The main conclusion from this paper is that teachers need to take responsibility for helping students construct a working version of the structure of information in their discipline. Teachers do this by making all of the concepts and skills available to the students and then presenting students with problems in which the students have to use the concepts and skills. As Bak (****) said "Brain function is essentially created by the problems the brain has to solve." The art of being a teacher is to simultaneously understand 1) the structure of the discipline, 2) the perceived structure held by students, and 3) activities that will build students understanding. Although this information might be understood by other academic professionals (and in fact useful to them) it is the teaching portion of the job that needs to bring these three parts together. It has been my personal experience to have taught for a long time in ignorance of the importance of this structure and the development of student constructs.
The knowledge spectrum approach to analyzing course content points out the importance of new interfaces with the information. These interfaces could be activities that students perform in order to explore the information in their discipline at different scales of specificity or they might be indexing and categorizing schemes that help students see the relationships between common and rare terms. In the current use of search engines, the general terms are essentially useless because they have little discriminatory power. Students can be taught to set the domain of their search to limit the search to domains that include or are related to the more common terms. For a description of this approach see The structure of information on algae.
concluding sentence