A major cause of poor performance on tasks that require the generation of relevant subproblems, arguments, and summarizations is that many prominent twentieth-century learning theories were based on the acquisition of knowledge in simple, quantifiable terms. More recent computer and mathematical models of the mind have yet to fare much better. Most educational curricula of the 1990s continues to emphasizes the memorization of facts and the acquisition of isolated sub-skills taught out-of-context and didactically. However, human learning is a social enterprise and negotiation process, not a competitive, individual learning one. As a result, a new educational perspectiveis generating significant appeal among educators, parents, and community leaders. this new approach, known as "cognitive apprenticeship," is a unique synthesis of cognitive, developmental, and social psychology research that replaces tradtional classroom learning with more rigorous and authentic educational environments. Importantly, this course surveys a wealth of sociocultural literature to create such appreticeships and other powerful learning environments.

A key goal of this course is that we achieve an atmostphere resembling a productive, creative research group and quasi-think tank for in-depth discussions. To achieve this atmostphere, all class members must think critically about the class readings and presentations, contribute original ideas to groups discussion, and reflect on how their interests (e.g., CEP, IST, ELPS, or C&I) are influenced by research in this area. In this course, we shall examine Vygotskian and Piagetian theoretical linkages, cognitive apprenticeships and guided participatory learning, active/constructivist learning environments, social interaction and dialogue, collaborative learning, problem/project-based learning, and educational reform. During this time, we may put together models and diagrams of successful learning programs that emphasize teacher guided instruction and modeling, thinking in a context, and the trasfer of learning responsibility to the student.

Among the questions to resolve in this class include how strategies modeled during social interaction are internalized by the learner. While finding our answers, we will extensively explore and become familiar with such an amalgam of recent educational research, that, by the end of the course, we may view this new area of research--Thinking and Learning in Social Contexts--as indispensable to our educational success.

Objectives: After the course, students should be able to :

1. form personal definitions and examples for sociocultural terminology and concepts.
2. understand what journals and scholars relate to this field.
3. compare and contrast Piagetian and Vygotskian viewpoints on learning and development.
4. compare and contrast research on individual cognition and research aimed at the social context of learning.
5. describe the social underpinning of thought and language.
6. reflect on issues of power, control, and responsibility in the classroom.
7. appreciate the impact of learner interaction, shared dialogue and conflict, elec. networks, and knowledge building.
8. feel comfortable using teacher fuided and scaffolded instructional techniques,
9. interpret research and reform efforts and based on sociocultural theory.
10. design a study to look at sociocultural variables in learning.
 

A. Required Texts:
  1. B. Rogoff (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context.  NY: Oxford.
  2. Foreman, E. A., Minick, N. & Stone, C. A. (Eds.). (1993). Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in
       children's development. NY: Oxford.

B. Optional Books (Must pick 1 of the books listed for Weeks 14 and 15 books):

C. Book of Readings

Go to the top

Weekly Topical Outline:

   1  (Jan 13th):     Introduction to Syllabus, Rogoff Book, and Sociocultural Theory
   2  (Jan 20th):     Rogoff Book Continued: Cognitive Apprenticeship & Guided Participation Processes
   3  (Jan 27th):     From Rogoff to Recent Educational Debates on Piagetian and Vygotskian Theory
   4  (Feb 3rd):      Piaget vs. Vygotsky Debates: Historical and Cultural Underpinnings of Theory
                             The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming...perhaps!
   5  (Feb 10th):     Vygotsky: Scaffolding, Zones of Proximal Development, and Dynamic Assessment
                             Lisa and Curt Present: Sociocultural Theory in Real Courses and with Real People
   6  (Feb 17th):     Neo-Vygotskian Ideas: Situated Cognition, Anchored Instruction, & Reciprocal Tchg
   7  (Feb 24th):     Activity Settings and Cultural Tools/Artifacts (T#3: Draft)
   8  (Mar 3rd):      Dilemmas in Measuring Social Interaction: Peer and mentor assistance
                             Lisa to present on sociocultural conference in LA
   9  (Mar 10th):     Dilemmas in Measuring Social Inter: Conversations, Talk, and Tutoring (T#3: Final)
                             Presentation by Julia, Darnell, Judy, Gail, Sonny,  and others from previous years
                             Due (it or): DIE Assignment
  10  (Mar 24th):     Building Cognitive Apprenticeships in the Content Areas
                              Roll the Die:     Students to present best DIE stuff, even if apparently dead.
  11  (Mar 31st):     Emerging Techniques: Collaborative Writing and Cooperative Reading (T#4: Select)
  12  (Apr 7th):       Project, Problem, and Case-Based Learning Communities
  13  (Apr 14th):     Socioculturally-Based Communities of Learners (AERA Week–Lisa & Curt gone)
  14  (Apr 21th):     Student Self-Selection Week & Cog. Apprenticeship Recap (Select book) (Task #4: Final)
                              Due: Do (that's the "Due-Do") Assignment; Student Research Presentations
  15  (Apr 28th):     Student Self-Selection Week & Cog. Apprenticeship Recap (Finish book) (Task #4: Final)
                              Student Book Reports & More Research Presentations

