Educational Psychology Flashcards
Bruning & Schraw 2004
Long-term memory Structures and Models
Long term Memory LTM (implicit and explicit)
Declarative knowledge – semantic and episodic
Conditional
Procedural
Learning goals should include not only declarative, but procedural and conditional
Building blocks of cognition –
concepts, propositions, schemata (declarative knowledge, largely semantic), productions, scripts(primary procedural)
-Concepts – organization of categories in the brain
Rule-based
Prototype
-proposition – smallest unit of meaning that can stand alone. Bigger than concepts – true or false
-schemata – mental frameworks we use to organize knowledge
(death of piggo)
the laundry – giving a framework increases comprehension
-productions – if-then rules – fire automatically (implicit)
-Scripts – schema representations for events
Paivio’s dual coding – verbal and non-verbal – can be coded more easilyif in both – visuals are very helpful in learning verbal
Memory Models – how we hold info in the brain
Through sensory, WM and LTM – all interactive
- network
o think schema or concepts, think concept map
o spreading activation
o hierarchical
o ACT model
• Anderson
• Declarative knowledge provides the context in which cognitive processes, as represented by production rules, take place. Spreading activation – there’s a focus unit, it gets activated (something external or thinking about in WM), and then the spread starts - Connectionist
o Parallel processing – occurring simultaneously along several dimensions. Multiple constraints are involved before interpretations can happen
o “brain metaphor”
• connectionist or Parallel distributed processing (PDP)
• knowledge is not stored in units. Rather it is all the strength of connections are stored among simple processing units. Strengths allow the patterns to be re-created when the system is activated
• top-down, bottom-up and interactive can occur whtihn such a system
• like neurons and synapsis
Take aways for instruction – - prior knowledge is a starting point for learning
- help students activate their current knowledge
- help students organize new info into meaningful chunks
- aid students in proceduralizing their knowledge and linking it to conditional knowledge (anderson’s view) – automatizing things, make more space for more declarative knowledge
- provide students opportunities to use both verbal and imaginal coding
Reiser 2004
Technology – use of tools in software to scaffold learners to be able to do things they can’t do without assistance (vygotskian def) - the tool changes the task in some way to that the task becomes within reach of the learner
Tools can be seen as a part of the system – distributed cognition (what is accomplished as a system rather than an individual)
Can distribute work and reduce – automate tasks (calculators)
Tools can transform tasks
Mechanisms of tools –
- problematize the task
o puts attention on important ideas and processes
o highlighting discrepancies
- structure the task
o reduces complexity
o helps maintain direction
o focusing effort (restricting the problem space, preselecting data, etc
o monitoring – gives an agenda, show progress, places to record progress
Example – CSILE – computer-supported intentional learning environments (scardmelia and berieter, 1994) – students are required to indicate the connection between their comment and the ongoing discussion (elicits articulation, which problematizes the task) – elaborate, new question, disagree or agree etc
Schuh 2003
Learner centered vs teacher centered description of classrooms –
Squelching or promoting knowledge construction links
CGTV 2003
Cognition and technology group at Vanderbilt
Deep exploration of topics
Feedback
Students have preconceptions about learning
Connects contemporary learning theory ( c’sim) to deisgning instructional environments in technology
STAR.Legacy software
Deep understanding, prior knowledge, inquiry, MC processes – self-monitoring, reflecting,
Effective environments for learning -
- knowledge centered – meaningful problems
- learner-centered - scaffolds
- assessment-centered – opportunities for practice – feedback, revision, reflection
- community centered – promote collaboration and distributed expertise as well as independent learning
during the acquisition phase of learning, drill and practice is inappropriate. A tutorial is better – more corrective and feedback, individualized.
