performer and identifying as completely as possible with that role model tend to improve performance” (p. 478).

15 — self (physically active)

          “task is learned through exploratory practice followed by . . ..” (p. 470).

          “Tasks composed of a sequence of relatively independent actions are better learned by the progressive parts method” (p. 472).

          “The forced pacing of high-speed tasks promotes more rapid progress to mastery” (p. 473).

          “evidence that overlearning and overpractice is beneficial in terms of long-term retention” (p. 475).

16 — formal (passive)

17 — formal (active)

            The five stages of the development of psychomotor skills (Romiszowski, 1999), correlates well to Fitts’ law (Fitts & Posner, 1967). Table 8 below compares the two models.


Table 8

Comparing the Stages of Fitts’ Law with Romiszowski’s Stages of Psychomotor Development


Fitts’ Law

Romiszowski’s Five Steps

Cognitive Stage

1. Acquiring knowledge of what should be done, to what purpose, in what sequence, and by what means.

Associative Stage

2. Executing the actions in a step-by-step manner, for each of the steps on the operation.

3. Transfer of control from the eyes to other senses or to kinesthetic control through muscular coordination

Autonomous Stage

4. Automatization of the skill.

5. Generalization of the skill to a continually greater range of application.

Theory Three — Values Education

            The article Recapturing Education’s Full Mission: Educating for Social, Ethical, and Intellectual Development by Lewis et al (1999, p. 511-36) has been evaluated. Each segment of the theory has been assigned to a domain or component of the FIT-C model.

1 Fundamentals

          “treating each other with consideration; they simply did not know how to do this” (p. 430).

2 Instructions

          “instruction” (p. 517).

3 Teachings

          “Everything about schooling — what is taught, how it iis taught, discipline, how students and teachers relate to one another — teaches children how we treat other human beings and what we truly value” (p. 515).

4-5 Community

4 Gesellschaft

          “read-alouds and partner reads provide an alternative to ability grouping” (p. 521).

5 Gemeinschaft

          “one which we call a caring community of learners — is most likely to foster these qualities” (p. 515).

          “all children feel like valued community members and, in turn, they value the community and want to maintain their attachment to it” (p. 515).

          “The community helps children understand and practice the values it wants them to develop, such as kindness, fairness, self-discipline, and personal commitment to learning” (p. 515).

          “Students help build and maintain class norms” (p. 526).

          “they had been looking for ways to deepen and strengthen children’s bonds to the school” (p. 533).

          “schoolwide activities foster the caring community of learners only if they are designed with that goal in mind” (p. 534).

6 Agenda

          “that students become competent, knowledgeable, thoughtful, caring, principled, self-disciplined, and motivated from within” (p. 515).

          “build a caring community of learners” (p. 518).

          “foster children’s intellectual, social, and ethical development” (p. 518).

          “build close caring human relationships among members of the classroom community” (p. 518).

          “to build ownership: children’s sense that they have a say in classroom life and learning” (p. 518).

          “to build reflection: the habit of thinking deeply both about academic work and about one’s behavior” (p. 518).

          “to build internal motivation: a personal commitment to act on one’s beliefs, even without external incentives” (p. 518).

          “to build understanding of prosocial values such as kindness, fairness, and responsibility, and the capacity and habit of acting upon those values” (p. 518).

          “to build academic development through construction, instruction, and practice” (p. 518).

          “To build children’s understanding and practice of social skills and ethical values” (p. 531).


          “To build human relationships” (p. 532).

          “To foster internal motivation” (p. 532).

7 Content

          “Literature-based reading” (p. 516).

          “Developmental discipline” (p. 516).

          “Cooperative learning” (p. 516).

          “Schoolwide service and relationship-building activities” (p. 516).

          “discuss literature, world events, or classroom conflicts” (p. 518).

8-13 Presentment

8 — tell (Presentation)

          “modeling” (p. 517).

          “reading out loud to the class” (p. 522).

9 — show (Presentation)

          What can I do to make up for what I did wrong? Is a question many children naturally ask themselves — or will come to, in a supportive climate, where they hear people round them doing so” (p. 528).

10 — feedback (Presentation)

          “have their ideas challenged by others” (p. 517).

          “comments from teachers and peers” (p. 522).

11 — pressure (Presentation/Support)

          “revisit the lessons (we hope) they have learned” (p. 430).

          “Two boys — One chair example” (p. 530-1).

12 — nurture/backup (Support)

          “it matters how students treat each other” (p. 522).

          “How can we help each other?” (p. 515).

          Teacher says to problem student, “I think we need to talk Can I have a little bit of your time, maybe at recess, to talk? I tell them that they’re not themselves that day, and ask them whether something’s wrong” (p. 527).

