Welcome to Our Blog!
Hello Everyone,
This blog is designed to support the work we do in the 606 course. Every so often I will direct you here for additional information on course content, assignments and resources. Please post your own comments in response and/or provide feedback via email. I will be checking the blog often throughout our session, and I encourage you to do the same.
Please make sure that you can log in, read the entries, and post a response (to the "Socratic Method" post) ASAP. Once you have posted a comment, please remember to bookmark the blog and check back to see if anyone has answered your comment(s). If no one else does, it is quite likely that I will!
I have included examples of resources below. I encourage you to look in the traditional places (such as education journals) and in nontraditional places (surprise us!) to make connections you think will enrich our understanding. Please remember to include a proper bibliographic citation, and a brief description of the resource itself as well as its value to you and your colleagues.
I enjoyed meeting you all last night and I look forward to a productive session.
Have a great day,
David
SAMPLE RESOURCES
April 21, 2008 8:03 AM
Gregg said...
Although I do not have as much time for them now, i have always been interested in video games. In the past video games have been criticized for hurting children and the companies have responded with games targeted toward health benefits. There was a recent trend toward fitness games (i love DDR), but there is also a huge trend right now in games designed to elevate brain function. I could not find proof that these games work, but some evidence does seem convincing. A couple of university studies are cited in this article where one professor suggests certain video game for delaying the onset of Alzheimer's.
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Alzheimers/2007/7-06-21-BestComputer.htm
April 22, 2008 11:51 AM
Monica said...
I found a useful website called “Brain Connection.” This site allows you to choose a topic—bilingual ed., child dev., education, learning, etc.—and it gives an article encompassing that particular topic. I chose the topic “stress in the classroom” because I think we covered this topic a bit in our last lecture. What Dr. E. Simon Hanson, a scientist, explains is how there are receptors in the brain that detect stress related hormones, like cortisol, when a person is placed in a stressful situation. The hippocampus, where memory forms, is where the receptors are located. This is why we remember where stressful situations take place so that we may avoid them in the future. This was our ancestors’ earlier survival strategy. In the classroom, a similar thing takes place, but it is difficult for us to gage how stressful a situation might be to an individual. However, Dr. Hanson does say that it’s the amount of control the individual feels they have in the “stressful” situation—talking in front of the class, reading out loud, answering a question, etc.--that will determine the amount of stress the individual will endure. As teachers, we should try to keep a healthy balance between having the opportunity to not respond and over respond in the challenges our students face in the classroom and out of the classroom.
http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=fa/stress-interference3
April 22, 2008 3:32 PM
jessy said...
This week I read an article from Newsweek about the importance of teaching the arts and humanities to college students. The article pointed out how teaching the humanities to students helped to cultivate students’ “inner eyes” which help bring students into contact with issues of gender, race, ethnicity, and cross-cultural experience. The arts also have been helpful to instruct students in both freedom and community. When people put on a play or dance piece with one another, they must learn to cooperate and creat a community – A very good model for a good democracy in the political processes. However, studying the humanities should not just be limited to college courses, but it should be included in all of educatiion. The humanities can be used to understand the past and as a result created the present. The study of humanities is also necessary in bringing about realizations about different interpretiations of life and history. Most importantly the study of humanities in the early years helps children put things in the big picture. Children are inundated with disturbing news and facts about other cultures, wouldn’t it be nice if they were taught how to take a step back and look at issues from all sides? Yes, humanities should be taught in education.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/46439/page/1
April 22, 2008 4:33 PM
jeff said...
Teaching Tolerance: Learning can’t happen unless students feel safe.
Teachers see and hear intolerance on a daily basis. The goal, according to Rick Sparks (president of the McFarland Teachers Association), is to have students learn tolerance instead of hate. This is possible by teaching tolerance in the face of hate. According to Eric Heins, “Teachers must create a safe space in the classroom with an environment of tolerance, respect and acceptance, in order for learning to happen”. At Rancho Cucamonga High School student performers bring these issues to life by acting out common misunderstandings and intolerance scenarios. Teachers are also encouraged to act and look within themselves first in order to reflect positive social views. Heins also comments about the implications of merely teaching “tolerance”. He insists that we should be striving for teaching “acceptance” instead.
http://www.cta.org/media/publications/
educator/archives/2002/200202_feat_01.htm
April 22, 2008 5:56 PM
MikeG said...
I was reading an article on msnbc and it stated that playstation came out with a new game that offers a new way to test intelligence. I knew that some video games or at least video gaming does work for some good of the brain, but this game actually gives you a PQ score and compares your score to others online. The game is to awaken all the other individual functioning units of the brain, according to one professor of psychology. Whatever it means, I'm not sure if I want my scores to be compared to others online anyways. The game is a 3D maze textris type of arcade. It hasnt sold much, but I wouldnt mind trying it. However, wouldn't lack of playstation skills affect your scores...anyhow, there is video on this on the web page I found...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11118684/
have fun!
April 22, 2008 8:39 PM
Brenda said...
Over the weekend, I had a rare opportunity to enjoy a movie. It had been years since I'd watched Dolores Claiborne and the issue of the daughter repressing the memories of her father's sexual abuse made me wonder if there are many cases like this. I remembered all of the court cases in the early nineties where people claimed they'd been sexually abused, but had somehow repressed these horrific experiences; Later, they admitted therapeutic practices had influenced their claims.
I found an article in Harvard Magazine which addresses this very issue. The researchers involved put “repressed memory” to the test of time. They reasoned that if dissociative amnesia (memory repression) were an innate capability of the brain— like depression, hallucinations, anxiety, and dementia—it would appear in written works throughout history. To date, they have found examples of this phenomena in some nineteenth-century works: best known were A Tale of Two Cities (1859), by Charles Dickens, in which Dr. Manette forgets that he is a physician after his incarceration in the Bastille, and Captains Courageous (1896), by Rudyard Kipling, in which “Penn,” a former minister, loses his memory after his family perishes in a flood and recalls that trauma only after being involved in a collision at sea. But the survey turned up no examples from pre-modern sources
( http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/01/repressed-memory.html).
