P640: THINKING & LEARNING IN SOCIAL CONTEXTS

Spring, 2006; 7:00-9:45; Dept of Ed Psychology

Sections: 21601 (IUB: Room 2140); 11710 (IUPUI: Room Nursing 314)

Curt Bonk, Indiana University


 

Curtis J. Bonk, Ph.D.

Instructional Systems Technology Dept.

Office: Room 2220 Wright Education Bldg.

Phone: 812-856-8353 (W)

Fax: 812-339-1254 (home fax)

E-mail: CJBonk@indiana.edu

Homepage: http://mypage.iu.edu/~cjbonk/

Office Hours: as arranged

   

 

Course Description/Purpose:

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.  Most educational curricula of the 21st century continues to emphasize 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 perspective is 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 traditional classroom learning with more rigorous and authentic educational environments.

 

A key goal of this course is that we achieve an atmosphere resembling a productive, creative research group and quasi-think tank for in-depth discussions.  To achieve this atmosphere, all class members must think critically about the class readings and presentations, contribute original ideas to group discussion, and reflect on how their interests (e.g., Ed Psych, IST, Nursing, Math Ed, ELPS, C&I, etc.) are influenced by research in this area.  During class time, we may put together models and diagrams of guided learning and the transfer of learning responsibility to the student.  Just how are strategies modeled during social interaction internalized by learners?  When and how should an instructor intervene in the learning process?  While finding our answers, we will extensively explore and become familiar with an amalgam of recent educational research related to “Thinking and Learning in Social Contexts.”

 

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/contrast research on individual cognition & that aimed at the social context of learning.
  5. Describe the social underpinnings 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/conflict, & knowledge building.
  8. Feel comfortable using teacher guided and scaffolded instructional techniques.
  9. Interpret research and reform efforts based on sociocultural theory.
  10. Design a study to look at sociocultural variables in learning.


Course Texts: There are 21 books (you pick any two) as well as a Book of Readings.

A. Required Texts (Pick 2; Note that the instructor will have a few loaner copies):

  1. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000).  The social life of information.  Harvard Business School.
  2. Engestrom, Y., & Middleton, D. (1998). Cognition and communication at work.  Cambridge.
  3. Foreman, Minick, & Stone (Eds.). (1993). Contexts for lrng: Socio dyn in children's dev. Oxford.
  4. Kozulin, A., Gindis, et al. (2003). Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context.  Oxford
  5. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated lrng: Legitimate peripheral partic. NY: Cambridge.
  6. Leonard, D. & Swapp, W. (2004) Deep smarts: How to cultivate & transfer enduring bus wisdom.
  7. Littleton, K., Miell, D., & Faulkner, D. (2004). Learning to collab: Collab to learn.Nova Science.
  8. Moll, L. C. (Eds.) (1990). Vyg & Ed: Instr Imps & Apps of Sociohist Psych.  NY: Cambridge.
  9. O’Donnell, A., & King, A. (1999). Cognitive perspectives on Peer Learning. Erlbaum.
  10. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Devel in Social Context.  NY: Oxford.
  11. Rogoff, B. (2001). Learning together: Childresn and adults in a school community.  Oxford
  12. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development.  Oxford.
  13. Salomon, G. (Ed.) (1993). Distrib cognitions: Psych.'l & educ.'l considerations.  NY: Cambridge.
  14. Tharp & Gallimore (1988). Rousing Minds to Life: Tchg, lrng, & sch in social context. Cambrid.
  15. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.  Cambridge.
  16. Wenger, E. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A field guide to managing.  Harvard.
  17. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
  18. Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.). (1985). Culture, commun, & cog: Vygotskian pers.  NY: Cambridge
  19. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural App to Mediated Action. Harvard.
  20. Wilson, B. G. (Ed). (1996). Constructivist learning envir’s: Case studies in ID.  Ed Tech Pub.
  21. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The devel of higher psych processes.  MA: Harvard.
  22. Other (any instructor approved selection)