A. Vygotskian and Piagetian Psychology--Vygotsky-related terms: zones of proximal development, internalization, potential and actual developmental level, dynamic assessment, semiotics, cognitive tools, interpersonal & intrapersonal planes/spheres, learning potential, procedural facilitation, social constructivist, self-verbalization, verbal mediation, mediational means, inner and planful speech, other-regulation, intersubjectivity, socio-cultural and socio-historical influences on development (Piagetian terms include: assimilation, accommodation, disequilibrium, schemata, perspective taking, decentering, stages of cognitive development).

B. Cognitive Apprenticeships and Guided/Participatory Learning--social construction of knowledge, meaningfulness, situated cognition, expert scaffolding, coaching, guided interaction, teacher modeling, proleptic teaching, contextually-based learning, multicomponent strategies.

C. Constructivism and Active Learning Environments--student and teacher autonomy, negotiated meaning, active learning, shared meanings and knowledge, prior knowledge, intersubjectivity, reflectivity, student-centeredness, co-construction of meaning, student initiated learning, transformative education, misconceptions, open-ended dialogue, extending ideas.

D. Measuring Social Interaction and Dialogue--activity setting, dynamic assessment, social interaction, social interaction and dialogue, coding schemes, discourse processes, peer interaction, peer tutoring, reciprocity, student interaction, verbal dialogues, shared knowledge, audience awareness.

E. Collaborative/Cooperative Learning--heterogeneous groupings, peer response groups, reward and task structures, high level elaborations, social cognition, outside other, dyadic instruction, cognitive conflict, individual accountability, positive interdependence, controversy/consensus, cognitive restructuring, distance learning.

F. Educational Reform Programs and Techniques--instructional conversations, Electronic Learning Circles, CSILE, Foxfire, reciprocal teaching, anchored instruction, reading recovery program, whole language instruction, problem-based learning.
 

As explained below, in this class students will be expected to read the material (Task #1), discuss it with their peers (Task #2), depict their understanding of it (Task #3), and use it (Task #4).  In the fourth task, students will code and analyze a situation rich in social interaction and dialogue processes or write a comparable research proposal.  Although there is an escape clause (Task #5), it is expected that you will perform these tasks as scheduled in this syllabus or as negotiated with the instructor.

 40 pts     1. READ--Interpreter of Signs and Symbols (20% of grade).
 40 pts     2. DISCUSS--Peer Supporter, Dialogue Partner, and Negotiator of Meaning (20% of grade).
 60 pts     3. DISPLAY--Designer of Internalization-Externalization (DIE) Exhibit: (30% of grade).
 60 pts     4. DO--Analyzer of Scaffolding, Mediated Lrng, or Zones of Proximal Dev. (30% of grade).
200 pts     Total

A+ = ???  (Excellent plus)              B-  = 160 (Good minus)
A   = 187 (Excellent)                     C+ = 154 (Satisfactory plus)
A-  = 180 (Excellent minus)           C   = 147 (Satisfactory)
B+ = 174 (Good plus)                   C-  = 140 (Satisfactory minus)
B   = 167 (Good)                           F   = no work received or inadequate

1. READ--Interpreter of Signs & Symbols (20% of grade).  You will be given a checklist to indicate which assigned articles were beneficial as well as extra readings you did.  You must read three articles or chapters each week plus five of the tidbits or skipped articles.  You will be asked to react to the articles you have read as well as rate them.

2. DISCUSS--Peer Supporter, Dialogue Partner, and Negotiator of Meaning (25% of grade). This task includes attending class, leading class discussion, general participation/effort, and other investigative activities.  Once or twice during the course, each student will lead class discussion.  Volunteer discussion leaders may be solicited to take responsibility for the following week's readings.  As discussion leader, you would be responsible for coming up with several thought-provoking questions from the articles you read to get discussion started.  Thought questions can range from very general issues, to extremely specific details, to thoughts bridging most of the readings up to that point in the course.  About 5-10 typed questions with enough copies for the class is best.  Another way to support the learning of your classmates is to attend class on time.  Consequently, unexcused absences will negatively affect your grade as will consistent lateness; for instance, while 4 misses will drop you a letter grade, 8 lates will do the same.