The researchers concluded that the absence of any real mention of repressed memory instances in literature indicates it is not a neurological function of the brain, rather a "cultural-bound" syndrome rooted in the nineteenth century.
http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/01/repressed-memory.html
April 23, 2008 3:39 PM
laura said...
http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=sci-news/grammar-music
"Speech Insights Sound Off in the Brain"
From Science News, Vol. 155, No. 5, January 30, 1999, p.68 © 1999 Science News
Researchers have homed in on the specific neural activity of the brain that supports the importance of intonation beyond what has previously been known. A recent study now shows that intonation goes beyond indicating that an utterance is a question, or an exclamation, for example. By monitoring brain-wave response, the study showed that intonation is essential to understanding the underlying grammar of speech, and is therefore more important to overall understanding of speech than previously believed
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The Socratic Method
THE SOCRATIC METHOD (with thanks to Ray Linn, LAUSD)
The key teaching method used in this class is called the “dialectic” or “the Socratic method.” This approach consists of a continual dialogue including questions, answers, and criticisms/clarifications of answers. It is one way of pursuing truth, and it can be used directly in conversation or indirectly in discussing literature that has been read in class. The method is so simple that at first it doesn’t seem like much of a “method” at all. It is, however, and I think it is the best method for pursuing truths about human beings and their assumptions about reality and abstractions such as values, culture, and the social foundations of education. The dialogue which follows illustrates how the Socratic method was used in a high school class to explore the topic of status as a possible goal of human existence. The dialogue is rearranged and idealized, but it provides an idea of how the Socratic method works and where it took participants in their discussion of a widely held value of modern society. As you read it, consider your own private desire to be held in high esteem by others and, by imagining yourself in the role of Student, ask yourself how you would answer the questions in the dialectic.
Teacher: Is there anyone in this room who is not greatly concerned with achieving high status? Is it worth living for?
Student: What else am I to live for? I sure don’t want to be a loser, and I know that when I make it I’ll be happy.
Teacher: Don’t all desires make you unhappy with your present situation in the world? If you want to be big, you must now feel small, and thus you aren’t happy.
Student: Perhaps, but when I make it...
Teacher: Make what? Just what are you going to “make,” and how will it make you happy? Society might give you some sort of symbolic prize for your efforts, but you are essentially a body with desires. How can a symbol satisfy a desiring body?
Student: But after I’m rich and famous, I’ll have lots of fine bodies to choose from!
Teacher: Perhaps, but as Philip Slater says, you’ll do without them while striving for that carrot, and how long will it take? And even if you’re right about what will happen after you hit the big time, what makes you think you’ll be loved for who you are? If it’s money that brings you to her attention, perhaps it’s money that she loves.Besides, the problem with status-lovers is that they’re always trying to show that they are superior to the people around them. To have status is to act superior. Do you truly love people who think they’re superior to you? Do status-conscious people produce the impulse of love, or the desire to tear them down?
Student: So? (This student is not “superior”)
Teacher: Isn’t it inevitable that status-seeking separates you from other human beings? Since status is a self-centered goal, it focuses your attention on what’s going to happen to you—which automatically separates you from the people around you. Do you prefer the feeling of loneliness?
Student: No, but nobody wants to be close to a loser either.
Teacher: Why not try to meet the Other as an equal? And if you persist in defining yourself as the “superior,” are you different from the slime that joins the Klan in order to establish a sense of superiority in the world? As long as the desire to be high dominates your consciousness, don’t you have to look down on the Other? Isn’t it logically impossible to define yourself as superior without defining someone else as inferior? And isn’t this what you, just like the Klansman, are doing all the time?
Student: Maybe so, but I’m not a loser.
Teacher: What are you, essentially?
Student: As Descartes said, “I am a thing that thinks.” To be presently aware of these thoughts, I must exist as an unchanging mental thing.
Teacher: Are you such a “thing?” As Hume says, look again: can you find an unchanging thing, in addition to your changing thoughts and feelings? When I introspect all I find is a bunch of changing thoughts and feelings and impulses—are you so different?
Student: OK, I can only be certain of the changing thoughts and feelings.
Teacher: But is this the reality you pay attention to when you try to rise up and be the best thing around? Or do you ignore this changing internal reality when you act like you’re the top rat in the rat race? Is Tolstoy right when he says that the great thing that you want to be is merely a pretense, and that in attempting to become it you must ignore the real life that is within you? Since society only gives status to fixed positions like “judge” or “executive,” doesn’t the status-seeker have to ignore the real, changing feelings and impulses that are within? If so, is Tolstoy right in saying that status-seeking leads to death?
Student: What else should I do with my life?
Teacher: Why not return to the “living” by ignoring your desire to be superior, and instead focusing your consciousness on the reality of human needs and feelings? Why not focus on meeting the needs of people around you?
Student: I don’t care what you say, achieving a high position is important to me.
Teacher: Look around the room. Would your status with your peers still be as important if you knew you were going to die tomorrow?
The actual classroom dialogue went way beyond this brief and condensed version, and it contained twists and turns not mentioned here, but these are some of the questions, answers, and criticisms of answers which were expressed in class. In analyzing the Socratic method of pursuing truth, several things may be stated: first, it is essentially a negative method. People using it are often trying to tear down the ideas they hear; they listen to others’ propositions, usually with one ear turned toward what is wrong with it. If they don’t listen in this critical way, if they aren’t willing to think negatively, the method cannot exist.
The Socratic method works best when its practitioners have developed a sensitivity to logic and semantics—specifically, to what makes a good argument and what doesn’t (logistical fallacies), and to language that is vague, misleading or meaningless. Asking clarifying questions such as, “What do you mean?” is essential to the Socratic method. In Preface to Plato Havelock argues that this question marks beginning of this particular approach to the search for truth. Questioning the meaning of the key terms in an argument is especially important in using this method. So is an awareness of the vague clichés of the day, e.g., “He’s making it…” “This idea sucks…” “That’s sick…” “It’s awesome…” etc. Again, for the Socratic method to work practitioners must be willing to think negatively, to look for and identify instances of insufficient evidence, and for sloppy use of language.
