P444/544: Applied Cognition and Learning Strategies
Indiana University: Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology
Spring, 2000, Room 2275 (Section 5482 & 5489; Mondays: 5:30-8:15)
Curtis J. Bonk, Ph.D., CPA
Office: 4022 Education Building
Phone: (812) 856-8353 (Office)
E-Mail: cjbonk@indiana.edu
Course
Description/Purpose:
This course, available to both graduate and undergraduate
students, offers an introduction to practical applications of cognitive
psychology. More specifically, it will
address applied cognitive learning principles and strategies such as: human
information processing; schema theory; the role of prior knowledge in learning;
thinking skills and problem solving; mnemonic/memory aids; study skills; expert-novice
research; reading comprehension strategies; process writing and protocol
analysis; problem representation and associated buggy algorithms in math;
misconceptions and constructivism research in science; ill-structured problems
in social studies; the fusing of motivation research and metacognitive learning
strategies; and issues of competence addressed by new cognitive assessment
tools. Over the course of 15 weeks, we
will come to discover why many educational psychologists have embraced applied
cognitive psychology as a framework that links researchers and teachers in
addressing student thinking skills across content areas. Students will be encouraged to consider how
their own area(s) of interest (e.g., IST, business, adult literacy, special
ed., etc.) are influenced by new strategies or approaches within cognitive
psychology.
This course is designed to assist students in building deeper and more reasoned understanding of human learning both in and outside of school and its relationship to assessment and vice versa. The course will focus on two central and related questions: (1) "How do we learn?" and (2) "What is fair assessment of this learning?" Another key focus of this course is to familiarize students with the overlap and similarities within various domain-specific cognitive psychology research areas (e.g., reading, writing, math, science, and social studies). We will move from general theory to specific applications and assessment devices in various contexts and subject areas. The latter weeks will be reserved for personal article selections and explorations. Each week, there will be a myriad of articles for you to read, evaluate, and critically discuss. Hopefully, the strategies and approaches discussed in these articles will not be viewed as prescriptions, but as possibilities.
In this class, an active learner strategy will be promoted. Nevertheless, extensive lecture on the assigned readings may occur at appropriate moments, followed by discussion, other impromptu and informal lectures, or small group activities. My hope is that we can achieve an atmosphere resembling a productive think tank. We will attempt to do this by combining in-depth discussions, student generated ideas, self-directed learning activities, and our own journal publications. Extensive reading will be assigned early to develop a common cognitive knowledge base along with your own personal models and viewpoints on learning and cognition. I also plan to incorporate a number of self-selection weeks and small group activities to foster student conceptual growth and understanding. During class activities, we may try out some of the cognitive assessment tools discussed in that week's articles or hold candid discussions about your own studying, reading, writing, and math strategies. Such activities are meant to open your eyes to the diverse thinking and learning possibilities available to each of you everyday. In effect, this class will help you learn about yourself as a learner, teacher, and researcher.
Objectives: after the course,
students should be able to:
1. Explain the
theoretical and practical significance of applied cognitive psychology.
2. Develop and
use cognitive strategies.
3. Explain the
importance of both a knowledge base and general problem solving strategies.
4. Demonstrate
methods of individualizing strategy instruction for struggling students.
5. Arrange
learning environments wherein students reflect on their thinking processes.
6. Build a
climate for student respect and responsibility for thinking and learning
strategies.
7. Explain the
significance of expert-novice differences in various content areas.
8. Evaluate
educational innovations and recommendations related to cognitive processes.
9. Identify
key journals and authors that address issues in this field.
10. Evaluate the importance of learning and cognition
research presented at various conferences.
Texts:
1. Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R. R.
(1999). Cognitive psychology and instruction (3rd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
2. Book of Readings (available at Mr.
Copy).
Proposed Topical Outline (weekly
topic and class activities):
Week 1
Jan. 10th Applied Cognitive Terms and
Principles
Week 2
Jan. 17th Human Info Processing (HIP)
Theory (Holiday: No Classes this week!!!)
Week 3
Jan. 24th Study Skills Training,
Literacy, and Learning Strategies (Class: explore Web)
Week 4
Jan. 31st Thinking Skill & Problem
Solving Progs(Self-Sel #1: Applics) (Jeap
Quiz?)
Week 5
Feb. 7st Reading Comprehension Processes
and Metacognition
Week 6
Feb. 14th Writing Processes, Tools, and
Protocols
Week 7
Feb. 21th Mathematical Problem Solving
Strategies and New Standards
Week 8
Feb. 28th Scientific Inquiry,
Constructivism, and Misconceptions
Week 9 Mar
6th Social Science Problem
Fuzziness and Classroom Thoughtfulness
DUE: III.