Cognition is socially shared, not individually owned
Anchored instruction – teaching and learning are focused aroudnt he colution of complex problems or anchors. Anchor=story – Jasper Woodbury
SMART environments – more formative assessment and community building than present in Jasper
Externalization of the shell – a way to organize and manage the learning and instructional process, - helping people visualize and manage inquiry in a manner that is learner, knowledge, assessment, and community centered – a learning environment that provides a framework for anchored inquiry – students and teachers can leave legacies for future learners
Mayer & Moreno 2001
Research on how information is best presented in computer software, including dual coding theory, cognitive load theory, and C’ism
Cognitive load is less if learner receives verbal and and visual info simultaneously (contiguity design principal)
Also less if the visuals and sounds are concise rather than embellished (too much extra stuff) (Coherence design principal)
Modality and redundancy – learning is better with one visual and one narration, not visual and words written at the same time (too much overload on the visual working memory)
Instructional design in software – influenced by the designer’s concept of multimedia learning - receiving info IP, constructing info – meaningful presentation of info
Lubinski 2000
Constellations of personality dimensions – interests, ability, and personality
Horn and cattell – 3 layered gf gc
Carroll - abilities
The Big Five – neuroticism, openness, agreeability, conscientiousness, extroversion
ATI – aptitude treatment interaction
State vs trait
Driscoll 2000
Bruner’s process learning enactive, iconic, symbolic
Conditions for Learning - Gagne:
CIP gagne internal and external. Internal already exist before the learner starts getting new inf. External – the environment, the teacher, the learning situation. Each new learning experience starts with prior knowledge and then is impacted by external conditions
C’ism – driscoll – complex learning environments that are complex, social negotiation, multiple modes of representation, reflexivity, learner-centered
NEED MORE HERE
Greeno 1997
Associationist/empiricist/connectionist/behaviorist – procedures and formulas, tailor to individuals needs, in sequences
Cognitive/rationalist/domain-structural – understanding of unifying concepts and principles of subject matter domains, prior knowledge, strategy use
Situative/Socio-historic/pragmatist – discourse, communities of learners, participation in social practices
Middle School Mathematics through Applications Project – MMAP
Interactive research and design
Mathematics are embedded in other anchoring activities – building design, biological models, codes, or maps
Sit cog can subsumes the others – cog and beh
When describing learning – can talk about all levels – their individual behavior, their understanding conceptually,
Takes a pragmatic view – whatever needs to be discussed dictates what is looked at.
Rather than separating action from meaning – activities that communicate and construct meaning
Concerns of correct action and productive understanding are both included
Fang 1996
Inconsistency/consistency theory – teachers teach in ways they do not believe. Due to fear, policy, etc
Skinner 1996
Antecedent Behavior Consequences Law of effect – Consequences shape the behavior of an organism All species look very similar
Thinks that the problem with eductation –
What type of reinforcement used (need more positive)
Contingent – needs to be faster
A skillful program in place to get desired outcomes in behavior
Suggests using computer instruction
Gardner 1993
Theories of Multiple INtelligence
Modalities in the brain – working memories for each intelligences – apply them do curriculum that appeals/is the strength of the learner – a way in to other modalities
Seven intelligences
Musical intelligence
Bodily kinesthetic
Logical-mathematical
Linguistic intelligence
Spatial
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal
New ones – naturist, existentialist, spiritual, moral
Using “secondary routes” to get to a certain subject
Make school goals more holistic and realistic
Authentic assessment - projects
Sutherland 1992
Study of how we acquire knowledge – Piaget
Studied to his children
Piaget’s stages
Theory of learning – accommodation assimilation, equilibration, - adaptation (means learning) – biological process – all living things adapt to the environment
Happens over and over at all stages
Schema
Roschelle & Clancey 1992
This is a qualitative case study focusing on how learning happens in activity. The activity focused on is interaction between what the authors refer to as social and neural. Memory is conceptualized not from an information-processing perspective (like a schema) but rather as a “production of perceptual activity and motor activity that coordinates the present interaction by recomposing previously activated neural processes” (p. 436). Rather than viewing neural processes (internal processes) as separate, prior processes that happen before social and physical activity, development of internal processes are viewed as being constructed in the activity of social and physical interaction. Perception, representation, and social interaction are happening together during learning at three levels: mutual intelligibility, shared activity structures, and communities of practice. Mutual intelligibility concerns individuals being able to understand one another. Perception, representation and social interaction work together to make this happen. Shared activity structures are when individuals collaboratively construct understanding about what is happening in the activity. The authors call this the “joint problem space.” Again, all three aspects of learning are utilized at once for this to happen. Communities of practice emphasize the “learning by doing” nature of learning. As students become more knowledgeable about science, they become more integrally a part of the science community of practice. To demonstrate the learning process, the authors focus on how students learn science concepts. The case study consists of two students talking about motion. The students have no prior education in physics, and so do not have the language or notation used in physics in order to communicate about and understand their learning challenge. The challenge is created on the “Envisioning Machine” (EM). The EM has two screens, on is the Observable World and one is the Newtonian World. The Observable World displays a simulation of a ball moving across a screen, and presents the goal motion. The Newtonian World shows a particle with velocity and acceleration arrows. With the mouse, the user can manipulate the arrows to move with different levels of velocity and acceleration. The goal is to match the goal motion shown by the ball in the Observable World screen by manipulating the arrows on the Newtonian World screen. Through this activity, the two students have to experiment until they reach the goal. At the most local level, the students interact to create mutual intelligibility, coordinating perception-action and conversational processes, and at a broader level, the students use perception, language, gesture to construct a shared understanding of the EM notation, and even more broadly, they have to connect their activity to what scientists do in the scientific community. This perspective views learning as a process of enculturation.