In attempting to justify this negative approach to education, we can begin by noting that the Socratic method first grew out of a particular way of thinking about knowledge that surfaced in 5th century Greece. For Socrates, a great many knowledge claims and value claims seemed empty, meaningless, and even destructive. The traditional Homeric view of things was still a major part of Greek education in the 5th century, even though it had little to offer the world in Socrates’ day. In addition, the Sophists had revealed the apparent relativity of all answers about what is real and what is good—so that what might be true in Athens wouldn’t necessarily be true somewhere else. Given this social situation, it was difficult to accept the traditional idea that knowledge was simply the collective memory of the community. In other words, knowledge was no longer thought of as a set of established truths which an older person knows and simply pours into the head of a younger person. In an era of competing answers, cultural relativism, and skepticism, the “lecture method” no longer seemed adequate. When one way of seeing things gives rise to many, it’s difficult to believe that memory alone produces knowledge. Thus Socrates began to think of knowledge in a different way: as something achieved by individuals actively searching for the truth through constant questioning and criticism. Active, critical questioning, rather than the acceptance of secondhand opinion, became the key to knowledge. Thus Socrates tells us that, “The life without criticism is meaningless.” Since we too live in an era of competing answers, cultural relativism, and skepticism, Socrates’ method seems well-suited to today’s classroom. When there are many competing answers about what human beings are like and what they should do, all answers become questionable, and at this point so does a straight lecture approach to education. It seems more sensible to survey the competing answers with a critical mind, actively investigating for ourselves what has meaning for us and what does not.
In addition to providing an ideal method for this skeptical era, there are other advantages to the Socratic method: first, it takes the subject off the page and places it in the student’s life. One problem with a straight lecture/reading approach to education is that it often fails to bring the abstractions into the student’s experience. For example, in some epistemology classes students are simply asked to read and listen to lectures on Descartes, Locke, and Hume; they are asked to get the issues straight, to think about the problem of skepticism, etc.—but they are not asked to relate the issues to their own lives. The problem is that when this relation is ignored education becomes a meaningless, formal exercise. The value of Socratic questions like, “What do you actually observe when you think one event causes another?” and “Do you know more than my dog Brewster?” is that they force students to consider how epistemological issues relate to their own lives. Thinking about this relation is important even when studying something as removed from students’ lives as epistemology; for example, one of the great values of skeptical arguments such as Hume’s is that they tend to discourage rashness (“because I know I might be wrong”) and encourage tolerance/appreciation (“because I know that even foreigners might be right”). But this kind of influence is possible only if the student relates the abstract issue to his own situation in the world.
In connection with this point, it seems that nothing enters a student’s life as much as the concept of “no.” A nonchallenging comment like, “That’s an interesting answer’’ encourages complacency rather than critical thought. “No, you’re wrong” or “Your sentence is meaningless” or “You have no evidence for that,” on the other hand, are challenges to the mind that demand action. “No” is something that must be dealt with, something that must be taken into account rather than ignored. If a teacher referred to your self-centered love of status as “interesting” or as “one of the many things that human beings live for,” would you have thought much about it? Such tepid niceness might allow an extremely self-centered student to feel good about himself, but it evokes little serious thought about what the student is living for. Pragmatists are basically right in asserting that we don’t reflect on our experience until we have a problem. “No” presents the problem in clear relief.
Another advantage of the Socratic method is that it fosters critical thinking skills—skills that remain long after the particular subject matter is forgotten. By “critical thinking skills” I mean the ability to separate what is valid and true and significant from what is nonsense. After prolonged exposure to the Socratic method, students tend to internalize it—so that even in their private thinking when they run a proposition through their mind they simultaneously search for its weakness, e.g., “The teacher’s statement might be right, but where is the evidence?... And what does he mean by…?” This critical way of thinking about one’s private thoughts is not natural, and it is one of the main consequences of exposure to the Socratic method. In an era dominated by the media, modern politics and so much nonsense, developing critical thinking abilities is important. One problem with the lecture approach to education is that it doesn’t encourage the student to constantly think critically, but when he leaves the lecture and faces the modern world he will be better off if he does.
The Socratic method has great value for another reason: it sharpens the teacher’s mind, and leads her to constantly delve deeper into her subject. This is because it forces her to constantly think of the key questions and issues related to the subject she is teaching. The most important questions, key terms, and relations within a particular subject area are not obvious, and more than a few teachers have trouble writing up essay questions because they haven’t thought out the general questions which relate to their subject. If they use the Socratic method, they have no choice: they must search for the key assumptions, terms and issues in order to raise the right questions.
The Socratic method forces the teacher to pay close attention to students. One problem with a lecture/reading-based course is that allows the teacher to ignore student feedback until exam time (and in many college/graduate courses, not even then). In using the Socratic method teachers are forced to consider student responses daily. Specifically, student feedback provides a formative assessment that identifies intellectual blind spots, false reasoning, clichés and unexamined language, inane values, and other needs for improved reasoning. Of course such intimate intellectual contact can be repulsive, but it does enable teachers to think more realistically about how to communicate and relate the lesson to individual students.
Granted: the Socratic method sometimes evokes too much disrespect for authority, particularly in misguided or dimwitted students, because the method tends to assume that authority is meaningless. Granted: the method sometimes evokes such strong emotions that defenses impair or prevent learning. Granted: the method can often be bruising to a student’s ego. However, without bruising the childhood ego would never be left behind, and the typical delusions of ego about one’s self-importance constitute baggage far too heavy to carry in the search for truth. The Socratic method, by subjecting the ego to constant criticism, is helpful in eliminating the ego from discussions of truth. In evaluating this method, consider the alternatives: would students learn more that is important in their lives during the same limited time period if teachers relied on lecture and reading, or Descartes’ introspection (searching within one’s own consciousness for ideas that are clear and certain), or on Buddhist meditation? Would these or any other approach to the search for truth cause you to think as deeply about your own desire to be top rat?
Please come to class prepared to defend your answer.
The key teaching method used in this class is called the “dialectic” or “the Socratic method.” This approach consists of a continual dialogue including questions, answers, and criticisms/clarifications of answers. It is one way of pursuing truth, and it can be used directly in conversation or indirectly in discussing literature that has been read in class. The method is so simple that at first it doesn’t seem like much of a “method” at all. It is, however, and I think it is the best method for pursuing truths about human beings and their assumptions about reality and abstractions such as values, culture, and the social foundations of education. The dialogue which follows illustrates how the Socratic method was used in a high school class to explore the topic of status as a possible goal of human existence. The dialogue is rearranged and idealized, but it provides an idea of how the Socratic method works and where it took participants in their discussion of a widely held value of modern society. As you read it, consider your own private desire to be held in high esteem by others and, by imagining yourself in the role of Student, ask yourself how you would answer the questions in the dialectic.
Teacher: Is there anyone in this room who is not greatly concerned with achieving high status? Is it worth living for?
Student: What else am I to live for? I sure don’t want to be a loser, and I know that when I make it I’ll be happy.