 

B. Book of Readings, C. J. Bonk (2005).  Reading Packet for P640.

 

Weekly Topical Outline:

   1  (Jan 9th):    Introduction to Syllabus, 21 Books, and Sociocultural Theory

   2  (Jan 16th):  First Book: Cognitive Apprenticeship & Guided Participation Processes

(Note: this is Martin Luther King Holiday—no class scheduled; optional class meeting at Great Wall; 2308 North Walnut, Bloomington, IN; 812-339-6666)

   3  (Jan 23rd):  First Book Continued: Recent Educational Debates on Piagetian and Vygotskian Theory

   4  (Jan 30th):  Piaget, Dewey, & Vygotsky in Debate: Historical and Cultural Underpinnings of Theory

   5  (Feb 6th):   Vygotsky: Scaffolding, Zones of Proximal Development, and Dynamic Assessment

                        Presentation by previous P640 students: Matt Nussbaum, Kwame Dakwa, etc.

   6  (Feb 13th): Neo-Vygotskian Ideas: Situated Cognition, Anchored Instruction, & Reciprocal Tchg

   7  (Feb 20th): Activity Theory, Activity Settings, and Cultural Tools/Artifacts

                           Presentation by former students, Dr. Xiaojing Liu and maybe Dr. Lisa Yamagata Lynch

   8  (Feb 27th): Dilemmas in Measuring Social Interaction: Peer tutoring and mentor assistance

   9  (Mar 6th):  Dilemmas in Measuring Social Inter: Conversations, Talk, and Tutoring

  10  (Mar 20th): Building Cognitive Apprenticeships in the Content Areas

  11  (Mar 27th): Scaffolding and Knowledge Building in Technology Rich Environments

  12  (April 3rd): Project, Problem, and Case-Based Learning Communities

  13  (April 10th): Socioculturally-Based Communities of Learners

  14  (April 17th): Second Book & Recap (Select book) (Task #4: Final)

            Discuss student final book selection and final projects

  15  (April 24th): Second Book & Recap (Finish book) (Task #4: Final)

                                    Discuss student final book selection and final projects

 


Sample terminology of this course:

  1. Vygotskian and Piagetian 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, intersubjectivity, socio-cultural and socio-historical development (Piagetian include: assimilation, accommodation, disequilibrium, schemata, perspective taking, decentering, stages of cognitive development).

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

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

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. Educational Reform Programs and Techniques--instructional conversations, Electronic Learning Circles, ILF, TICKIT, Schools for Thought, CSILE, Foxfire, reciprocal teaching, anchored instruction, reading recovery program, whole language instruction, problem-based learning.

 

Summary of Course (A.) Grading and (B.) Activities:

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.  However, the optional task (#5—a class Wikibook project) may replace Task #3 and #4.

 

A. Course Grading (Based on The R2D2 Grading Method):

1.       40 pts READ--Interpreter of Signs and Symbols (20% of grade).

2.       40 pts REFLECT & Discuss—Reflect & Negotiate Meaning, Dialogue Partner (20%).

3.       60 pts DISPLAY--Designer of Internalization-Externalization (DIE) Exhibit: (30%).

4.       60 pts DO--Analyzer of Scaffolding, Mediated Lrng, or Zones of Proximal Dev. (30%).

5.       120 pt option (Wikibook project) (60%)

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

 

B. Course Activities: Using Bonk’s Instructional Design Model called R2D2: 1) READ, (2) DISCUSS, (3) DISPLAY, AND (4) DO.

 

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 total at some point during the semester.  You will be asked to react to the articles you have read as well as rate them.

 

2. REFLECT AND DISCUSS--Reflect and Negotiate Meaning, Dialogue Partner (25% of grade). This task includes high level reflecting on articles assigned, attending class, leading class discussion, general participation/effort, and other investigative activities.  Once during the course, each student will lead class discussion or an activity.  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 or some type of interactive activity.  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.  These questions or an activity handout will be sent to Dr. Bonk 3-4 days before class so that he can share them with the class via email and he will try to also post to Oncourse along with a weekly agenda.