3. DISPLAY--Designer of Internalization-Externalization (DIE) Exhibit: (30% of grade).
I want to know two things here.  First of all, how have you interpreted the history of this field (according to the readings).  Secondly, how does this field fit into your main area(s) of interest.  I want you to depict both of these two learning elements visually and sequentially.  In effect, you are to chart or outline the history of this field from your viewpoint (from left to right) at the top of a 11 X 17 sheet of paper.  Below this representation, I want to see your portrayal of the field according to your personal interests or research agenda.  In addition, you must attach a two-page or so single-spaced commentary describing the figures, insights, and ideas in your DIE exhibit.  Basically, I want to find out what you have internalized about the field in general and also what has made the most sense from your prior knowledge or point of view.  First drafts are due for class and peer review on February 24th and final timeline reports are due March 10th.  Don't kill yourself over this one!!!

These externalization activities will be graded on 6 dimensions on a 1 (low) to 10 (high) scale:

1. Ideas (info richness, elaboration, originality, interesting, unique analogies b/t top and bottom charts)
2. Sequential Flow (coherence, unity, organization, logical sequence, understandable style, clarity)
3. Completeness (adequate info presented, valid pts, fulfills task intent, some breadth and depth)
4. Relevancy (related to class topics, meaningful links to class, descriptions correspond to picture)
5. Relationships Drawn (indicates understanding, verbal descriptions, connections)
6. Overall External Representations (depth, breadth, development, impressiveness, accurate portrayal)

Portfolio underlying the Internalization-Externalization Exercise might include:
  1. Article Ratings: personal rating of articles read for class, including extra readings.
  2. Questions: questions you provide to the class readings to spark discussion and dialogue.
  3. Research Topic Selection: 1 page summary of topic chosen to fulfill task #4 below.
  4. Journal Logs: weekly personal reflections on the class or readings.
  5. Thought Papers: personal 1-3 page reflection(s) on topic(s) that motivate or inspire you.
  6. Peer Interaction Logs: recordings of discussions or debates with your peers.
  7. Article Summaries or Note cards: notes made regarding articles read.
  8. Learning Models, Flowcharts, or New Coding Schemes: innovative or integrative visuals for class topics.
  9. Personal Investigative Activity: any exploratory, inquisitive, volunteer activity to clarify an issue.
 10. Concept Maps: visual depiction of class concepts, hierarchical from top (main ideas) to bottom (details).
 11. Article Critiques: critical analysis or rebuttal of any article read.
 12. Individual or Group Presentation: present an interesting concept, film, idea, model, or activity to the class.
 13. Other: anything you have done to learn the material better.

Grading Scale from Options A, B, and C (Note 1 (low) to 10 (high) for each of the following criteria):
            1. Review of the Problem and Literature (interesting, relevant, current, organized, thorough)
            2. Research Activity/Design/Topic (clear, doable/practical, detailed, important research q's)
            3. Implications/Future Directions (generalizability, options available, research focus)
            4. Overall Richness of Ideas (richnessof information, elaboration, originality, unique coding)
            5. Overall Coherence (unity, organization, logical sequence, synthesis, style, accurate coding)
            6. Overall Completeness (adequte info presented, explicit, relevant, precise, valid pts)

Go to the top

Option A. Research Activity: (8-16 double spaced pages)
Here, I want you to code or analyze a situation rich in social interaction and dialogue processes or one wherein you might capture the mechanisms of minute cognitive change or the processes leading to the internalization of cognitive strategies. Stated another way, I want you to do something with the material we are learning. For instance, you might analyze mother-child or daycare-related situations for the degree of shared responsibility for learning, teacher or peer scaffolding, negotiations of meaning, internalization of cognitive strategies, and activities that appear within or beyond one's zone of development.  This action could take place in formal or informal settings and may include one or more partners.  Possible activities include observing and analyzing the following for teacher-student, mentor-mentee, student-student, or student-tool interactions.