Teacher: Don’t all desires make you unhappy with your present situation in the world? If you want to be big, you must now feel small, and thus you aren’t happy.
Student: Perhaps, but when I make it...
Teacher: Make what? Just what are you going to “make,” and how will it make you happy? Society might give you some sort of symbolic prize for your efforts, but you are essentially a body with desires. How can a symbol satisfy a desiring body?
Student: But after I’m rich and famous, I’ll have lots of fine bodies to choose from!
Teacher: Perhaps, but as Philip Slater says, you’ll do without them while striving for that carrot, and how long will it take? And even if you’re right about what will happen after you hit the big time, what makes you think you’ll be loved for who you are? If it’s money that brings you to her attention, perhaps it’s money that she loves.Besides, the problem with status-lovers is that they’re always trying to show that they are superior to the people around them. To have status is to act superior. Do you truly love people who think they’re superior to you? Do status-conscious people produce the impulse of love, or the desire to tear them down?
Student: So? (This student is not “superior”)
Teacher: Isn’t it inevitable that status-seeking separates you from other human beings? Since status is a self-centered goal, it focuses your attention on what’s going to happen to you—which automatically separates you from the people around you. Do you prefer the feeling of loneliness?
Student: No, but nobody wants to be close to a loser either.
Teacher: Why not try to meet the Other as an equal? And if you persist in defining yourself as the “superior,” are you different from the slime that joins the Klan in order to establish a sense of superiority in the world? As long as the desire to be high dominates your consciousness, don’t you have to look down on the Other? Isn’t it logically impossible to define yourself as superior without defining someone else as inferior? And isn’t this what you, just like the Klansman, are doing all the time?
Student: Maybe so, but I’m not a loser.
Teacher: What are you, essentially?
Student: As Descartes said, “I am a thing that thinks.” To be presently aware of these thoughts, I must exist as an unchanging mental thing.
Teacher: Are you such a “thing?” As Hume says, look again: can you find an unchanging thing, in addition to your changing thoughts and feelings? When I introspect all I find is a bunch of changing thoughts and feelings and impulses—are you so different?
Student: OK, I can only be certain of the changing thoughts and feelings.
Teacher: But is this the reality you pay attention to when you try to rise up and be the best thing around? Or do you ignore this changing internal reality when you act like you’re the top rat in the rat race? Is Tolstoy right when he says that the great thing that you want to be is merely a pretense, and that in attempting to become it you must ignore the real life that is within you? Since society only gives status to fixed positions like “judge” or “executive,” doesn’t the status-seeker have to ignore the real, changing feelings and impulses that are within? If so, is Tolstoy right in saying that status-seeking leads to death?
Student: What else should I do with my life?
Teacher: Why not return to the “living” by ignoring your desire to be superior, and instead focusing your consciousness on the reality of human needs and feelings? Why not focus on meeting the needs of people around you?
Student: I don’t care what you say, achieving a high position is important to me.
Teacher: Look around the room. Would your status with your peers still be as important if you knew you were going to die tomorrow?
The actual classroom dialogue went way beyond this brief and condensed version, and it contained twists and turns not mentioned here, but these are some of the questions, answers, and criticisms of answers which were expressed in class. In analyzing the Socratic method of pursuing truth, several things may be stated: first, it is essentially a negative method. People using it are often trying to tear down the ideas they hear; they listen to others’ propositions, usually with one ear turned toward what is wrong with it. If they don’t listen in this critical way, if they aren’t willing to think negatively, the method cannot exist.
The Socratic method works best when its practitioners have developed a sensitivity to logic and semantics—specifically, to what makes a good argument and what doesn’t (logistical fallacies), and to language that is vague, misleading or meaningless. Asking clarifying questions such as, “What do you mean?” is essential to the Socratic method. In Preface to Plato Havelock argues that this question marks beginning of this particular approach to the search for truth. Questioning the meaning of the key terms in an argument is especially important in using this method. So is an awareness of the vague clichés of the day, e.g., “He’s making it…” “This idea sucks…” “That’s sick…” “It’s awesome…” etc. Again, for the Socratic method to work practitioners must be willing to think negatively, to look for and identify instances of insufficient evidence, and for sloppy use of language.
In attempting to justify this negative approach to education, we can begin by noting that the Socratic method first grew out of a particular way of thinking about knowledge that surfaced in 5th century Greece. For Socrates, a great many knowledge claims and value claims seemed empty, meaningless, and even destructive. The traditional Homeric view of things was still a major part of Greek education in the 5th century, even though it had little to offer the world in Socrates’ day. In addition, the Sophists had revealed the apparent relativity of all answers about what is real and what is good—so that what might be true in Athens wouldn’t necessarily be true somewhere else. Given this social situation, it was difficult to accept the traditional idea that knowledge was simply the collective memory of the community. In other words, knowledge was no longer thought of as a set of established truths which an older person knows and simply pours into the head of a younger person. In an era of competing answers, cultural relativism, and skepticism, the “lecture method” no longer seemed adequate. When one way of seeing things gives rise to many, it’s difficult to believe that memory alone produces knowledge. Thus Socrates began to think of knowledge in a different way: as something achieved by individuals actively searching for the truth through constant questioning and criticism. Active, critical questioning, rather than the acceptance of secondhand opinion, became the key to knowledge. Thus Socrates tells us that, “The life without criticism is meaningless.” Since we too live in an era of competing answers, cultural relativism, and skepticism, Socrates’ method seems well-suited to today’s classroom. When there are many competing answers about what human beings are like and what they should do, all answers become questionable, and at this point so does a straight lecture approach to education. It seems more sensible to survey the competing answers with a critical mind, actively investigating for ourselves what has meaning for us and what does not.
In addition to providing an ideal method for this skeptical era, there are other advantages to the Socratic method: first, it takes the subject off the page and places it in the student’s life. One problem with a straight lecture/reading approach to education is that it often fails to bring the abstractions into the student’s experience. For example, in some epistemology classes students are simply asked to read and listen to lectures on Descartes, Locke, and Hume; they are asked to get the issues straight, to think about the problem of skepticism, etc.—but they are not asked to relate the issues to their own lives. The problem is that when this relation is ignored education becomes a meaningless, formal exercise. The value of Socratic questions like, “What do you actually observe when you think one event causes another?” and “Do you know more than my dog Brewster?” is that they force students to consider how epistemological issues relate to their own lives. Thinking about this relation is important even when studying something as removed from students’ lives as epistemology; for example, one of the great values of skeptical arguments such as Hume’s is that they tend to discourage rashness (“because I know I might be wrong”) and encourage tolerance/appreciation (“because I know that even foreigners might be right”). But this kind of influence is possible only if the student relates the abstract issue to his own situation in the world.