Concept Maps or Take Quiz; Auction: Starving Artists Art Fair
Week 10
Mar 20st Motivation and
Cognition: Fusing Skill and Will
Week 11
Mar 27st Alternative Cognitive
Assessment and Achievement
Week 12
April 3rd Emergence of a Field (Self-Selection #2: Theory) (Class:
debate or séance)
Debate: Mayer (Males: indiv cognition) vs Derry (Females: social
context)
Week 13
April 10th Course Interlude and
Catch Up (Self-Selection #3: Research)
Week 14
April 17th Personal
Explorations (Self-Selection #4: Anything
goes!)
DUE: II. Group Reports on Self-Directed Activities and Explorations
Week 15
April 24th Team Mtgs &
Final Personal Explorations (Self-Select
#5: Anything goes!)
Due: IV.
Journal Publications & Poster Presentations; Final Remarks
Week 16 May 1st Class
Celebration: Journal Reports and Discussion of AERA
Summary of
Course Implementation and Grading:
Final grades in this class will be based on
performance on:
70 Points I.
Participation, Mentoring, & Attendance (to share and reinforce new
knowledge);
50 Points II.
Self-Directed Learning Presentation Activity (to extend knowledge in interest
areas);
70 Points III.
Concept Mapping Task or Quiz Option (to construct & represent knowledge or
regurg);
110 Points IV. Scholarly Journal Publications (to generate
new knowledge and put into action).
300 Total
Points
I will use the following rating scale at the end of
the semester, though it may change slightly:
A+ = highest
score B+ = 260 points C+ = 230 points
A = 280
points B = 250 points C
= 220points
A- = 270 points B- = 240 points F/incomplete = no work received or
inadequate.
Proposed Summary of Requirements:
I. Attendance (10 pts) + Class partic (20 pts) + Nicenet
+ 20 Pts (Mentoring) = 70 pts)
Your
class attendance of 10 points will be accrued from taking attendance randomly
throughout the semester; only physicians or university excuse are acceptable
here.
For 20
points, do the readings and participate each week. Typically, this includes something from the Bruning book plus 2
other readings. GSO indicates that is a
“Graduate Student Only” reading or at
the graduate level. In addition to your
three standard readings per week, everyone is to read 6 of the tidbits during
the semester and summarize what you learned from 3 of them in a 3-4 paragraph
paper to be turned in at the end of the semester. We also have a class discussion area in Nicenet
(http://www.nicenet.org/); try class password of: S20025A76. In using
Nicenet, we will have one person (i.e., the starter) read ahead each week and
start discussion (e.g., post issues and questions related to the articles and
recap them). Another person (i.e., the
wrapper) will summarize any discussion as well as the class lecture for the
week. Everyone must sign up to be a
starter or a wrapper for one week during the semester. Summary of the tidbits read and your Nicenet
work is worth 20 additional points (this task is due April 10th).
You will
also be expected to serve as mentors or counselors to undergraduates at the
University of Oulu in Finland. These
students will be writing case problems or issues that they see on Finnish
schools on the Web using a new tool called ProTo (see:
http://proto.oulu.fi). I want you to
respond to 6-12 times this semester in ProTo.
Here, you are to give advice, coach, question, provide feedback, cajole,
connect ideas, define terms and concepts, relate ideas to the research
literature, and push students to articulate and explore more. Your ProTo discussion and mentoring will be
turned in on April 10th along with a one page or so reflection on
what applied cognitive principles were reinforced for you during this
task. This is worth 20 points. These
will be graded for completeness, relevancy, helpfulness, orignality, and
coherence. We might bring our ProTO
discussions to 3-4 of our classes to spur class discussion of controversial
topics.
II. Self-Select Tasks (Indiv Reflections (30 pts)
+ Group Present Pts (20 Pts) = 50 Pts
You
have 4-5 weeks to read what you want in this class. Initially, (i.e., Week 3), this is more of an individual
task. Later on in the semester, (i.e.,
Weeks 12, 13, 14, and 15), you will working with a group of peers with common
interests in completing a final project and writing a journal (see below). During your self-selection assignments, I
would like for you to reflect on how your explorations fostered important
learning and cognition connections. To
do this, I would like for you to fill out some reflection worksheets I provide
intended to document the linkages and thinking this assignment
facilitated. Additionally, at the end
of the group activity, your group will make a presentation to the class of what
you've learned.