 

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 20th.  Do give me time for grading during spring break, final timeline reports are due March 6th.  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)

 

To help supplement this internalization process, I feel free to insert any of the following items underneath it in a packet or portfolio.  None of these are required for the 60 points, however.  These supplemental activities are listed in order of importance.

 

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, Coding Schemes: innovative/integrative visuals for class topics.
  9. Personal Investigative Activity: any exploratory, inquisitive, volunteer activity to clarify an issue.
  10. Concept Maps: visual depict of 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: an interesting concept, film, idea, model, or activity to class.
  13. Blogs or online journals and reflections on articles read.
  14. Other: anything you have done to learn the material better.

 

4. DO--Analyzer of Scaffolding, Mediated Learning, and/or Zones of Proximal Development (30%):

I want you to be an active, autonomous learner.  Consequently, this final activity gives you some options while targeting application of the material.  Note that Option "A" is preferred and also that the required page length varies by option.  For any option, you are to tell the instructor your intent either orally or in writing.  Approval for your final project is needed by March 6th.  Final papers/reports are due April 17th and/or 24th.

 

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 (richness of information, elaboration, originality, unique coding)

5. Overall Coherence (unity, organization, logical sequence, synthesis, style, accurate coding)

6. Overall Completeness (adequate info presented, explicit, relevant, precise, valid pts)

 

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 in the workplace, internalization of cognitive strategies, teacher scaffolding in a math class or lesson, or 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, tapes).
  2. Observations of literacy training (e.g., Reading Recovery, Success For All, tutoring programs).
  3. Transcripts or tapes of mentoring or tutoring situations (IU’s writing lab, study skills courses).
  4. Collab writing interactions/correspondences (e.g., student fdbk, conferences, social negotiation).
  5. E-mail dialogue (e.g., SitesScape Forum, Oncourse, web-based instruction, e-correspondences).
  6. Human-computer interactions in prompted lrng envirs (e.g., writing tools, ERIC, sims & games).
  7. Videotapes of teacher-student interactions (e.g., tapes for undergrad ed. psych. courses).
  8. CD’s/videodiscs of teacher-student interactions (e.g., small group learning CDs, ILF, LTTS).
  9. Verbal protocol data involving coaching (e.g., Jeff Huber's IU divers or IU basketball camps).
  10. Data from other mediated environments (e.g., parent-child interactions, keystrokes, log data).

 

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 info; 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-$2,000,000; 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.  For instance, you might find electronic links to many or most of the assigned readings as well as many more sociocultural articles.

 


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.       Research topic & materials;

2.       Brief statement of problem and why important (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. measures/instruments (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 Literature (contrast relevant literature on the topic) (6-9 pages)

3.       Statement of Hypotheses/Research 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. Discussion of results

    V. References (APA style: see syllabus for example)

   VI. Appendices (e.g., pictures, charts, figures, models, tests, scoring criteria, coding procedures)

 

 

 

5. Class Option:

I am tempted to make a radical departure from the above tasks—I need a class vote first.  Instead of Tasks #3 and #4, I suggest that we create a Wikibook as a class.  If we choose this option, everyone will do a different chapter of this book.  I think there will be many benefits from this.  For instance, you would all get something for your resumes.  In addition, this would epitomize this particular class, “Thinking and Learning in Social Contexts,” as it would represent a true social construction of knowledge.  At the same time, such a project would highlight some of the principles of a cognitive apprenticeship, scaffolded learning, and problem-based learning.  Third, we might also be peer reviewers for another class which is also creating a Wikibook.  So, in effect, you might gain new colleagues as well as an understanding of the benefits of global collaboration.  And reviewing chapters of another book would be a second line item for your vita.  Fourth, your chapter would be read be people beyond the instructor of the course.  Having a real world audience would provide useful goals while demonstrating the power of many of the principles we will learn in this class.  Fifth, you may get contacted by those who read your piece for advice or to perhaps present at a conference or contribute a chapter to another book.  Sixth, we could write this up as a conference symposium proposal for a number of the members of this class and our collaborating class to present at.  I am sure that there are many more such benefits. 