In connection with this point, it seems that nothing enters a student’s life as much as the concept of “no.” A nonchallenging comment like, “That’s an interesting answer’’ encourages complacency rather than critical thought. “No, you’re wrong” or “Your sentence is meaningless” or “You have no evidence for that,” on the other hand, are challenges to the mind that demand action. “No” is something that must be dealt with, something that must be taken into account rather than ignored. If a teacher referred to your self-centered love of status as “interesting” or as “one of the many things that human beings live for,” would you have thought much about it? Such tepid niceness might allow an extremely self-centered student to feel good about himself, but it evokes little serious thought about what the student is living for. Pragmatists are basically right in asserting that we don’t reflect on our experience until we have a problem. “No” presents the problem in clear relief.
Another advantage of the Socratic method is that it fosters critical thinking skills—skills that remain long after the particular subject matter is forgotten. By “critical thinking skills” I mean the ability to separate what is valid and true and significant from what is nonsense. After prolonged exposure to the Socratic method, students tend to internalize it—so that even in their private thinking when they run a proposition through their mind they simultaneously search for its weakness, e.g., “The teacher’s statement might be right, but where is the evidence?... And what does he mean by…?” This critical way of thinking about one’s private thoughts is not natural, and it is one of the main consequences of exposure to the Socratic method. In an era dominated by the media, modern politics and so much nonsense, developing critical thinking abilities is important. One problem with the lecture approach to education is that it doesn’t encourage the student to constantly think critically, but when he leaves the lecture and faces the modern world he will be better off if he does.
The Socratic method has great value for another reason: it sharpens the teacher’s mind, and leads her to constantly delve deeper into her subject. This is because it forces her to constantly think of the key questions and issues related to the subject she is teaching. The most important questions, key terms, and relations within a particular subject area are not obvious, and more than a few teachers have trouble writing up essay questions because they haven’t thought out the general questions which relate to their subject. If they use the Socratic method, they have no choice: they must search for the key assumptions, terms and issues in order to raise the right questions.
The Socratic method forces the teacher to pay close attention to students. One problem with a lecture/reading-based course is that allows the teacher to ignore student feedback until exam time (and in many college/graduate courses, not even then). In using the Socratic method teachers are forced to consider student responses daily. Specifically, student feedback provides a formative assessment that identifies intellectual blind spots, false reasoning, clichés and unexamined language, inane values, and other needs for improved reasoning. Of course such intimate intellectual contact can be repulsive, but it does enable teachers to think more realistically about how to communicate and relate the lesson to individual students.
Granted: the Socratic method sometimes evokes too much disrespect for authority, particularly in misguided or dimwitted students, because the method tends to assume that authority is meaningless. Granted: the method sometimes evokes such strong emotions that defenses impair or prevent learning. Granted: the method can often be bruising to a student’s ego. However, without bruising the childhood ego would never be left behind, and the typical delusions of ego about one’s self-importance constitute baggage far too heavy to carry in the search for truth. The Socratic method, by subjecting the ego to constant criticism, is helpful in eliminating the ego from discussions of truth. In evaluating this method, consider the alternatives: would students learn more that is important in their lives during the same limited time period if teachers relied on lecture and reading, or Descartes’ introspection (searching within one’s own consciousness for ideas that are clear and certain), or on Buddhist meditation? Would these or any other approach to the search for truth cause you to think as deeply about your own desire to be top rat?
Please come to class prepared to defend your answer.
Course Syllabus
Course Syllabus
Note: Individual Instructors complete the asterisked (*) components of the syllabus. ALL other components will be prescribed by University College, the Department Chair, or Course Custodian and must be included on each instructor’s syllabus as provided.
NEW (CAC Approval Date):
X
UPDATED (Date): 07/06/06
*Spring Session II 2007-08/Santa Maria Campus
COURSE NUMBER, TITLE and CREDIT
EDUU 606 – Seminar in Learning Theory 3 credits
*David R. Preston, Ph.D.
voice :
e-mail: dpreston@chapman.edu
office hours: by appointment
CUC COURSE CUSTODIAN
Nedra Davis, Ph.D. Kathy Theuer, Ed.D.
nedavis@chapman.edu theuer@chapman.edu
BULLETIN COURSE DESCRIPTION
This course helps students to develop an understanding of how people process information and learn; studies the history, content and educational applications pertaining to intelligence and thinking dispositions. Students study various learning theories and their implications for instruction. This includes the development of the mind and brain and their role in education.
PREREQUISITES
EDUU 600
ESSENTIAL EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES
Overhead projector, and ideally LCD projector, PowerPoint and access to the Internet.
Classroom television with VHS capability.
Classroom should have adequate tables and chairs or desk and chair space for small groups.
COURSE LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of the course the candidate should be able to . . .
l. understand the cognitive, affective and biological basis of human brain function and be able
to apply cognitive development and basic causal scientific findings of the brain to
education.
2. demonstrate salient principles of learning including the effects of positive and negative
prior knowledge.
3. demonstrate knowledge of the major learning and instructional theories.
4. apply learning theories and instructional theories to a variety of educational situations;
5. be able to describe the basic principles of human learning and development including
areas germane to pupils with regular as well as special needs;
6. understand theories of motivation and intelligence and their application in the classroom.