Possible Data Sources:
            1. raw footage or transcripts of classroom or counseling situations (e.g., class observations, Bill Lynch's tapes).
            2. observations of literacy training situations (e.g., Reading Recovery, Success For All, Clinton's tutoring program).
            3. transcripts or tapes of mentoring or tutoring situations (Ray Smith's writing lab, study skills courses).
            4. collaborative writing interactions/correspondences (e.g., student peer feedback, conferences, social negotiation).
            5. e-mail dialogue (e.g., Alta Vista, COW, web-based instruction and distance learning, electronic correspondences).
            6. human-computer interactions in prompted lrng envirs (e.g., writing tools, ERIC on CD ROM, info kiosks).
            7. videotapes of teacher-student interactions (e.g., tapes for undergrad ed. psych. courses).
            8. CD's/videodiscs of teacher-student interactions (e.g., Kris Bosworth's small group learning disc; Duffy's SDI stuff).
            9. verbal protocol data involving coaching (e.g., Jeff Huber's IU divers or Bobby Knight's basketball camp).
            10. data from other mediated environments (e.g., parent-child interactions, counseling sessions, keystrokes, CAI).

Option B. Research Proposal: (14-20 double spaced pages)  In this option, students must write a paper on a topic related to thinking or learning in a social context that: (1) extends or modifies the research of someone else, or (2) suggests a totally unique but reasonable research project/study.  It can be either a quantitative intervention or qualitative study.  Your proposal can be related to any relevant age group.

Option C. Grant Proposal:  (See me for more information on this option; 14-20 double spaced pages)
Thoroughly read a topic area and then draft a research proposal to an institution offering grants in an area where you work (or would like to work).  You pick the funding agency, title, and monies needed ($2,000-$200,000; it's your call).  In the proposal, you should discuss such things as the topic, timeline, procedures, implications, and budget.  An extensive literature review and associated research questions should ground your proposal, while the names and addresses of 3 reviewers and your resume should end your proposal.

Option D. Other:  There are options to the above, but see me on any options you might think of.

Go to the top

Sample Formats:
Option A. Research Activity: (8-16 double spaced pages)
 
I. Title Page (Name, affiliation, topic title, acknowledgments)
II. Topic Literature and Method (7-14 pages)
      1. Res topic & materials;
      2. Brief stmt of problem and why impt (1-2 pages)
      3. Brief review of the relevant literature (3-4 pages)
      4. Methods: (2-6 pages)
                a. Subjects & design (i.e., who/how selected);
                b. Materials/setting (i.e., hard/software, text)
                c. Procedure (i.e., how data was obtained)
                d. Coding Schemes & Dep. meas/instr (i.e., how segment/code data);
                e. Analyses or comparisons
III. Results and Discussion 1. Preliminary Results; 2. Discussion of results (4-8 pages)
IV. References (APA style: see syllabus for example)
V. Appendices (e.g., pictures, charts, figures, models, tests, scoring criteria, coding procedures)

Option B. Research Proposal: (14-20 double spaced pages)
 
I. Title Page (Name, affiliation, topic title, acknowledgments)
II. Review of the Literature (6-12 pages)
       1. Intro to Topic/Problem (purpose, history, importance) (1 page)
       2. Review of Lit (contrast relevant literature on the topic) (6-9 pages)
       3. Stmt of Hypoth/Res Q's (what do you expect to occur) (1 page)
III. Method Section (3-7 pages)
       1. Subjects and design (i.e., sample, who and how assigned to groups)
       2. Materials/setting (i.e., hardware, software, text, models, figures)
       3. Dependent measures/instruments (i.e., tests)
       4. Procedure (i.e., training); 5. Other (i.e., coding, other materials); 6. Exp analyses or comparisons
IV. Results and Discussion (OPTIONAL) 1. Antic/dummied results; 2. Disc. of results
V. References (APA style: see syllabus for example)
VI. Appendices (e.g., pictures, charts, figures, models, tests, scoring criteria, coding procedures)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Escape Clause:
Just like Michael Jordan, the Indianapolis Colts, and Whitney Houston, you have an escape clause in your contract.  The escape clause here relates to Assignments #3 or #4.  If you go to AERA (held in San Diego this year from March 13th-17th) and attend 4-5 sessions related to sociocultural theory, write a one page summary of your activities, and report on these to the class, you can skip one of these two assignments.  Or if you could become involved in an AERA, MidWERA, APA or a similar conference paper or symposium proposal as a result of this class, you can skip one of these two assignments.  Or if you interview 1-2 famous sociocultural theorists during the semester, reflect upon and summarize these, and then share this with the class, you can skip one of these two assignments.  Or if you help someone analyze research from a sociocultural perspective and submit this publication or for a conference during the semester, you can skip one of these two assignments.  Or if you propose a new model or perspective for the field...

Go to the top

Week 1 (Jan 13th): Introduction to Syllabus, Rogoff Book, and Sociocultural Theory
         1. Glossary for P600, Deborah Hamilton (1994).