III. Knowledge Representation and Regurgitation:
Cmaps or Quiz (70 Points)
A. Concept Mapping Task Option
(CMAPS)
A. 1. Concept Map Inspiration: In this
task, I want you to demonstrate your own unique course linkages, conceptual
gains, and new knowledge based on lectures, text, and other sources. To accomplish this, I would like each of you
to create three computer-enhanced concept maps of your understanding of key
P444/544 terms and ideas (some terms are below), using a software tool such as,
Inspiration, or some other tool which
I might demonstrate how to use. Your
three concept maps should cover the following: (1) Human Information Processing
or the Applied Cognitive Field; (2) Learning Strategies, Expert-Novice
Research, or Cognitive Psychology related to a particular field of study (e.g.,
reading); and (3) any other topic or one based on your self-directed reading
(related to this class). Once your
ideas are generated, you are encouraged to share your ideas and explorations
with others in the class. I would like
for you to specify the main ideas (i.e., put macropropositions at or near the
top of the concept map), details/minor ideas (i.e., micropropositions near the
bottom of the map/web), causal relationships between terms (i.e., put in some
lines and arrows to link terms), and verbal descriptions of relationships and
connections. The CMaps are due between
March 6th. We will auction your best
work in a Starving Artists Art Fair and Gallery Tour at that time.
A. 2.
Personal Glossary: Keep a list of at least 30-40 terms related to this
class that you have identified as personally important to you in your concept
maps or in the course (e.g., a new word you can identify with) and update this
as you do the readings. Alphabetize
your list and provide both a textbookish definition and a personal
one. The personal one should be
flavored with a practical or personal example.
A. 3. Term-Map Verbal Linkage: For those that lack visual and artistical wizardry,
don't fret, I also require a verbal description of one's glossaries and maps as
well as associated changes during the assignment. You should attach this two-page or so single-spaced commentary to
your glossaries and concept map drawings to illustrate what you have
internalized and linked to your prior knowledge.
CMAPS Quality
Rating (Scale 1
(low) to 10 (high) for this dimension) Grading on 7 dimensions:
1. Ideas (info richness, elaboration, originality,
interesting, unique analogies in maps and writing)
2. Clarity (sequential flow, coherence, unity,
organization, logical sequence, understandable style)
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 personal
understanding, verbal descriptions, connections, some uniqueness)
6. Format (mechanics, spelling, grammar, sentence
structure, readable, indexed symbols, coded, presentable)
7. Overall Creative and Logical Reps & Examples
(impressiveness, original, artistic, unusual, color, design, perspective,
depth, breadth, development, accurate, coherent/useful summary)
B. Quiz
Option (70 Points):
Instead
of the concept mapping task, you can take a quiz on the Bruning et al. Book and
the first few weeks of class discussion and lecture. It will be primarily a matching, true-false, and multiple choice
test. It will cover Chapters 1-5, 8-14,
though the first 5 will be the primary emphasis. There may be a couple of short answer essay at the end.
IV. Scholarly Journal Publication Assignment (110
points):
Let's
create our own applied cognition and learning strategy scholarly journals! First, we'll create editorial boards that
will be responsible for "publishing" an issue of a journal. This means soliciting manuscripts by means
of a journal purpose and scope, reviewing articles, making acceptance and
rejections decisions, providing feedback and guidance to authors, writing
editorial notes, receiving "camera ready" copy from each author, and,
ultimately, producing a scholarly journal issue. The completed issue will be submitted to the instructor for
evaluation with the number of articles equaling the number of members of the
editorial team. As in the past, the
final self-selection groups will likely become an editorial board and produce a
scholarly journal together. (Note: an
undergraduate student cannot be the head editor, group leader, or
publisher.)
By April
3rd, students will submit ideas to the editorial board with a brief (i.e., 1-2
paragraph) proposal of the piece that the author seeks to publish (they should
also run their ideas by the instructor that day). Once an editorial board accepts a proposal, the author can begin
to prepare the article for publication.
The editorial board will be responsible for draft development, editorial
advice, final layout, and placement. By
April 17th, each editorial board will create its own journal or personal
publication of peer work (tools like Pagemaker
work well here). Each journal should
have: (a) a journal title or label; (b) journal purpose and scope page, (f)
detailed admission and review policies (e.g., length of manuscripts, response
time, acceptance rate), (g) an article introduction section (i.e., introduce
the articles in this issue) and, at the end, (h) put out a "call for
papers" on a topic of your choice for the next issue of the journal. Other useful items include: a sample
reviewer evaluation form, lists of reviewers, journal costs, annual
circulation, etc.
Please
keep names of research subjects or participants confidential, use APA format,
and note your affiliation and title.
Appendices might include charts, figures, models, tests, scoring
criteria, coding procedures, and pictures.
Publish/print at least two copies of your journal (one that I can write on). All articles should be about 5-15
single-spaced pages in length on a topic of your own choice. Note that the assignment is worth 110
points: 70 points for your work and 20 points for the journal format, clarity,
originality, and completeness as well as 20 other points based on the average
score of the papers in your particular journal. The instructor has many example journals from previous years to
share.