MAJOR STUDY UNITS
Brain-based teaching and learning
1. How the brain processes information
2. Brain structure, memory, and learning
3. Memory, retention and transfer of learning
4. Problem Solving
5. Integration of knowledge
The Role of Theory in Learning and Instruction
1. Learning theory and research
2. Functions of theory
Behaviorist Theories of Learning
1. Ivan Pavlov’s classical conditioning
2. B.F. Skinner’s operant conditioning
Cognitive Development Theories of Learning
1. Jean Piaget’s cognitive development theory
2. Lev Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory
Social Cognitive Theories
1. Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory
2. Robert Gagne’s conditions of learning
Constructivism
1. Constructivist learning principles
2. Situated learning
Motivation and Learning
1. Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
2. Lawrence Kohlberg’s moral reasoning
3. Bernard Weiner’s attribution theory
Theories of Intelligence
1. Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences
2. Robert Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence
INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES
· Group discussions
Lectures
Student presentations, oral and written
Video tapes, power point, cassette recordings, CD recordings
Socio drama
Reading texts and Internet resources
REQUIRED TEXTS
· Sousa, David A. (2006). How the Brain Learns - 3rd Edition
Corwin Press. ISBN # 1-4129-3661-6
· Woolfolk, A. (2005). Educational Psychology – 10th Edition
Allyn and Bacon Publishing. ISBN # 0-205-49383-1
RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL TEXTS FOR INSTRUCTOR IF NEEDED
· Brooks, J.G. and M. (1999). The case for constructivist classroom.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
ISBN 0-87120-358-8
· Zull, James E. (2002). The Art of Changing the Brain. Stylus Publishing
ISBN 1-57922-054-1
Chapman On-Line Bookstore: www.mbsdirect.net/chapman
STUDENT PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
For post baccalaureate work at Chapman University, a grade of B is considered above average. The grade of “A” is awarded only in cases of clearly exceptional performance. Students working towards a Masters degree are expected to maintain a 3.0 (B) average. Students shall have a working knowledge of the Internet and be prepared to access it on a regular basis.
*METHODS OF EVALUATION FOR DETERMINING GRADES
To be determined by individual instructors’ outlines of expectations.
It is recommended that final grades should be based on multiple measures of assessment. Ideas might include a research project and presentation of a topic related to brain research (ie. enhancing memory, sleep and learning, stress, autism) with the preparation of a paper that illustrates the parts of the brain affected, impact on learning and application of information to the classroom, projects or examinations (midterm and/or final), quizzes, class participation and attendance.
*ATTENDANCE AND OTHER CLASS POLICIES
Class Attendance policies are determined by each instructor and shall be included on the course outline distributed during the first week of each class. The university recommends as a minimal policy that students who are absent 20% of the course should be failed.
CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
ACADEMIC WRITING STANDARDS
Specific writing standards differ from discipline to discipline, and learning to write persuasively in any genre is a complex process, both individual and social, that takes place over time with continued practice and guidance. Nonetheless, Chapman University has identified some common assumptions and practices that apply to most academic writing done at the university level. These generally understood elements are articulated here to help students see how they can best express their ideas effectively, regardless of their discipline or any particular writing assignment.
Venues for writing include the widespread use of e-mail, electronic chat spaces and interactive blackboards. Chapman University is committed to guaranteeing that students can expect all electronic communication to meet Federal and State regulations concerning harassment or other “hate” speech. Individual integrity and social decency require common courtesies and a mutual understanding that writing--in all its educational configurations--is an attempt to share information, knowledge, opinions and insights in fruitful ways.
Academic writing (as commonly understood in the university) always aims at correct Standard English grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
The following details are meant to give students accurate, useful, and practical assistance for writing across the curriculum of Chapman University College.
Students can assume that successful collegiate writing will generally:
· Delineate the relationships among writer, purpose and audience by means of a clear focus (thesis statements, hypotheses or instructor-posed questions are examples of such focusing methods, but are by no means the only ones) and a topic that’s managed and developed appropriately for the specific task.
· Display a familiarity with and understanding of the particular discourse styles of the discipline and/or particular assignment.
· Demonstrate the analytical skills of the writer rather than just repeating what others have said by summarizing or paraphrasing
· Substantiate abstractions, judgments, and assertions with evidence specifically applicable for the occasion whether illustrations, quotations, or relevant data.
· Draw upon contextualized research whenever necessary, properly acknowledging the explicit work or intellectual property of others.
· Require more than one carefully proofread and documented draft, typed or computer printed unless otherwise specified.
DOCUMENTATION
Any material not original to the student must be cited in a recognized documentation format (APA, ASA, MLA or Chicago-style) appropriate to the particular academic discipline. For quick reference to documentation standards for various fields you may refer to: www.chapman.edu/library/reference/styles.
Deliberate use of information or material from outside sources without proper citation is considered plagiarism and can be grounds for disciplinary action. See the explanation of Academic Integrity below.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
As a learning community of scholars, Chapman University emphasizes the ethical responsibility of all its members to seek knowledge honestly and in good faith. Students are responsible for doing their own work, and academic dishonesty of any kind will not be tolerated. "Violations of academic integrity include, but are not limited to, cheating, plagiarism, or misrepresentation of information in oral or written form. Such violations will be dealt with severely by the instructor, the dean/center director, and the standards committee. Plagiarism means presenting someone else's idea or writing as if it were your own. If you use someone else's idea or writing, be sure the source is clearly documented." Other guidelines for acceptable student behavior are specified in the Chapman University College Catalog.
ACADEMIC WRITING GUIDE
Student’s Name________________________________ Instructor _______________________________
Paper Assignment ______________________________Course Title______________________________
(Instructor: Read the entire paper through then reflect on its merits employing the following criteria. Our goal is to provide guidance to the student progressively in order to improve the quality of his or her writing.)
Criteria
Comments
NSW
Dev
WD
The writer demonstrates an understanding of the assignment by using a style, form and language that is appropriate for its intended audience.
The writer has chosen a topic in accord with the assignment and limited it sufficiently to explore in depth in the space allotted.
The paper focuses its presentation by means of a clear statement of purpose (thesis statement, hypothesis or instructor posed question) and logically organized sub-topic paragraphs or sections.
The writer substantiates abstractions, judgments and assertions with specific illustrations, facts and evidence appropriate to the assignment and/or discipline.
The writer has added to on-going discussions of the topic with his or her own critical analysis, rather than simply repeating what others have said through quotation-stacking, paraphrasing or summaries.
The writer draws upon research whenever necessary to support critical analysis or assertions made and properly acknowledges the work of others by utilizing a standard documentation format acceptable for the course.
The paper conforms to the minimal essentials of Standard American English grammar, word choice, spelling and punctuation.
N S W = Needs Significant Work, D = Developing WD = Well Developed
OVERALL RATING
The writer meets the needs of the particular audience and succeeds in his or her intended purpose--honestly engaging the subject and establishing her or his authority by offering a persuasive and supportable analysis.
Needs
Significant Developing Well Developed
Work
ô¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾®
Comments:
A. If this version of the paper is to receive a grade, the grade is_______. Instructor______ Date ______
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT STATEMENT
Any personal learning accommodations that may be needed by a student covered by the “Americans with Disabilities Act” must be made known to the Campus Director or Advisor as soon as possible. This is the student's responsibility. Information about services, academic modifications and documentation requirements can be obtained from the Director of a Chapman University College campus.