Week 2 (Jan 20th): Rogoff Book Continued: Cognitive Apprenticeship & Guided Participation Processes
        1. Rogoff: Apprent. in Thinking; pp. 1-110 (Esp. Chapters 2, 4, & 5)
Tidbits:
        2. John Dewey, (1897). My Pedagogic Creed, The School Journal, 54(3), 77-80.
        3. APA Presidential Task Force on Psychology in Education/McREL, (1993). Learner-centered psychological
                principles: Guidelines for school redesign and reform, Washington, DC: APA.

Week 3 (Jan 27th): From Rogoff to Recent Educational Debates on Piagetian and Vygotskian Theory
        1. Rogoff: Apprent. in Thinking; pp. 111-210 (Esp. Chapt. 7, 9, & 10)
Tidbits:
        2. Debate: Educational Researcher, (1994), 23(7), pp. 4-23:
                                a. Cobb: Constructivism in Mathematics and Science Education
                                b. Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott: Constructing Scientific Know in the Classroom
                                c. Cobb: Where in Mind? Constructivist and Sociocultural Perspectives on Math Devel.
                                d. Bereiter: Constructivism, Socioculturalism, and Paper's World 3.
         3. DeVries, R., (1997). Piaget's social theory. Educational Researcher, 26(2), 4-17.

Week 4 (Feb 3rd): Piaget vs. Vygotsky Debates: Historical and Cultural Underpinnings of Theory
         1. Forman et al. Ch. #14. Wertsch et al., A sociocultural approach to agency.
         2. Marti, E., (1996). Mechanisms of internalisation and externalisation of knowledge in Piaget's and Vygotsky's
                theories. In A. Tryphon, & J. Voneche (Eds.), Piaget-Vygotsky: The social genesis of thought (pp. 57-83).  East
                Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
         3a. Davydov, V. V. (1995). The influence of L. S. Vygotsky on education theory, research, and practice.  Educational
                Researcher, 24(3), 12-21.
         3b. Davydov, V. V., & Zinchenko, V. P. (1993). Vygotsky's contribution to the development of psych.  In H. Daniels
                (Ed.), Charting the agenda: Educ. activity after Vygotsky (Chapter 5: P. 93-106).  NY: Routledge.
         4. Confrey, J. (1995). How compatible are radical constructivism, sociocultural approaches, and social constructivism?
                In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in ed.  (pp. 185-225). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tidbits:
         5. Blanck, G. (1990). Vygotsky: The man and his cause.  In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional
                implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 31-58).  NY: Cambridge.
         6. Vygodskaia, G. L. (1995). Remembering father. Educational Psychologist, 30(2), 57-59.
         7. Kerr, S. (1997). Why Vygotsky: The role of theoretical psychology in Russian educational reform.  Paper
                presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies.  Seattle, WA:
                University of Washington.
         8. Lipman, M. (1991). Squaring Soviet theory with American practice.  Educational Leadership, 48, 72-76
 

Week 5 (Feb 10th): Vygotsky: Scaffolding, Zones of Proximal Development, and Dynamic Assessment
        1. Forman et al. Ch. #1. Moll & Whitmore, Vygotsky in classroom practice: Moving from ind trans to social.
        2. Forman et al. Ch. #6. Stone, What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding?
        3. Gaffney, J. S., & Anderson, R. C. (1991). Two-tiered scaffolding: Congruent processes of teaching and learning. In E.
                H. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices, & policies.  NY: Teachers College
                Press.
        4. Lunt, I. (1993). The practice of assessment.  In H. Daniels (Ed.), Charting the agenda: Educational activity after
                Vygotsky (Chapter 7: pp. 145-170).  NY: Routledge.
Tidbits:
        5. Kozulin, A., & Falk, L. (1995). Dynamic cognitive assessment of the child. Current Directions in Psychological
                Science, 4(6), 192-196.

Go to the top

Week 6 (Feb 17th): Neo-Vygotskian Ideas: Situated Cognition, Anchored Instruction, & Reciprocal Tchg
        1. Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling, and literate discourse.  In L. C. Moll
                (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp.
                175-205).  NY: Cambridge.
        2. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cog & the culture of lrng.  Ed Res'er, 18(1), 32-42.
        3. Cognition & Tech Grp at Vandy (1990). Anchored instr & its rel. to situated cog.  Educ. Res'er, 19(6) 2-10.
        4. Forman et al. Ch. #2. Palincsar, Brown, & Campione. First-grade dialogues for knowledge acq and use.  (And
                Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. RER, 64(4), 479-487.)
Tidbits:
        5. Cunningham, D. J., & Clark, K. M. (1998, Jan-Feb.). Wherever you go, there you are.  Educational Researcher.
                Book Review of: Situated cognition: social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives. D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson
                (Eds.),  Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
        6. Billett, S. (1996). Situated lrng: Bridging sociocultural & cognitive theorizing. Learning & Instruction, 6(3), 263-280.
        7. Lebrow D., (1993). Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward a new mindset.
                ETR&D, 41(3), 4-16.