Journal Publication Manuscript Options:
A. Review
of the Research or Thinking Skill Program:
In this option, you are to review the literature in an area you find interesting related to this class. Typically, this would entail a critical review of the research, but this option also encourages reviews of thinking skill, study skill, and problem solving programs. In your article, describe the topic, its importance, the problem, key steps or procedures, the relevant research (including study designs, methods, results), interpretations, the practical implications, and future directions of this field. Be sure to select a fairly narrow topic area or ask for help.
B.
Research Proposal:
Here students must write up an applied cognitive study
related to this class that extends or modifies the research of someone else or
suggests a totally unique but reasonable research project or study. The topic can be regarding anything related
to applied cognition and learning strategies (i.e., any domain or age group),
but need not include actual data or research findings; this is simply a
proposal. Please include the following
information about your topic in your summary proposal: Topic intro, brief
literature review (introduce topic/problem, history, importance, relevant
literature), proposed method of inquiry/intervention (with hypotheses, sample
size, age group(s), materials and setting, dependent measures/instruments (if
applicable), and procedures. In
addition, you have the option of including a section with anticipated or
dummied results and pictures of your grandmother.
C. Book,
Conference, Technical/Government Report, or Special Journal Issue Review:
This option allows you read an applied cognitive book, a series of articles in a special journal issue, conference proceedings, or government report on a topic you are interested in and then write a paper that links these articles, reports, or book chapters to this class. Your review will be written in a combined critique/reader advice column pointing out the strengths, weaknesses, and appropriate audience for this book, proceedings, report, or special issue in terms of the applied cognitive field. You must also mention points of interest, whether it extends the field, any flaws, and what one might expect to gain from obtaining a copy. Basically, you should be helping one decide if this work is worth perusing.
D.
Creating Responses, Rejoinders, and Rebuttals:
Here, I would like for you to either find a sequence of applied cognitive articles wherein the authors are debating each other and trace their arguments (e.g., commentary-reply-rejoinders, point-counterpoint). Then write your own rebuttal or response to them. Or, if you cannot find any, than just find a controversial article and write a critique to it. I would like for you to trace the arguments, points, and counterpoints made in each article as they relate to the material from this class. If you feel creative, you might want to write a few plausible arguments the original authors might make to your claims or add a visual regarding the debate.
E.
Creating Fictional Educational Psychologists Interviews:
You can also create a unique dialogue among researchers and theorists hashing out an issue. Identify 1-3 key players in a field and select a controversial article on a topic they might be interested in and write a fictitious but plausible interview. Write the transcript to the discussion or interview(s) they might have on a controversial topic or book. Include research flaws and concerns that would be noted by each member.
F.
Other—You decide!!! (with approval from the instructor)
Sample
Grading Criteria for this assignment (70 points for your manuscript)
1. Ideas
(richness of information, elaboration, originality, interesting)
2. Originality (creativity, unusualness,
artistic, max effort, risk)
3.
Coherence (clarity, unity, organization, transitions, logical sequence,
synthesis, style)
4.
Completeness (adequate info presented, fulfilled spirit of assignment, depth of
disc.)
5. Linkage (relevancy to class, impt
points made, shows evidence of learning, chapter refs)
6.
Mechanics (spelling, format, punctuation, grammar, sentence structure)
7. Overall Holistic (general impression
rating, summary rating)
Scale: 1 (low) to 10 (high) for each
dimension = 70 Possible Points
Scholarly Journal Scores (5 + 5 + 5
+ 5 + 20 = 40 Possible Points):
____
Journal format/layout/organization +
____
Clarity/readable/logic +
____
Originality/unique/creativity +
____
Completeness/elaboration/fulfills spirit of assignment +
____ Average Journal Article Scores =
____ Your Group
Score
Weekly Course Readings:
Week 1: Applied Cognitive Terms and Principles
Tidbits:
D’Arcangelo,
M. (1998). The brains behind the brain. Educational
Leadership, 56(3), 20-26.
Fischer,
K. W., & Rose, S. P. (1998). Growth and cycles of brain and mind. Educational
Leadership, 56(3), 56-60.
Week 2: Human Information Processing (HIP) Theory
Bruning,
Schraw, & Ronning (1999). Chapters 3-5
GSO: Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Hare, V.
C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy
talk about knowledge. Review of
Educational Research, 61(3),
315-343.
GSO: Alexander, P. A. (1996). The past,
present, and future of knowledge research: A reexamination of the role of
knowledge in learning and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 89-92.
Tidbits:
Brandt, R.
(1998). What do we know from brain research? Educational Leadership, 56(3),
8-13
Bruer, J.
T. (1998). Brain science, brain fiction. Educational Leadership, 56(3), 14-18.
Jensen, E.
(1998). How Julie’s brain learns. Educational
Leadership, 56(3), 41-45.
Week 3: Study Skills Training, Literacy, and Learning
Strategies
Derry, S. J. (1988/89). Putting learning strategies
to work. Educational Leadership, 46(4),
4-10.