QUICK ACCESS TO THE ON-LINE CHAPMAN LIBRARY RESOURCES
http://www.chapman.edu/library/
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Almy, M. (1966). Young children’s thinking. New York: Teachers College Press.
Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D., et. al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA :ASCD.
Arredondo, D. and Block. J. (1990). Recognizing the connections between thinking skills and mastery learning, Educational Leadership, 47, 4-10.
Astington, J.W. (1993). The child’s discovery of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bandura, A. (1971). Psychological modeling: Conflicting theories. Chicago: Atherton.
Bandura, A., (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Bigge, M. (1982). Learning theories for teachers. New York: Harper and Row.
Bodrova, E. & Leong, D.J. (1996). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Brooks, J.G. & M. (1999). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ACSD).
Bruner, J. (1977). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York: Norton and Co.
Bruner, J., Goodnow, J. & Austin, G.A. (1967). A Study of thinking. New York: Wiley.
Blythe, T. & Associates (1998). The teaching for understanding guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Caine, R. & Caine, G. (1991). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Caine, R. & Caine, G. (1997). Education on the edge of possibility. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Clifford, M. (1981). Practicing educational philosophy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Costa, A. (1985). Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. NewYork: Harper Perennial: Division of Harper Collins Publishers.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, (1997). Finding Flow: The psychology of engagement in everyday life. New York, Basic Books.
Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: MacMillan.
Diamond, M. & Hopson, J. (1998). Magic trees of the mind. How to nurture your child’s intelligence, creativity, and healthy emotions from birth through adolescence. New York: Plume.
Eisner, E. (1994). Cognition and curriculum revisited. New York: Columbia University Teachers Press.
Gagne, R.M. (1974). The conditions of learning, 3rd ed. New York: Holt-Rinehart and Winston.
Gagne, R.M. (1974). Essentials of learning for instruction. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.
Gardner, H. (1982). Art, mind and the human brain: A cognitive approach to creativity. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: What all students should understand. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think & how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ginsburg, H. & Opper, S. (1979). Piaget’s theory of intellectual development, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Good, T. & Brophy, J. (1995). Contemporary educational psychology, 5th ed. New York: Longman.
Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A.N. & Kuhl, P.K. (1999). The scientist in the crib: Minds, brains, and how children learn. New York: William Morrow & Co.
Granot, N. & Parziale, J. (Eds.) (2002). Microdevelopment: Transition processes in development and learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gredler, M. (2001). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice, 4th ed. New York: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Hewitt, J. (1997). Self and society: A symbolic interactionist social psychology, 7th Ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hogan, K. & Pressley, M., (Eds.). (1997). Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches & issues. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Huttenlocher, P.R. (2002). Neural plasticity: The effects of environment on the development of the cerebral cortex. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Issacs, N. (1961). A brief introduction to Piaget. New York: Agathon Press.
Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Jones, B.F. & Idol, L. (eds.) (1989). Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Jones, B.F. & Palinscar, A.S., et. al. (1987). Strategic teaching and learning: cognitive instruction in the content areas. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Joyce, B. and Weil, M. (1996). Models of teaching. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
LeDoux, J. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Touchstone.
LeDoux, J. (2002). Synaptic self: How our brains become who we are. New York: Viking.
Link, F. (1985). Essays on the intellect: Teaching with dimensions of learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Luria, A.R. (1980). Higher cortical functions in man, 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books.
Marzano, R. (1992). A different kind of classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Maslow, A.H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being, 2nd ed. New York: Van Nostrand and Reinhold.
Moll, L. (1989). Vygotsky and education. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
National Research Council (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (1999). Improving student learning: A strategic plan for education research and its utilization. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Oldberg, E. (2001). The executive brain: Frontal lobes and the civilized mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools: Better thinking and learning for every child. New York: The Free Press.
Perkins, D. (1995). Outsmarting IQ: The emerging science of learnable intelligence. New York: The Free Press.
Rieber, R. & Carton, A. (Eds). (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Problems of general psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Plenum Press.
Rieber, R. & Carton, A. (Eds). (1993). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: The fundamentals of defectology. (Vol. 2). New York: Plenum Press.
Rieber, R. & Wollock, J. (Eds). (1997). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Problems of the theory and history of psychology. (Vol. 3). New York: Plenum Press.
Rieber, R. (Ed). (1997). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: The history of the development of higher mental functions. (Vol. 4). New York: Plenum Press.
Rieber, R. (Ed). (1998). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Child psychology. (Vol. 1). New York: Plenum Press.
Rogers, C. (1983). Freedom to learn in the 80's. Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.
Restak, R., MD (2001). The secret life of the brain. Washington D.C.: Dana Press and Joseph Henry Press.
Ritchhart, R. (2002). Intellectual character: What it is, why it matters, and how to get it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Seigler, R.S. (1986). Children’s thinking. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall.
Skinner, B.F. (1982). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.
Spitzer, M. (1999). The mind within the net. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Sternberg, R. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York: Viking Press.
Sylvester, R. (1995). A celebration of neurons: Educators guide to the human brain. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tishman, S., Perkins, D. & Jay, E. (1995). The thinking classroom. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. & Kozulin, A. (Ed.). (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Waite-Stupiansky, S. (1997). Building understanding together: A constructivist approach to early childhood education. New York: Del Mar Publishers.
Watson, J. (1958). Behaviorism. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Wiske, M.S, ed. (1998). Teaching for understanding: linking research with practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zull, J., (2002). The Art of Changing the Brain. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing , LLC.