 

You might get inspired by look at Wikibooks that already exist at the Wikibook homepage (see http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page) such as the one on blended learning in K-12 education (see http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Blended_Learning_in_K-12).  Who knows, we might become a Wikipedia book of the month or quarter!  As a Wiki, everyone would have a piece of this project.  I would serve as book editor and would write a brief introduction.  We can brainstorm the contents of such a book in class and what the roles of each person would be.  Working in pairs or teams is fine; especially if you have similar goals or interests.  One idea might be an encyclopedia of sociocultural theory with a glossary and short examples given that students have created a course glossary in previous semesters which we could build upon.  Another idea would be a book on sociocultural theory in the professions—with nursing, corporate training, organizational development, teacher training, etc.  Topics would be due February 13th and a rough first draft would be due March 6th.

 

 


Weekly Course Readings: (try to read 3 articles or chapters per week)

Week 1 (Jan 9th): Introduction to Syllabus, 15 Books, and Sociocultural Theory

            1. Glossary for P600, Deborah Hamilton (1994).

 

Week 2 (Jan 16th): 15 Books Continued: Cognitive Apprenticeship & Guided Participation

            1. Your book—pick 3-4 chapters (If Rogoff, pages 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.

4.       APA Online (1997). Revision of Learner-centered psychological principles: Guidelines for school redesign and reform. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

5.       Britain: New Skool Rules, Ok? (1998, Feb. 7th). The Economist, 57-58.

 

Week 3 (Jan 23rd): Recent Educational Debates on Piagetian and Vygotskian Theory

1. Your book, If Rogoff; pp. 111-210 (Esp. Chapt. 7, 9, & 10)

Tidbits:

2.       Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000, Jan-Feb). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier.  Harvard Business Review, 139-145.

3.       Wenger, E. C. (2002). Supporting communities of practice: Executive summary.  From: Supporting communities of practice: A survey of community-oriented technologies.  See also, http://www.ewenger.com/tech/executive_summary.htm and http://www.ewenger.com/tech/

4.       Jerome Bruner’s Invited address, (1996, Sept.). Celebrating Piaget and Vygotsky: An exercise in dialectic.  From Growing Mind Conference: 100th Anniversary of Piaget’s Birth, Geneva, Switzerland.

5.       Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. (1998, January 31st). Beyond the individual-social antimony in discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky.  (found at: http://www.massey.ac.nz/~ALock/virtual/colevyg.htm; for additional papers: http://www.massey.ac.nz/~ALock/virtual/project2.htm; or http://www.massey.ac.nz/~ALock/virtual/welcome.htm)

 

Week 4 (Jan 30th): Dewey, Piaget, & Vygotsky in Debates: Historical and Cultural Underpinnings of Theory

1.       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.

2.       Prawat, R. S. (2002, June-July). Dewey and Vygotsky viewed through the rearview mirror—and dimly at that.  Educational Researcher, 31(5), 16-20.

a.       O’Brien, L. M. (2002, June-July). A Response to…37(3), pp. 21-23.

b.       Glassman, M. (2002, June-July). Experience and responding.  37(3), pp. 24-27.