Mastropieri,
M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1991). Teaching
students ways to remember: Strategies for learning mnenomically. Chapter 2: Mnemonic vocabulary instruction:
Using the keyword method (pp. 9-29). Cambridge,
MA: Brookline Books.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1992). Remembering
the forgotten art of memory. American Educator, Winter, 31-37.
GSO: King,
A. Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as
strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational research Journal, 29(2), 303-323.
GSO:
Kiewra, K. A., & Mayer, R. E., Christensen, M., Kim, S-I., Risch, N.
(1991). Effects of repetition an recall and note-taking strategies for learning
from lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 120-123.
Tidbits:
Rafferty,
C. D. (1999). Literacy in the information age.
Educational Leadership, 57(2), 22-25.
O’Grady,
A. (1999). Information literacy skills and the senior project, Educational Leadership, 57(2), 61-62.
Week 4: Thinking Skill & Problem Solving Programs (Self-Selection
#1: Applic’s)
Student
Self-Selected Articles from Library Reserve Stack or from own findings and
resources. (please read 3 chapters)
Tidbits:
Richetti, C., & Sheerin, J. (1999). Helping
students ask the right questions. Educational Leadership. 57(3),
58-62.
Krynock,
K., & Robb, L. (1999). Problem solved: How to coach cognition. Educational
Leadership, 57(3), 29-32.
McKeown,
M. G., & Beck, I. L. (1999). Getting the discussion started.
Educational Leadership. 57(3),
25-28.
Week 5: Reading Comprehension Processes and Metacognition
Bruning,
Schraw, & Ronning (1999). Chapters 11; maybe skim 10.
Pressley,
M., & Associates (1990). Cognitive
strategy instruction that really works.
Chapter 3--Reading Comprehension strategies (pp. 45-69). Cambridge,
MA: Brookline.
Paris, S.
G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning
and instruction. In B. F. Jones &
L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking
and cognitive instruction (pp. 15-51).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
GSO:
Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children's metacognition about
reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational
Psychologist, 22(3 & 4),
255-278.
GSO:
Navaez, D., van den Broek, P., Ruiz, A. B. (1999). The influence of reading
purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 91(3),
488-496.
Tidbits:
D’Arcangelo,
M. (1999). Learning about learning to read: A conversation with Sally Shaywitz.
Educational Leadership, 57(2), 26-31.
Daniels,
H., Zemelman, S., & Bizar, M. (1999). Whole language works: Sixty years of
research. Educational Leadership, 57(2), 32-37.
Week 6: Writing Processes, Tools, and Protocols
Bruning, Schraw, & Ronning (1999). Chapter 12
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge
telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: (Vol. #2) Reading, writing, and
language learning. New York: NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Hayes, J.
R., & Flower, L. S. (1983). Uncovering cognitive processes in writing: An
intro to protocol analysis. In P.
Mosenthal, & L. Tamor (Eds.), Research
on writing: Principles and methods (Chapter 7: pp. 207-220). New York: Longman.
Bonk, C. J., & Reynolds, T. H. (1992). Early
adolescent composing within a generative-evaluative computerized prompting
framework. Journal of Computers in Human Behavior, 8(1), 39-62.
GSO: Zimmerman, B. J. & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring
writing revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory
goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 241-250.
Tidbit:
Mabry, L. (1999). Writing to the rubric: Lingering
effects of traditional strandardized testing on direct writing assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), 673-679.
Week 7: Mathematical Problem Solving Strategies and New
Standards
Bruning, Schraw, & Ronning (1999). Chapter 13
Romberg, T. A. (1992). Mathematics learning and
teaching: What we have learned in ten years.
In C. Collins & J. N. Mangieri (Eds.), Teaching thinking: An agenda for the 21st century (pp. 43-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Peterson,
P. L. (1994). Knowledge transforming:
Teachers, students, and researchers as learners in a community. In J. N. Mangieri & C. C. Block (Eds.),
Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students: Diverse perspectives (pp.
51-79). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace & Company.
GSO: Low,
R., & Over, R. (1993). Gender differences in solution of algebraic word
problems containing irrelevant information.
Journal of Educational Psychology,
85(2), 331-339.
GSO:
Rittle-Johnson, B., Alibali, M. W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge
of mathematics: Does one lead to the other?
Journal of Educational Psychology,
91(1), 175-189.
Tidbits:
Crawford,
M., & Witte, M. (1999). Strategies for mathematics: Teaching in
context. Educational Leadership, 57(3).
34-38.
Goldsmith,
L. T., & Mark, J. (1999). What is standards-based mathematics curriculum. Educational Leadership, 57(3). 34-38.
Week 8: Scientific Inquiry, Constructivism, and
Misconceptions
Bruning,
Schraw, & Ronning (1999). Chapter 9 and 14
Briscoe, C., & LaMaster, S. U. (1991). Meaningful
learning in college biology through concept mapping. The American Biology
Teacher, 53(4), 214-219.