Week 7 (Feb 24th): Activity Settings and Cultural Tools/Artifacts
        1. Kozulin, A. (1986). The concept of activity in Soviet Psychology: Vygotsky, his disciples, and critics. American
                Psychologist, 41(3), 264-274.
        2. John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H., (1995). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian
                Framework.  Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 191-206.
        3. Wells, G. (1996). The zone of proximal development and its implications for learning and teaching.  URL:
                http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/~gwells/zpd.discussion.txt, pp. 1-19.
        4. Hutchins, E. (1993). Learning to navigate.  In S. Chailklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives
                on  activity and context (pp. 35-63).  New York: Cambridge University Press.
        5. Gelman, R., Massey, C. M., & McManus, M. (1991). Characterizing supporting environments for cognitive
                development: Lessons from children in a museum.  In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.),
                Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition.  Washington, D.C.: APA.
        6. Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition.  In G. Salomon (Ed.),
                Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1-46).  New York: Cambridge.
        7. Bonk, C. J., & Kim, K. A. (in press). Chapter 3: Extending sociocultural theory to adult learning.  In M. C. Smith & T.
                Pourchot (Ed.), Adult learning and development: Perspectives from educational psychology.  Erlbaum.

Week 8 (Mar 3rd): Dilemmas in Measuring Social Interaction: Peer & Mentor Assistance
        1. Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: The untapped potential.  Journal of Applied Dev Psych, 5, 331-343.
        2. Granott, N. & Gardner, H. (1994). When minds meet: Interactions, coincidence, & development in domains of ability.
                In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intel. NY:
                Cambr.
        3. Webb, N. M. (1982). Student interaction and lrng in small groups.  Review of Ed Res, 5(3), 421-445.
        4. Forman et al. Ch. #3. Chang-Wells & Wells, Dynamics of discourse: Literacy & construction of knowledge.
        5. Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups.
                Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 406-423.
        6. Forman et al. Ch. #10. Rogoff et al. Toddler's guided partic with their caregivers in cultural activity.
        7. Forman et al. Ch. #9. Forman & McPhail, Vygotskian pers. on children's collab ps activities.

Week 9 (Mar 10th): Dilemmas in Meas Social Inter: Conversations, Talk, & Tutoring
        1. Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition.  In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D.
                Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cog. (Ch 8: pp. 150-171).  Washington, D.C.: APA.
        2. Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom.  Learning and Instruction,
                6(4), 359-377.
        3. Meloth, M. M., & Deering, P. D. (1994). Task talk and task awareness under different cooperative learning
                conditions.  AERJ, 31(1), 138-165.
        4. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Bentz, J., Phillips, N. B., & Hamlett, C. L. (1994). The nature of student interactions during
                peer tutoring with and without prior training and experience.  AERJ, 31(1), 75-103.
        5. King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and
                how to explain.  AERJ, 31(2), 338-368.

Week 10 (Mar 24th): Building Cognitive Apprenticeships in the Content Areas
        1. Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension: Inquiry, instruction, and social
                interaction.  Review of Educational Research, 67(3), 271-299.
        2. Jarvela, S. (1996). Qualitative features of teacher-student interaction in a technologically rich learning environment
                based on a cognitive apprenticeship model.  Machine-Mediated Learning, 5(2), 91-107.
        3. Cohen, M., & Riel, M. (1989). The effect of distant audiences on students' writing.  American Educational Research
                Journal, 26(2), 143-159.
        4. Clay, M. M., & Cazden, C. B. (1990).  A Vygotskian interpretation of Reading Recovery.  In L. C. Moll (Ed.),
                Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and approaches of sociohistorical psychology.  NY:
                Cambridge University Press.
        5. Willemson, E. W., & Gainen, J., (1995). Reenvisioning statistics: A cognitive apprenticeship approach.  New
                Directions for Teaching and Learning, 61, 99-108.