          “I am worried about you. Can we talk after school?” (p. 527).

          “Just listening to children can help them, by meeting their needs for attention, self, expression and human connection” (p. 527).

13 — prune/focus (Support)

          Teacher says to problem student, “I think we need to talk Can I have a little bit of your time, maybe at recess, to talk? I tell them that they’re not themselves that day, and ask them whether something’s wrong” (p. 527).

          “finding ways for students who have transgressed to reestablish themselves as caring, responsible people by, for example, repairing the damage that they have done, or offering a genuine apology for a hurtful remark” (p. 528).

          “developmental discipline” (p. 530).

14-17 Verification

14 — self (mentally active)

          “to see others practice them” (p. 518).

          “actively consider. . .what these qualities mean” (p. 518).

15 — self (physically active)

          “practice” (p. 517).

          “opportunities to actively construct understanding” (p. 522).

          “try experiments” (p. 517).

          “talk about what they saw and thought” (p. 517).

          “apply what they have learned to new situations and problems” (p. 517).

          “daily opportunities to practice these qualities” (p. 518).

          “discuss what these qualities mean” (p. 518).

          “Read-alouds motivate children to develop their reading skills” (p. 521).

16 — formal (passive)

17 — formal (active)

Discussion of the Three Theories

            The three theories did not discuss assessment or testing (16, 17) in any particulars. This is not necessarily regarded as negative. The FIT-C model emphasizes the expansion of self-verification to include the mentally and physically active components. If this is thoroughly done, the formal verification is the final iteration of self-verification, and that would imply that it has been covered in the context of self-verification.


            The cognitive theory chosen was constructivism. The areas not addressed were very predictable. In looking at the FIT model, the domain of teachings was not considered, whereas Fundamentals and Instructions were well covered.

            Under community, the emphasis did not extend beyond the Gesellschaft. This was predictable as well. Teachings and Gemeinschaft seem to be tied together. The perspective of the application of the constructivist theory was directed at the domain of instructions, and did not consider the context of either Teachings or a Gemeinschaft. In line with this perception is the focus on Presentation under the category of Presentment. Support which addresses personal human-centered support, was not addressed.

            This theory then as a purist instructional theory focused accurately on the objective-centered aspects of education. The improvement of this theory would be to consider the human-centered aspects and to provide human-centered support, which would foster the dynamics of a Gemeinschaft and the behaviors pertaining to the domain of Teachings. This can be done with the Agenda still committed on the essential objective-centeredness of this theory.


            The criticism leveled at the Constructivist theory holds true in large part for the psychomotor theory as well. The concept of Gemeinschaft provides a level of support to the learner that can be powerful and impactful. Romiszowski (1999, p. 477) says, “The aim is develop greater levels of control over the inner self, that is, the feelings and beliefs that influence peak performance.” This is undoubtedly a focus on the human, potentially considering the psychological, the affective, and the spiritual aspects that provide the mental stamina and fortitude to excel in the psychomotor domain.

            The FIT-C model would indicate that the concept of the Gemeinschaft could be formally included in the theoretical design, to address personal support needs, rather than to assume these are in place and essentially negligible.


            A review of the assignment list of in Table 9, gives the theory of Lewis et al (1999, pp. 511-36) full marks. They considered all three domains of the FIT model. They addressed both the Gesellschaft and the Gemeinschaft aspects of community. They have a sophisticated agenda in place that considered both the objective and human centered aspects of education. Their content also reflected these two aspects. Their presentment included both presentation and support. The “Two boys, one chair example” was insightful in how the teacher used pressure in a creative and an appropriate way to help the boys achieve the objective of resolving their differences. The verification included both mental and physically active verification.

            According to the FIT-C model, this theory has great promise to address the needs of education in a broad sense. The skillful integration of the domains of Instructions and Teachings and Fundamentals is creative and it is quite evident that this theory has been shaped by years of experience and reflection.

Table 9

A Comparison of Each of the Thee Theories with the FIT-C Model.


A — Cognitive (Constructivist)

B — Psycho-motor

C — Values Ed

The FIT Model

1 Fundamentals




2 Instructions




3 Teachings




The Core Components of Education





4 — Gesellschaft




5 — Gemeinschaft




6 Agenda




7 Content








8 — tell (Presentation)




9 — show (Presentation)




10 — feedback (Presentation)




11 — pressure (Present./Support)




12 — nurture/backup (Support)




13 — prune/focus (Support)








14 — self (mentally active)




15 — self (physically active)




16 — formal (passive)




17 — formal (active)




The Scenarios

Example One: The School Finishers

            Frequent press reports surface about instances of students graduating from high school that are functionally illiterate, or that have appalling math skills. Specific skills in Fundamentals are need to remedy this deficit in skills. Fitts’ Law would be operative to achieve these results. This view of education has received much attention since the late ‘90s. Part of the remedy to this skills deficit has been the standardized testing and schools having to perform at a certain level to be considered adequate.