Anderson-Inman, L., & Zeitz, L. (1993). Computer-based
concept mapping: Active studying for active learners. The Computing Teacher,
21(1), 6-10.
GSO:
Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of
science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 117-153.
Tidbits:
Perkins,
D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3).
6-11.
Brooks, M.
G., & Brooks, J. G. (1999). The courage to be constructivist. Ed Leadership, 57(3). 18-24.
Week 9: Social Science Problem Fuzziness and Classroom
Thoughtfulness
Glover, J.
A., Ronning, R. R., & Bruning, R. H. (1990). Cognitive psychology for teaches (Chapter 14: Social science
problem solving, pp. 355-367). New
York: Macmillan.
Spoehr, K. T., & Spoehr, L. T. (1994). Learning
to think historically. Educational Psychologist, 29(2), 71-77.
Newmann,
F. W. (1992). The prospects for classroom thoughtfulness in high school social
studies. In C. Collins & J. N.
Mangieri (Eds.), Teaching thinking: An
agenda for the 21st century (pp. 105-132).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Furlong,
P. R. (1993). Personal factors influencing informal reasoning of economic
issues and the effects of specific instructions. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85(1), 171-181.
GSO: Gregg,
S. M., & Leinhardt, G. (1994). Mapping out geography: An example of
epistemology and education. Review of Educational Research, 64(2), 311-361.
Week 10: Motivation and Cognition: Fusing Skill and Will
Bruning,
Schraw, & Ronning (1999). Chapters 6-7
Reeve, J.
M. (1996). Internalization and self-regulation. In Motivating others:
Nurturing inner motivational resources (Chapter 3: pp. 42-59). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Deci, E.,
L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation
and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist,
26(3&4), 325-346.
GSO:
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated
learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 82(1),
33-40.
GSO:
Covington, M. V. (1999). Caring about
learning: The nature and nurturing of subject-matter appreciation. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 127-136.
Tidbit:
Clark, C. S. (1998). Hippie high school. Educational
Leadership, 56(2), 60-63.
Week 11: Alternative Cognitive Assessment and Achievement
Perkins,
D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context bound? Educational
Researcher, 18(1), 16-25.
Cole, N.
S. (1990). Conceptions of educational achievement. Educational Researcher,
19(3), 2-7.
Educational
Researcher. (1991). Interviews on assessment issues with Lorrie Shepard and
James Popham. Educational Researcher, 20,
21-27.
Paris, S.
G., Lawton, T. A., Turner, J. C., & Roth, J. L. (1991). A developmental
perspective on standardized achievement testing. Educational Researcher, 20(5),
12-20.
GSO:
Naveh-Benjamin, M., McKeachie, W. J., Lin, Y. G., & Tucker, D. G. (1986).
Inferring students’ cognitive structures and their development using the
“ordered tree” technique. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 130-140.
Tidbits:
Geocaris,
C., & Ross, M. (1999). A test worth taking. Educational Leadership,
57(1), 29-33.
Madaus, G.
F., & O’Dwyer, L. M. (1999). A short history of performance
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9),
688-695.
Week 12: The Emergence of a Field (Self-Selection #2: Theory for final
projects)
GSO: Mayer, R. E. (1992). Cognition
and instruction: Their historic meeting within educational psychology. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 84(4),
405-412.
GSO: Derry, S. J. (1992). Beyond symbol processing:
Expanding horizons for educational psychology.
Journal of Educational Psychology,
84(4), 413-418.
GSO: Mayer, R. E. (1993). Educational
psychology--Past and future: Comment on Derry (1992). Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85(3), 551-553.
GSO: Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for
learning and the dangers of choosing just one.
Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.
GSO: Schoenfeld, A. H. (1999). Looking
toward the 21st Century: Challenges of educational theory and
practice. Educational Researcher, 28(7),
4-14.
Vosniadou,
S. (1996). Towards a revised cognitive psychology for new advances in learning
and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 6(2),
95-109.
Reynolds,
R. E., Sinatra, G. M., Jetton, T. L. (1996). Views of knowledge acquisition and
representaiton: A continuum from experience centered to mind centered. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 93-104.
Tidbit:
Fogarty,
R. (1999). Architects of the intellect. Educational
Leadership, 57(3), 76-78.
Week 13: Course Interlude and Catch Up (Self-Selection #3: Research for final
projects)
Some
Recommended Journals (or edited books of research) (e.g., AERJ, JEP, RER, JECR,
RTE):
GSO: Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Abilities
are forms of developing expertise. Educational Researcher, 27(3), 11-20.
Tidbit:
Bruer, J. T. (1993). The mind’s journey from novice to
expert: If we know the route, we can help students negotiate their way. American
Educator, 17(2), 6-15, 38-46.