3.       Glassman, M. (2001, May). Dewey and Vygotsky: Society, experience, and inquiry in educational practice.  Educational Researcher, 30(4), 3-14.

a.       Prawat, R. S. (2002, June-July). Dewey and Vygotsky viewed through the rearview mirror—and dimly at that.  Educational Researcher, 31(5), 16-20.

b.       O’Brien, L. M. (2002, June-July). A Response to…”Dewey & Vygotsky…”, Educational Researcher, 37(3), pp. 21-23.

c.       Glassman, M. (2002, June-July). Experience and responding.  37(3), pp. 24-27.

d.       Gredler, M., & Shields, C. (2004, March). Does no one read Vygotsky’s words? Commentary on Glassman.  Educational Researcher, 33(2), 21-25.

e.       Glassman, M., & Wang, Y. (2004). On the interconnected nature of interpreting Vygotsky: Rejoinder to Gredler and Shields Does no one read Vygotsky’s words (2004). Educational Researcher, 33(6), 19-22.

4.       Davydov, V. V. (1995). The influence of L. S. Vygotsky on education theory, research, and practice.  Educational Researcher, 24(3), 12-21.

5.       Confrey, J. (1995). How compatible are radical constructivism, sociocultural approaches, & social construct?  In Steffe & Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in ed.  (pp. 185-225).  Erlbaum.

Tidbits:

6.       Prawat, R. S. (2000).  Dewey meets the “Mozart of Psychology” in Moscow: The untold -story.  American Educational Research Association, 37(3), 663-696.

7.       Cunningham, D. J. (2001). My life as a scholarly scavenger: Reflections on Garrison’s “An introduction to Dewey’s theory of functional ‘transaction’: An alternative paradigm for activity theory. Mind, Culture and Activity, 8(4), 309-314.

8.       Blanck, G. (1990). Vygotsky: The man & his cause.  In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky & educ: Instructional implics & applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 31-58).  Cambridge.

9.       Vygodskaia, G. L. (1995). Remembering father. Educational Psychologist, 30(2), 57-59.

10.   Vygodskaya, G. L. [1995). His Life. School Psychology International, 16(2,) 105-116.

11.   Ayman-Nolley, S. (1992). Vygotsky’s perspective on the development of imagination and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 5(1), 77-85.

     

 

Week 5 (Feb 6th): Vygotsky: Scaffolding, Zones of Proximal Development, and Dynamic Assessment

1.       Stone, A. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding?  In Forman et al. (Eds.). Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development. Oxford.

2.       John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H., (1995). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian Framework.  Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 191-206.

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.

5.       Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture.  Ed Res’er, 29(7), 4-14.

Tidbits:

6.       Kozulin, A., & Falk, L. (1995). Dynamic cognitive assessment of the child. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(6), 192-196.

 

Week 6 (Feb 13th): 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, Collins, & Duguid, (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.  Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
  3. Cognition & Tech Grp at Vandy (1990). Anchored instruction and its relation to situated cognition.  Educational Researcher, 19(6) 2-10.
  4. Sawyer, R. K. (2004, March). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation.  Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12-20.
  5. Hung, D. W. (1999). Activity, apprenticeship, and epistemological appropriateion: Implications from the writings of Michael Polanyi.  Educational Psychologist, 34(4), 193-205.

Tidbits:

  1. Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. (2000). Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity. Educational Researcher, 29(4), 11-13.
  2. Gutierrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003, June/July). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice.  Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19-25.
  3. Lebrow D., (1993). Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward a new mindset. ETR&D, 41(3), 4-16.

 

Week 7 (Feb 20th): Activity Theory, Activity Settings, 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. Hasu, M. & Engeström, Y. (2000). Measurement in Action: An Activity-Theoretical Perspective on Producer-User Interaction. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 53, 61-89. (Special issue on Understanding Work and Designing Artifacts).
  3. Yamagata-Lynch. L. C. (2003). Using activity theory as an analytical lens for examining technology professional development in schools. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10(2), 100-119.  http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~lynch/using_activity_theory.pdf
  4. 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.
  5. Bonk, C. J., & Kim, K. A. (1998). Extending sociocultural theory to adult lrng.  In M. C. Smith & T. Pourchot (Ed.), Adult lrng & devel: Perspectives from educ psych (pp. 67-88).  Erlbaum.