Example Two: Nazi Education

            Elie Wiesel addressed the Global Forum in Moscow. He is a survivor of the Second World War concentration camps. He is reported to have said “that the designers and perpetrators of the Holocaust were the heirs of Kant and Goethe. In most respects the Germans were the best educated people on Earth, but their education did not serve as an adequate barrier to barbarity. What was wrong with their education?” (Orr, 1990). Orr quotes Wiesel as saying, “It emphasized theories instead of values, concepts rather than human beings, abstraction rather than consciousness, answers instead of questions, ideology and efficiency rather than conscience." This example addresses something profound, something more far-reaching than skills. By all standards, these people were impressively well educated, yet in another sense their education was found to be profoundly lacking. This is another vital issue in education today and there has been much emphasis on concepts like whole-child education, and character education, or morals education.

            These two scenarios above address two very different phenomena in education. It is education that we look at in both instances. The FIT-C model is designed as a model of education to accommodate both these phenomena.

Example Three: The MBA Challenge

            A large corporation has contracted with a respectable MBA program to address the following challenge: How can the company maintain double digit growth in Italy, India, and Iceland? This is a complex educational environment that is not dependent on a closed set of variables. In other words, even an expert can fail in achieving the objective in this instance, and sound choices only increases the statistical probability of success. This challenge would address the full educational environment. In a traditional sense, it might seem like this challenge centers on the Instructions domain. The FIT-C model suggest that this is a weakness that has to be addressed. There are frequent reports in business publications about improved work ethic of companies that consider the human-centered needs of their employees. The domain of Teachings has an important role to play to address this challenge.

Example Four: The International Relations Class

            A foreign policy thinktank in Washington DC has invited a group of stellar students from several universities to join in the research and drafting of proposed policy guidelines for the Middle East. The students are excited yet nervous about this exceptional opportunity, since these recommendations will be presented to the Department of State.

            Scenarios three and four both require the investigation of many perspectives. It requires a thorough background of the issues and the circumstances of the countries in focus which implicates the domain of Fundamentals. The educational approach needed in these two scenarios above differ from the first two scenarios that preceded them. Here a constructivist approach might be advisable to enable these disciplined scholars to use their research capabilities and unique insights to develop solutions that reflect their grasp of the vital issues at stake, and considering reactions and possible consequences to the solutions and what alternatives should be considered or avoided.

Example Five: The Correctional Facility

            You are assigned to teach arithmetic at a correctional facility for delinquent boys. You will be teaching a group of 11 boys. These boys have been grouped together because they all have a slight mental handicap and they do not perform at their level. You have chosen direct instruction with a behaviorist reward system to enhance motivation.

            Scenario four has a constructivist environment and a cognitive approach. Scenario five has an instructivist and behaviorist approach. Here the same question applies: Is it possible to provide a model of education that accommodates both phenomena? Principles from the instructional design theory by Lewis et al (1999, pp. 511-36) might be valuable to address the unhealthy human-centered aspects of these learners.

Example Six: XML Training

            You are an expert at XML database design. You are employed by a corporate training company and you are preparing for a three-day intensive workshop for working professionals. Many corporate clients are sending their employees to this workshop because firstly they believe that XML skills would be a great asset to their company. The employees are being sent to the workshop as part of their company’s continuing education program.

            The assumptions mentioned here are essential to consider. This would not imply that a human-centered component should be ignored, but it does imply that it would not be an intensive and time-consuming focus. Yet, consideration for the human-centered aspects like anxiety, weak self-esteem, and so forth, could improve the rating of the training course and the satisfaction of the learners — that is said with the assumption that the instructional design of the training itself is sound.

Example Seven: The Liberal Arts Curriculum

            A corporate executive is insisting on sending her son to a prestigious liberal arts college, preparatory to entering and Ivy League university. She believes that the exposure to the classics in literature, music, art, and philosophy will provide her son with an education that will be invaluable throughout his life.

            Scenario six is a clear example of training. Would it be justified to claim that training is not education? Many defend schooling in the liberal arts tradition as expressed in scenario seven as true education. Is this argument valid?

            The potential value of a Liberal Arts education is the exposure to many worthwhile pieces of literature, art and music, and an immersion in philosophy. The benefits could be the improved sense of moral judgment and the appreciation of the esthetic. This may indeed be a worthwhile education.