Week 14: Personal Explorations (Self-Selection #4: Anything goes!)
Students
select and share articles with interest group: (e.g., early childhood learning,
adolescence, adult cognition and aging, corporate training, instructional
design, adult learning, computers and cognition, literacy, interactive
technologies, language learning, cross-cultural research, reading, mathematics,
science, writing, social studies, interdisciplinary learning, study skills and
learning strategies, assessment, qualifying exams, thinking skills, special
education, bilingual education)
Week 15: Final Personal Explorations (Self-Selection #5: Anything goes!)
Week 16: Class Celebration: Journal Reports and AERA
Discussions
P544/444: Leaders in the Field by Domain and Terminology
Listed below are some leading figures in various strands
of applied cognitive psychology. (Note:
this listing is fairly subjective).
A. General Contributors
to Cognitive Psychology: Chipman; Segal; Chase; Ericsson; Newell and
Simon; Miller; Bereiter and Scardamalia; Glaser; R. Gagne; Collins; Mayer;
Perkins; Siegler; Chi; Case; Bruner; Kintsch; J. R. Anderson; Flavell;
Pressley; Vygotsky; Wertsch; Piaget; Klahr; Rumelhart; Gick; Baltes;
Meichenbaum; Slavin; Glover; Derry; Butterfield; Shuell; R. C. Anderson;
Collins; Frederiksen; Fredericksen; Gentner; Minsky; McDermott; Lesgold;
Holyoak; Brewer; Clement; Resnick; Paris; P. Alexander; Bandura; Chomsky;
Ausubel; Baddeley; Craik & Lockhart; Bower; Bransford; Dempster; Garner; R.
Schank & Abelson; R. Shiffrin; Tulving; Sternberg; Vosniadou; Brewer;
Gardner; A. Brown.
B. Intelligence,
Metacognition, and Critical Thinking: Sternberg (again); Borkowski;
Feuerstein; Ennis; Whimbey; Gardner (again); Guilford; Perkins; Norris;
Nickerson; Paul; Perlmutter; Swanson; A. Brown (again); Yussen; Paris (again);
Wales; Garner; McKeachie; McPeck; Bransford (again) and Vye; A. Brown (again);
Lesgold; Pressley (again); Zimmerman (again); Pintrich (again).
C. Reading: Paris; A. Brown; Day; Farr; Palincsar; Joel Levin;
Yussen (again); Weinstein; Meyer; Reder; Markman; R. C. Anderson (again);
Dansereau; Campione; Armbruster; Pressley; Forrest-Pressley; Van Den Broek,
Mastropieri & Scruggs; Trabasso and Stein; McCutchen; Winograd; Kintsch
(again); Royer; Rohwer; Pearson; Snow; E. H. Hiebert; Duffy; Ghatala; Perfetti;
Rosenshine; R. Reynolds; Wade; B. F. Jones; Pearson; Paivio; Spiro; Carpenter;
Oka; Wittrock; Hidi; Au; Gavelek; Just and Carpenter; Beck; Ehri; Schallert.
D. Writing: Scardamalia and Bereiter (again); Daiute; Flower
and Hayes; Bridwell-Bowles; Purves; Applebee; Smagorinsky; Langer; Reed;
Graves; Bracewell; Faigley and Witte; Freedman; Frase; Nystrand; Smith; Wresch;
Englert; Raphael; Dyson; Duin; Harris & Graham; Montague; Sperling;
Fitzgerald; Hawisher; Englert & Raphael; MacArthur; McCutchen; Kellogg;
Glynn; Riel; Mosenthal; Rubin; Williamson; Neuwirth; Britton; Kaufer;
Beaugrande; Schumacker; (Bonk & Reynolds--ya right!).
E. Math/Science/Technology:
Resnick (again); Schoenfeld; Greeno; Pea; Bransford (again); Streibel; J. S.
Brown; Schank; Romberg; T. Carpenter; Fennema; P. Peterson; Littlefield,
Tennyson; Webb; Lehrer; Leinhardt; Riley; Kozma; Salomon; Papert, Barody,
Nesher, J. Hiebert; Larkin; Simon (again); Siegler; Papert; Dede; Nix;
Tennyson; Linn; Harel; Lewis; Rochelle; Clements; Swan; James Levin; Clark;
Psotka; Soloway; E. Baker; Lenat, Hawkins; McDermott (again); Minsky (again);
DiSessa; Newman; Silver; Novak; Mayer (again); Kozma; Dede; Collins; Koedinger;
Goldman; Pellegrino; Gelman; Carey; Fuson.
F. Social Studies:
Voss; F. Newmann; Spoehr & Spoehr; Furlong; Gregg & Leinhardt (again).
