The three main authors referenced with cognitive flexibility theory are Spiro, Feltovich, and Coulson. The theory is based on constructivism and aims to avoid oversimplification by using multiple representations for complex learning domains. This is important to prevent producing students who know terminology but cannot apply their knowledge flexibly. Instructors should encourage advanced knowledge acquisition instead of mere exposure, using varied examples and accounting for naturally occurring complexity.

1. Who, What, Where and Why of
Cognitive Flexibility – A Quick Study
Jennifer Blankenship
D505
Spring

2. What happens after you get the general
idea about something?
Lessons and learning stop being presented
“using a linear model” (Boger-Mehall, 1996)

3. Who?
Rand Spiro
Paul Feltovich
Richard Coulson
A quick survey of the
most cited works
regarding Cognitive
Flexibility reveal three
predominant authors:

4. What: Ill-structured
domains
An ill-structured domain exists “when relevant prior
knowledge is not readily organized to fit a situation”
(Spiro, Vispoel, Schmitz, Samarapungavan, & Boerger,
1987). For example, the example below wouldn’t be a
very good lesson in week two of a physics class. . .
Unless you had students with extensive background
knowledge regarding the topic. For students of
advanced physics and extensive background knowledge
it is possible to access that experience and education to
bring them to mastery of Cauchy’s theorem:

5. Ill-structured
domains
There is a distinction made between
“well-structured domains” (WSDs)
and “ill-structured domains (ISDs).
The important things to make note
of are that the instructional
“theories appropriate for WSDs are
in many ways inappropriate for
ISDs” and “that transfer in ISDs is
best promoted by knowledge
representations that possess the
following features:” (Spiro et al.,
1987)

6. Ill- structured
domains
• Multiple interconnectedness
between different aspects of
domain knowledge
• Multidimensional or
multiperspectival representation
of examples/cases
• Allowance for various forms of
naturally occurring complexity
and irregularity
(Spiro et al., 1987)

7. Ill- structured
domains
There is a catch . . .
You can’t just pick up this stuff. Ill-
structured domains are complex in nature
and the goal is not just “mere exposure to
content and the establishment of a
general orientation to a field” (Spiro et al.,
1988). Learning in ill-focused domain
content areas is on “advanced knowledge
acquisition” in which “the learner must
attain a deeper understanding of content
material, reason with it, and apply it
flexibly in diverse contexts” (1988).

8. What: Defining
Cognitive Flexibility
“A critical goal of many education
programs, especially in professional
education, is to help the students
transfer what they have learned to
different, even unique, situations”
(Boger-Mehall, 1996)
Congitive Flexibility encourages
“multiple knowledge representations”
understanding that “single perspectives
are not false, they are inadequate”
(Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, &
Coulson, 1991)

9. The Introduction to Flexibility - 1987
• Spiro, Vispoel, Schmitz, Samarapungavan, & Boerger proposed when a
student is working within an ill-structured domain “the key factors affecting
the success with which prior knowledge is used to improve performance in a
new situation will be the flexibility with which the relevant prior knowledge
is represented in memory, and the mastery or control the individual has over
those flexible representations (the ability to recombine elements of the
representations, reorder the importance of elements in different contexts,
and so on)” (1987).

10. What are the
goals?
According to Spiro, Collins, Thota, and
Feltovich, Cognitive Flexibility Theory
works to “address four main goals” which
are:
• Helping people to learn important but
difficult subject matter
• Fostering adaptively flexible use
knowledge in real-world settings
• Changing underlying ways of thinking
• Developing hypermedia learning
environments to promote complex
learning and flexible knowledge
application (Spiro et al., 1991)

11. What it is not – Single
Case Study and
Simplification
“Straightforward, linear instruction in the
form of tutorials, lectures, and many other
formats will, according to cognitive
flexibility theory, fail to accomplish
important educational objectives in part
because of oversimplification of the
material presented” (Boger-Mehall, 1996).
It is not based in single case study.
“Simplification of complex subject matter
makes it easier for teacher to teach,”
however it results in students who “lack
the ability to use their knowledge in new
ways, the ability to think for themselves”
(Spiro et al., 87).

12. Where is the basis for
this theory?
According to Boger-Mehall
“cognitive flexibility theory supports
the basic assumptions of
constructivism” and “it promotes
authentic, realistic experiences for
each individual.” “It encourages the
use of multiple pathways and
multiple purposes when
approaching problems” (1996)

13. Why is this
important?
“Oversimplification” was researched
in the medical field and found to
produce “more than a dozen serious
errors in the concepts held by a
majority of medical students
tested.” They found that “these
levels of misconception interact in
reciprocally supportive ways, and
combine to yield higher order
misconceptions.” (Spiro et al., 1987)

14. How can this theory
be applied?
Spiro, Coulson, Feltovich, and Anderson
found in their research that certain
“conditions for developing mastery of
complexity and knowledge transferability”
were present. They noted, among other
conditions that it is important to practice
an “avoidance of oversimplification
and overregularization,” and mentioned
that instructors must use “multiple
representations” because “complex
concepts can rarely be adequately
represented using a single schema,
theoretical perspective, line of exposition,
and so on.” (1988).

15. The Wrap Up
• Cognitive Flexibility is based in constructivist theory, encourages instructors and
facilitators to avoid oversimplification but to utilize multiple representations of
cases for complex learning domains that require advanced knowledge acquisition
• Authors who are commonly referenced with this theory are: Spiro, Feltovich, and
Coulson
• It is important to utilize the practices encouraged in this theory to avoid producing
students who are knowledgeable about the subject matter and terminology, but are
unable to apply their learning in complex domains.

16. References
Boger-Mehall, S. (1996). Cognitive Flexibility Theory: Implications for Teaching and Teacher Education.
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, (pp. 991-993). Chesapeake.
Spiro, R., Coulson, R., Feltovich, P., & Anderson, D. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains.
Champaign, Illinois: Center for the study of reading.
Spiro, R., Vispoel, W. P., Schmitz, J. G., Samarapungavan, A., & Boeger, A. E. (1987).
Knowledge acquisition for application: cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex content domains.
Champaign, Illinois: Center for the study of reading.