            The counter argument is that such an education often lack the development of problem solving skills in an applied environment. This does raise a question. If those in favor of a Liberal Arts education claim it to be the ultimate experience in education, it might remind us of one of the blind men claiming to know what an elephant looks like.

            These seven scenarios illustrate the problem with the concept of education. It is diverse and includes components from all three domains in creative and dynamic ways. The selection of the components of the CC model further adds to the sophistication in addressing particular problems.


            The FIT-C model offers a new descriptive view of education. For approximately the last 50 years, the only commonly used departure point for education has been Bloom’s taxonomy. This new model presents an alternative. Bloom’s taxonomy divides the educational objectives into one of its three domains, and subsequently refines the approach within the respective domains. The new approach does not negate the value of Bloom’s taxonomy, but it creates a new contextual framework in which Bloom’s taxonomy operates. This new grounding frame of reference provides a new perspective. For a straightforward instructional event, the objectives are first considered between the domains of Instructions and Fundamentals, based on the need to develop reflective versus nonreflective skills. Then Bloom’s taxonomy can be considered within these respective domains. The CC model adds the value of the core components of education — to consider the development and composition of the community, the agenda and its intentities, the nature of the content and the issues related to presentment and verification. The CC model adds a thoroughness to consider the whole event in the effort to create an optimized learning event.

Future Research

            This is a descriptive model; groundwork to refine the terms and conceptual view of the field of educational objectives. The very nature of this focus suggests that many questions could spring from the FIT-C model. A broad acceptance of the FIT-C model would inspire this model as a basis and measuring stick for prescriptive theories. This in turn would engender qualitative and quantitative investigations.

            Supported by the theoretical developments of Romiszowski, the FIT-C model suggests the addition of a fourth domain to Bloom’s taxonomy, namely the socio-communicative domain to address the communicative aspect between people as an educational objective. This issue begs for a more in-depth investigation than it has received in this dissertation or in the research of Romiszowski (1999).

            Further comparative studies, quantitative and qualitative research, is needed to corroborate the claims that the FIT-C model is a descriptive, theory-neutral map of education, and that it can tie together the divergent strands in education.

            This dissertation argues that the diverse theoretical prescriptive models of education plays capture-the-flag with education as a whole. It is argued that the field of education is too vast and diverse for any prescriptive theory to capture. The argument is that prescriptive theories do not offer different views of the same phenomena, but that these are different phenomena in themselves, suited to address different contexts in education. This issue underlines the need to further investigate the claim that this descriptive theory can provide a map for the design of education.

            In considering particular aspects of the FIT-C model, the next question probes the view of information. Does the maximal elimination of commonition during instruction proportionately enhance learner interest in learning or does this condition increase the possibility of an information overload?

            Another contribution of this theory is the formalization of Teachings as a domain. This gathers together many terms and cohesive concepts like character education, values education, key aspects of service learning, ethics, and so forth. Teachings consider two subdomains based on the concepts of justice and love. Moral education can often be centered on justice, and define an upright honest person with integrity. Yet, it does not imply altruism, and loving devotion from the individual. One of the questions to research in this domain would be the impact of Teachings on the curriculum in a practical sense. Many schools, specifically in urban areas, are an expression of a Gesellschaft, yet it is within a Gemeinschaft that Teachings are most suitably expressed. How can a Gesellschaft be reconditioned to develop the essential traits of a Gemeinschaft? The research of Lewis et al. (1999, pp. 511-36) might provide a suitable departure point.

            To further qualify this research — how can a Gemeinschaft be formed in large cosmopolitan educational settings? Can it be done? Can Teachings be taught without a sense of Gemeinschaft? Ligon (1960, p. 66) is outspoken on this matter. He states, “Human nature can never achieve it’s highest potential without religion.” Can this be refuted or verified? Is there a correlation between adhering to Teachings and belonging to a Gemeinschaft? Inversely, is there a correlation between lawlessness and the lack of a Gemeinschaft?

            The concept of verification also collects may other descriptors like learning by doing, drill and practice, exercises, problem solving, and so forth. Not so much in theory as in actual practice, there is a lack in providing adequate opportunities for self-verification to learners. Research could be conducted to specifically investigate the practical potential at large educational institutions to improve the opportunities for learners to engage in adequate self-verification.

            Just like with poetry, the moment it is published, it takes on a life of its own. Some works have a short shelf-life and they are eclipsed by other works. Yet, there are some interesting paths that theories take. Some blossom and remain popular for many years. Others become all but forgotten, with some resurfacing again, like in the case of the works of Vygotsky. Will the contribution of the FIT-C model be short lived, or will it withstand the test of time?