Go to the top

Week 11 (Mar 31st): Emerging Techniques: Collaborative Writing and Cooperative Reading
        1. McKenna, M. C., Robinson, R. D., & Miller, J. W. (1990). Whole language: A research agenda for the 90's. Ed
                Res'er, 19(8), 3-6.; rejoinder: Edelsky (pp. 7-11); reply: McKenna (pp. 12-13).
        2. Saunders, W. M. (1989). Collab wrtg tasks & peer interaction. Int'l Journal of Ed. Res., 13(1), 101-112.
        3. Greene, S., & Ackerman, J. M. (1995). Expanding the constructivist metaphor: A rhetorical perspective on literacy
                research and practice.  Review of Educational Research, 65(4), 383-420.
        4. Condon, M. F., & Clyde, J. A. (1996). Co-authoring: Composing through conversation.  Language Arts, 73,
                587-594.
        5. Olsen, D. R. (1995). Writing and the mind.  In J. V. Wertsch, P. Del Rio, & A. Alvarez, (Eds.), Sociocultural studies
                of mind (pp. 95-123).  NY: Cambridge University Press..
        6. Nicolopoulou, A. (1997). The invention of writing and the development of numerical concepts in Sumeria: Some
                implications for developmental psychology.  In M. Cole, Y. Engestrom, & O. Vasquez (Eds.), Mind, culture, and
                activity: Seminal papers from the laboratory of comparative human cognition (pp. 205-225).  NY:
                Cambridge.

Week 12 (April 7th): Project, Problem, and Case-Based Learning Communities
        1. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist
                framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design
                (pp. 135-148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
        2. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motiv.
                project-based lrng: Sustaining the doing, supporting the lrng. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369-398.
        3. Williams, S. B. (1992). Putting case-based instruction into context: Examples from legal and medical education. The
                Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(4), 367-427.
        4. Carver, S. M. (1995). Cognitive apprenticeships: Putting theory into practice on a large scale.  In C. N. Hedley, P.
                Antonacci, & M. Rabinowitz (Eds.), Thinking & literacy: The mind at work (pp. 203-228).  Hillsdale, NJ:
                Erlbaum.

Week 13 (Apr 14th): Socioculturally-Based Communities of Learners
        1. Forman et al. Ch. #11. Tharp, R. (1993). Instit & Social Context of Educ Prac & Reform, 269-282.
        2. Forman et al. Ch. #12. (1993). Generation & transmission of shared know in the culture of collab lrng: The fifth
                dimension, its play-world, and its instit contexts, pp. 283-314.
        3. Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise
                in the classroom.  In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations
                (pp. 188-228).  New York: Cambridge University Press.
        4. Barron, B., Vye, N., Zech, L., Schwartz, D. Bransford, J., Goldman, S., et al. (1995). Creating contexts for
                community-based problem solving: The Jasper challenge series.  In C. N. Hedley, P. Antonacci, & M. Rabinowitz
                (Eds.), Thinking and literacy: The mind at work (pp. 47-71).  Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tidbits:
        5. Foreman et al. Remaining Articles:
                  a. Minick, Stone, & Forman--Introduction: Integ of Indiv, Social, and Institutional.
                  b. Hatano–Commentary: Time to Merge Vygotskian and Constructivist Conceptions.
                  c. Packer--Commentary: Away with Internalization.
                  d. Serpell–Commentary: Interface between Sociocultural &  Psych Aspects of Cog.
                  e. Goodnow--Afterword: Direction of Post-Vygotskian Research.

Go to the top
 
Week 14 (Apr 21st): Student Self-Selection Week & Recap (Select from books below)
I. Child Track:

     1a. Brady, S. & Jacobs, S. (1994). Mindful of others: Teaching children to teach.  Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
     1b. Farnham-Diggory, Sylvia (1990). Schooling.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
     1c. FOCUS on Lrng and Mathematics: Special Issue on Vygotskian Psychology and Education. (1993).
               15(2&3).
     1d. Hiebert, E. H. (Ed.) (1991). Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices, and policies.  NY: Tchrs
               College.
     1e. Lyons, C. A., Pinnell, G. S., & DeFord, D. E. (1993). Partners in learning: Rdg Recov. NY: Teachers
               College.
     1f. Manning, Brenda H. (1991). Cognitive self-instruction for classroom processes.  Albany, NY: State Univ. of
               NY.
     1g. Pierce, K. M., & Gilles, C. J. (Eds.), (1993). Cycles of mng: Explor poten of talk in lrng commun.
               Heinemann.
     1h. Samway, Whang, & Pippitt (1995). Buddy reading: Cross-age tutoring in a multicultural school.  Heinemann.
     1i. Tharp, R. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing Minds to Life: Tchg, lrng, & schooling in social context.  NY:
             Camb.
     1j. Weaver, C. (1990). Understanding whole language: From principles to practice.  Portsmouth, NH:
              Heinemann.
     1k. Wells, G., & Chang-Wells, G. L. (1992). Construct know together: Class as ctrs of inquiry & lrng.
              Heinemann.