Tidbits:

  1. You could also read any online article from Gordon Wells at: http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/~gwells/)
  2. Mwanza, D. (2000). The development of an activity theory based methodology to guide computer systems design.  CSCL?

 

Week 8 (Feb 27th): Dilemmas in Measuring Social Interaction: Peer Tutoring & Mentor Assistance

  1. King, A. (1997). Ask to THINK-TEL WHY: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher level complex learning.  Educational Psychologist, 32(4), 221-235.
  2. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom.  In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.). Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 841-873).  NY: Macmillan Library Reference.
  3. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups.  Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35.
  4. Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2000). Studying and understanding the instructional contexts of classrooms: Using our past to forge our future.  Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 69-85.
  5. Aleven, V., Stahl, E., Schworm, S., Fischer, F., & Wallace, R. (2003). Help seeking and help design in interactive learning environments.  Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 277-320.

Tidbits:

  1. Wink, J., & Putney, L. (2002). A vision of Vygotsky: Chapter 7. Mentoring: Extending Vygotsky’s vision.  Boston, MA: pp. 156-167. Allyn & Bacon.
  2. Ridley, C. (2000). The ministry of mentoring: Reflections on being a mentor. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 19(4), 33-225.
  3. Davidson, M. N., & Foster-Johnson, L. (2001). Mentoring in the preparation of graduate researchers of color. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 549-574.
  4. Mentoring: The Faculty-graduate student relationship (1991, May-June). Communicator: Council for Graduate Studies, XXIV (5/6), 1-3.
  5. Research Student and Supervisor: An approach to good supervisory practice (1990). Council for Graduate Studies.  Washington, DC, pp. 1-11.

 

Week 9 (March 6th): Dilemmas in Meas Social Inter: Conversations, Talk, & Tutoring

  1. Meloth, M. M., & Deering, P. D. (1994). Task talk and task awareness under different cooperative learning conditions.  American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 138-165.
  2. Stigler, J. W., Gallimore, R., & Hiebert, J. (2000). Using video surveys to compare classrooms and teaching across cultures: Examples and lessons from the TIMSS video studies.  Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 87-100.
  3. Schacter, J. (2000). Does individual tutoring produce optimal learning?  American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 801-829.
  4. Kingerman, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms.  The Elem School Journal, 99(1), 3-22.
  5. Jarvela, S., Bonk, C. J., Lehtinen, E., & Lehti, S. (1999). A theoretical analysis of social interactions in computer-based learning environments: Evidence for reciprocal understandings Journal of Educational Computing Research, 21(3), 359-384.

 

Week 10 (March 20th): 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. Schultz, K., & Fecho, B. (2000). Society’s child: Social context and writing development.  Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 51-62.
  3. 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.
  4. Willemson, E. W., & Gainen, J., (1995). Reenvisioning statistics: A cognitive apprenticeship approach.  New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 61, 99-108.
  5. McKenna, M. C., Robinson, R. D., & Miller, J. W. (1990). Whole language: A research agenda for the 90's. Educational Researcher, 19(8), 3-6.; rejoinder: Edelsky (pp. 7-11); reply: McKenna (pp. 12-13).

Tidbit:

  1. Gavelek, J. R., & Raphael, T. E. (1996). Changing talk about text: New roles for teachers and students.  Language Arts, 73, 182-192.
  2. Mathes, P. G., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1997). Cooperative story mapping.  Remedial and Special Education, 18(1), 20-27.
  3. Newspaper articles: The history of writing may be encoded in tokens of trade (1994); and European civilization’s debt to the pluck of the Irish (1995).