An interesting question the authors bring up is how an individual can learn to perceive aspects of the world that are invisible within his/her current world view. For instance, how a physicist can see “deformation and resilience in every real object (even a glass marble) whereas everyday folks see the world as composed of rigid entities” (diSesa, 1987, as cited by Roschelle & Clancey, p. 447). From the social-neural perspective the authors take, they reject the information processing perspective that “detailed and complex categories and microfeatures must be built into the initial state of the system for learning to occur” that are universal and upon which “scientific explanation can be bootstrapped” (Gregory, 1988, as cited by Roschelle & Clancey, p. 448). Instead, they describe that formation of new categories “is a matter of reusing transient organizations of neural maps; structured cues from the physical and social world gradually can stabilize new relations of features and the world” (p. 448).
This perspective points to providing students with learning opportunities that allow for physical manipulation of objects in order to help develop representations and language. The authors suggest animated microwords, such as their EM, which can provide “newcomers” with the chance to participate in activities that are a part of the community of practice without great expense or danger.
Gredler 1992
Bandura – modeling
In the natural setting
Accounting for novel responses
Observational learning
Bobo doll – aggressive behavior is learned by watching
Triarchic reciprocal causality – personal, environment, behavior
Interactive
Models – live model, symbolic model, verbal descriptions of instructions
Observational learning is impacted by the model – do the learners respect/look up to model (similar in age and competence is good), famous, prestigious
Reinforcement – Self-reinforcement Direct reinforcement Vicarious - emotional arousal processes needed to learn – attention, retention, motor production, motivational processes
Self-efficacy
Self-regulation
Campione, Brown, & Connell (1988)
Utilize reciprocal teaching in comprehension skills – MC is the central piece here
MC – children’s conscious and statable knowledge about cognition
Ability to regulate cognition, and reflect on skills
Problems with traditional education –
Teacher centered
Lower level skills taught before higher level
Children do not develop MC skills and think
Reading = decoding (decoding before comprehension)
Writing = neatness (mechanics before communication)
Math = getting the right answer (syntax not semantics, algorithms before understanding)
Suggest using reciprocal teaching (reading), modeling and group discussion (Math), and seminar and soloing (Writing)
Not enough on-line diagnosis of students’ present abilities
Not enough focus on skill instruction
Basic skills/sub skills focus
Differential treatment effect – weaker readers get extensive lower-level skills practice
Inert knowledge is developed
(This all goes along well with the connectionist idea, or ACT idea for LTM) – need to have more procedural and conditional knowledge
Reciprocal Teaching – brown and palinscar – cooperative learning group – guided practice – four strategies – questioning, clarifying, summarizing, predicting
Scaffolds discussion about the meaning of expository texts.
Each member acts as a leader.
Teacher models expert performance
Very successful results – 80% students improved from 30 to 75 percent and retained. Show improvement on standardized tests.
In math – the planning board, the representation board, the doing board
Initial study showed good results but haven’t yet done with “average” teachers, like with reciprocal teaching
Dynamic assessment (what can child do with help) is much more helpful to understand what they need for future learning than a static test – can diagnose their needs