     2a. Forman, Janis (Ed.). (1992). New visions of collaborative writing.  Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
     2b. Galegher, J. Kraut & Egido (Eds.). (1990). Intell tmwk: Soc & tech foun of coop work. Hillsdale, NJ:
               Erlbaum.
     2c. Jarvis, Peter (1993). Paradoxes of Learning: On Becoming an Individual in Society.  San Fran, CA:
               Jossey-Bass.
     2d. Lay, M. M., & Karis, W. M. (Eds.). (1991). Collab. wtg in ind: Invest in theory & prac. Amityville, NY:
               Baywood.
     2e. Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the Learning Organization.  San Francisco, CA:
               Jossey-Bass.

    3a. Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collab lrng: Higher ed, interdependence, & the authority of knowledge. Johns
              Hopkins.
    3b. Bruner, Jerome (1990). Acts of meaning.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    3c. Chailklin & Lave (Eds.), (1993). Understanding practice: Pers on activity & context. Cambr.
    3d. Cole, M., Engestrom, Y., & Vasquez, O. (1997). Mind, culture, & act: Sem papers. NY: Cam.
    3e. Daniels, H. (Ed.). (1993). Charting the agenda: Educ. activity after Vygotsky. NY: Routledge.
    3f. Dewey (1933). How we think.  D.C. Heath & Co.
    3g. Dewey, (1956) The child & curric; The school & soc.  Univ. of Chicago Press.
    3h. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice.  NY: Cambridge University Press.
    3i. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated lrng: Legitimate peripheral partic. NY: Cambr.
    3i. Lipman, M. (1996). Natasha: Vygotskian dialogues.  NY: Teachers College Press.
    3j. Moll, L. C. (Eds.) (1990). Vyg & Ed: Instr Imps & Apps of Sociohistorical Psych.  NY: Cambr.
    3k. Newman, F. & Holzman, L. (1993). Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary Scientist.  NY: Routledge.
    3l. Resnick, L. B. et al. (Eds.). (1991). Perspectives on Socially Shared Cog.  Wash, D.C.: APA.
    3m. Rogoff, B. & Lave, L. (Eds.) (1984). Everyday cog: Its devel in social context. Cam, MA: Harv.
    3o. Steffe, L. P. & Gale, J. (Eds.) (1995). Constructivism in Education.  NJ: Erlbaum.
    3p. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The devel of higher psych processes.  MA: Harvard.
    3q. Webb (Ed.). (1989). Int'l Jrnl of Ed. Res: Peer Inter, Prob-Solv, & Cog: Multidisc. Persp, 13(1).
    3r. Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.). (1985). Culture, communication, & cog: Vygotskian pers.  NY: Cambridge.
    3s. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
    3t. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural App to Mediated Action. Harvard.
    3u. Kirschner, D., & Whitson, J. A., (Eds.). (1997). Situated Cog: Soc, Semiotic, Psych Pers.  Mahwah, NJ:
                Erlbaum.
    3v. Zebroski, J. T. (1994). Thinking through theory: Vygotskian pers. on the tchg of wtg. Heinemann.

    4a. Bruce, Peyton, & Batson (Eds.). (1993). Networked-based classrooms: Promises & realities. Cambr.
    4b. Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience of learning.  NY: Routledge.
    4c. Harasim (Ed.). (1989). Online Education: Perspectives on a new environment.  NY: Praeger.
    4d. Harasim (Ed.). (1993). Global networks: Computers and international communication.  MIT Press
    4e. Koschmann, T. (1996). CSCL Theory and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum..
    4f. Newman, Griffin, & Cole (1989). The construction zone: Working for cog change in school.  Cambr.
    4g. Salomon, G. (Eds.) (1993). Distrib cognitions: Psych.'l & educ.'l considerations.  NY: Cambr.
    4h. Schrage, M. (1990). Shared minds: The new technologies of collaboration.  NY: Random House.
    4i. Vosniadou et al. (Eds.) (1996). Int'l persp. on design of tech-supported lrng envir's.  NJ: Erlbaum.
    4j. Wilson, B. G. (Eds.) (1996). Constructivist lrng envir's: Case studies in instr'l design.  NJ: Ed Tech.

Week 15 (Apr 28th): Student Self-Selection Week & Cognitive Apprenticeship Recap
        (SAME CHOICES AS WEEK 14)
 

Go to my homepage