 

Week 11 (March 27th): Scaffolding and Knowledge Building in Technology Rich Environments

  1. Reiser, B. J. (2002, January). Why scaffolding should sometimes make tasks more difficult for learners.  In Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Proceedings (pp. 255-264). ACM Press.
  2. Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Golan, R., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., & Soloway, E. (2002). Evolving a Scaffolding Design Framework for Designing Educational Software. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, & T. Satwicz (Eds.), Keeping Learning Complex: The Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference for the Learning Sciences (ICLS). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
  3. Bell, P., & Davis, E. (2000). Designing Mildred: Scaffolding students’ reflection and argumentation using a cognitive software guide.  In B. Fishman & S. O’Conner-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 142-149).  Mahwah, NJ: Elrbaum.
  4. Chung, S., Severance, C., & Chung, M-J. (2003). Design of support tools for knowledge building in a virtual university course.  Interactive Learning Environments, 11(1), 41-57.
  5. Suthers, D. D. (2001, January). Collaborative representations: Supporting face to face and online knowledge building discourse.  Proceedings of the 34th annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science (HICSS-34)-Volume 4, Maui, Hawaii.

 

Week 12 (April 3rd): 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 Tech Pubs.
  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. Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J., & Chambers, J. C. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform.  Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165-178.
  4. 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.

Tidbit:

  1. Sittenfeld, C. (2002, March). Think for a change. Fast Company, 56, pp. 48, 50, & 52.
  2. Rogoff, B. (2001, November 14th). Why a nonconventional college decided to add grades.  Chronicle of Higher Education, B17.
  3. Bowlin, W. (2001, Spring). Experiential learning: Benefits for academia and the local community.  Management Accounting Quarterly, pp. 21-27.
  4. Edens, K. (2000). Preparing problem solvers for the 21st century through problem-based learning.  College Teaching, 48(2), 55-60.
  5. Groth, D. P., & Robertson, E. L. (1999, November). It’s all about process: Project-oriented teaching of software engineering.  Technical Report No. 532, Computer Science Department, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

 

Week 13 (April 10th): Socioculturally-Based Communities of Learners and Resources

  1. Tharp, R. (1993). Instit & Social Context of Educ Prac & Reform, In Forman et al. (Eds.). Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 269-282). Oxford.
  2. 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: Psych and educational considerations (pp. 188-228).  New York: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Windschitl, M. (2002, Summer); Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers; Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-175.
  4. Bransford, J., Vye, N., & Bateman, H. (2002). Creating high quality learning environments: Guidelines from research on how people learn.    National Education Council.  Report of a Workshop.  The Knowledge Economy and Postsecondary Education (pp. 159-197). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  5. Smith, P. J. (2003). Workplace learning and flexible delivery.  Review of Educational Research.  73(1), 53-88.

Tidbit:

  1. Holloway, M. (1999, January). Profile: Flynn’s Effect: Intelligence scores are rising…, Scientific American, 37-38.
  2. Stalker, D. (2002, April 26th). How to duck out of teaching.  The Chronicle of Higher Education, B17-18.
  3. Curtis, D. (2001). Innovative classrooms: 12 tips for transforming schools.  Edutopia, pp. 16-17.
  4. Bruder, I. (1992, April). The house that Williston built.  Electronic Learning, pp. 28-29.

                                                                       

Week 14 (April 17th): Student Self-Selection Week & Recap (Select from 20 books in earlier section)

 

Week 15 (April 24th): Student Self-Selection Week & Recap (SAME CHOICES AS WEEK 14)

 

Extras Articles from 2005 at the end of the packet of readings:

  1. Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment.  Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 27-61.
  2. Swan, K. (2005). A constructivist model for thinking about learning online. In J. C. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.).  Elements of quality online education: Engaging communities. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.
  3. Berard M. (2005, November). Coach and mentoring: Enhancing education. Chief Learning Officer, http://www.clomedia.com/content/templates/clo_article.asp?articleid=1136&zoneid=57.
  4. McVee, M. B., Dunsmore, K., & Gavelek, J. R. (2005, winter). Schema theory revisited.  Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 531-566.
  5. Sfard, A, & Prusal, A (2005). Telling identities: In search of an analytic tool for investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity.  Educational Researcher, 34(4), 14-22.