G. Motivation, Self-Efficacy, and Self-Regulated Learning:
Corno; Reeve; Deci; Pintrich; McCombs; Stipek; Ames and Ames; Paris (again);
Lepper; Marx, Maehr, Winne; Weiner; Schunk; Brophy; Weiner; deCharms; Malone;
Borkowski (again); Csikszentminhalyi; Dweck; Bandura (again); Zimmerman
(again).
K. Study Skills: Schraw, Kiewra, Levin (again), Pressley,
Mastropieri and Scruggs (again), A. King.
P444/544 Starter Terms and Principles
CMAPS Task
Some key terms/issues to be
discussed and analyzed during the course are (many terms overlap categories):
General: information processing, storage/retrieval strategies,
distinctiveness and specificity of encoding, maintenance and elaborative
rehearsal, elaboration of processing, dual coding theory, working memory,
meaningfulness, organization, accessibility, automaticity, high and low roads
to transfer, knowledge chunks, categorization, digit span, hill-climbing
technique, incidental learning, knowledge acquisition, procedural vs.
declarative knowledge, production systems, problem space, schema theory,
semantic memory, spreading of activation, task environment, analogy training,
teacher modeling and coaching, protocol analysis, propositions, productions, concepts,
metamemory, mediation, reconstructive rehearsal
Reading: build on prior knowledge, advance organizers, text-base
inferences, schema activation, story grammar, text coherence, text redundancy,
calibration of comprehension, text-signals, SQ3R, location of questions,
keyword method, imagery, mnemonics, self-questioning strategies, levels of
processing, eye-tracking mechanisms, metacognition about strategies,
self-monitoring, macrostructure vs. microstructure, whole-word reading
programs, top-down vs. bottom-up processing, cognitive capacity, generative
activity, memory and comprehension directed strategies, mathemagenic behaviors,
adjunct aids, prequestions vs. postquestions, concretizations, prose-dependent
vs. processor-dependent strategies, higher- vs. lower-level questions,
illustrations vs. images, direct vs. indirect question effects, free vs. cued
recall, reciprocal teaching, summarizing skills, decoding/word recognition vs.
comprehension,
Writing: recursive writing process, reprocessing, think-aloud
protocols, think-sheets, holistic scoring, process-oriented approaches to
writing, pre-writing, procedural facilitation, substantive facilitation,
knowledge telling, knowledge transformation, goal concretization, idea
processors, conferencing, sentence combining, audience awareness and
constraints, cognitive coping strategies, cognitive process model of writing,
planning, problem space, goal constraints, metamemorial search, surface level
revisions, keystroke mapping, macrostructure revisions, conversational partner,
inner dialoguing system, the task environment, generating ideas, evaluating
ideas, revising vs. reprocessing, peer editing, creative writing, grammar
checkers, cognition enhancing tools, text coherence
Math, Science, and Social Studies: means-ends analysis, buggy
algorithms, semantic vs. semantic processing, estimation and guessing,
heuristics, problem representation, conceptual vs. computational knowledge,
if/then production rules, story problems, problem grouping, ill-structured
problems, fuzzy logic, well-defined vs. ill-defined problems, functional
fixedness, pattern recognition.
======================================================================================
Possible Terms for Map #1: Some Information Processing and Applied Cognitive
Terms:
information processing theory,
encoding, storage, retrieval, elaborative rehearsal, maintenance rehearsal,
working memory, perception, depth of processing, automaticity, declarative
knowledge, reconstructive memory, cognitive psychology, conditional knowledge,
productions, ill-structured problems, gist recall, procedural knowledge,
problem representation, generation effect, nodes and links, problem space,
recognition and recall, spreading activation, knowledge chunks, scripts and
schemas, episodic memory, inert knowledge, levels of processing, transfer,
composition, spreading of activation, knowledge, prototype.
Possible Terms for Map #2: Some Learning Strategy, Expert-Novice, and
Content Area Specific Terms
procedural facilitation, surface
revisors, strategic knowledge, knowledge tellers, knowledge transformers,
writing research, learning strategies and tactics, self-system, advance
organizers, adjunct questions, learning in a context, method of loci, reading
research, self-monitoring, mnemonics and imagery, notetaking, keyword method,
self-regulation, study skills, dual coding theory, link method, Yodai
mnemonics, cooperative scripts, READERS, meaningfulness, metacognition,
misconceptions, bugs, summaries, self-questioning, prompts, working memory,
prior knowledge, top-down processing, working forward/backward, goal setting,
global plans, problem schemas, allocating time, highlighting, macro revisions,
pegword method, outlining.
Possible Terms for Map #3: Other Topic of Interest or Self-Directed
Learning Task Terms???
| MOOCs and Open Education Book about MOOCs MOOC Book MOOCs and Open Education Around the World MOOC and Open Education Book MOOCs MOOCs and Open Education Around the World. |