* SELECTED WEBSITES:
Black, H. (2001). Amygdala’s inner workings. The Scientist, 15, 19:20. Retrieved March 9, 2003 from http://www.the- scientist.com/yr2001/oct/research2_011001.html
Bloom’s taxonomy (n.d.). Retrieved October 19, 1998 from http://www.dlrn.org/library/dl/guide4.html
Boeree, C.G. (1998). B.F. Skinner. Retrieved December 4, 2001 from http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/skinner.html
Brain and cognition. (2003). Retrieved June 28, 2003 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02782626
Brain connection, glossary. (n.d.). Retrieved January 15, 2003 from http://www.brainconnection.com/gen/gloss.html
Bruer, J.T. (1997). Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational Researcher, Vol. 26, No. 8. , pp. 4-16 Retrieved March 10, 2003 from http://litd.psch.uic.edu/docs/bruer.j_1997.pdf
Bruer, J.T. (1999). In search of…brain-based education. Kappan, 80, 9. Retrieved January 15, 2003 from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbru9905.htm
Chen, I. (n.d.). An electronic textbook on instructional technology. Retrieved January 15, 2003 from University of Houston College of education Web Site: http://users.coe.uh.edu/~ichen/ebook/ET-IT/cover.htm
Chen, I. (n.d.). Overview of behavioral theories. Retrieved January 19, 2003 from University of Houston College of education Web Site: http://users.coe.uh.edu/~ichen/ebook/ET-IT/behavior.htm
Edge Foundation, Inc. Flow. Retrieved February 19, 2003 http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/csik.html
Eisner, E.W. (1999). The uses and limits of performance assessment. Kappan, May. Retrieved January 15, 2003 from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/keis9905.htm
ERIC Digests (1998). Creating learning centered classrooms. What does learning theory have to say? Retrieved June 29, 2003 from http://www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed422777.html
Gagne, R. (n.d.). Conditions of learning. Retrieved January 20, 2003 from http://tip.psychology.org/gagne.html
Gorman, J.M., Kent, J.M., Sullivan, G.M., & Coplan, J.D. (2000). Neuroanatomical hypothesis of panic disorder (Fear), revised. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 4, 493-505. Retrieved January 19, 2003 from http://www.psycheducation.org/emotion/amygdala.htm
Gwynne, R. (1997). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Retrieved March 7, 2003 from http://web.utk.edu/~gwynne/maslow.html
Jean Piaget Society. (n.d.) Society for the study of knowledge and development. Retrieved June 28, 2003 from http://www.piaget.org/links.html
Learning and the brain. (n.d.). Retrieved January 15, 2003 from http://www.edupr.com
Learning Theories (n.d.). Retrieved June 25, 2003 from http://www.funderstanding.com/constructivism.cfm
Livingston, Jennifer A. (1997). Metacognition: An overview. Retrieved June 25, 2003 from
http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/fas/shuell/cep564/Metacog.htm
Metacognition: Its importance, relation to the classroom, professional implications, and implementation. Retrieved June 25, 2003 from http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~mlhersh/metacognition.html
Metacognition: A literature review. (n.d.) Retrieved July 1, 2003 from http://www.ioe.ac.uk/cdl/CHAT/cahtmeta1.htm
Mind Institute at UC Davis (n.d.). Retrieved March 9, 2003 from http://mindinstitute.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/index.htm
Murphy, E. (1997). Constructivism: from theory to practice. Retrieved May 31, 2002 from http://www.stemnet.nf.ca/~elmurphy/emurphy/cle2b.html
National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington DC. National Academies Press. Available online at: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309070368/html/index.html
National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. National Academies Press. Retrieved July 7, 2003 http://www.nap.edu/books/0309070368/html/index.html
National Research Council. (1999). Improving student learning: A strategic plan for education research and its utilization. Washington DC. National Academies Press. Retrieved July 7, 2003 from http://www.nap.edu/books/0309070368/html/index.html
New Horizons In Learning. Flow P.O. Box 15329. Seattle, WA 98115 Retrieved February 19, 2003 from http://www.newhorizons.org
O’Neil, J. (1996). On emotional intelligence: A conversation with Daniel Goleman. Educational Leadership, 54, 1. Retrieved April 22, 2002 from http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9609/oneil.html
On Purpose Associates (1998). Behaviorism. Retrieved May 6, 2002 from http://www.funderstanding.com/behaviorism.cfm
On Purpose Associates (n.d.). Constructivism. Retrieved May 6, 2002 from http://funderstanding.com/constructivism.cfm
Operant conditioning (n.d.). Retrieved May 7, 2002 from http://tip.psychology.org/dkinner.html
Pfizer (2000). BRAIN: The world inside your head. Retrieved June 23, 2003 from http://www.pfizer.com/brain/map.html
Relationship of learning theory to instructional design. (n.d.). Retrieved May 6, 2002 from California State University at Long Beach Education Web Site: http://www.csulb.edu/~dkumrow/conference/learning_theory.html
Robert Gagne (n.d.). Retrieved May 6, 2002 from http://www.my-ecoach.com/idtimeline/theory/gagne.html
Roschelle, J. (1995). Learning in interactive environments: Prior knowledge and new experience. Public Institutions for Personal Learning: Establishing a Research Agenda, The American Association of Museums. Retrieved January 15, 2003 from http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/museumeducation/priorknowledge.html
The secret life of the brain (n.d.). Retrieved March 10, 2003 from http://books.nap.edu/html/secret_brain/index.html
The teaching for understanding framework. (n.d.). Retrieved January 19, 2003, from Harvard University Graduate School Project Zero Web Site: http://learnweb.harvard.edu/ent/workshop/ccdt_framework.cfm
Theory into practice (TIP) (n.d.). Retrieved June 29, 2003 http://tip.psychology.org/index.html
Welcome to LeDoux lab. (n.d.). Retrieved January 19, 2003 from New York University Center for Neural Science Web Site: http://www.cns.nyu.edu/home/ledoux
What is constructivism? (n.d.). Retrieved May 7, 2002 from http://hagar.up.ac.za/catts/learner/lindavr/lindapg1.htm
What is the difference between a student learning multiplication tables from a textbook and another student solving similar problems with an interactive computer (n.d.). Retrieved January 15, 2003 from the National Academy of Sciences, Learning About Learning Web site: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/techgap/navigate.cgi
Note: in order to access the above referenced page, after navigating to website, scroll down and in the “Navigate to:” box , scroll and click on Learning About Learning.
What is Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences? (2002). Retrieved January 19, 2003 from http://www.askeric.org/Virtual/Qa/archives/General_Education/Learning_ Theories/intelligences.html
3-D brain anatomy. (n.d.). Retrieved January 15, 2003, from KPBS: The Secret Life of The Brain Web Site: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/brain/3d/index.html
SELECTED VIDEOS:
Cites direct availability through Chapman University Orange Library (Thurmond Clarke)
ADHD, inclusive and collaborative practices (videorecording). Presented by Sandra Rief. Call#: LC4713 .A2 1995
Albert Bandura (videorecording). Produced by Richard I. Evans. Call#: RC339.52.B3 A4 1988 v.1, RC339.52.B3 A4 1988 v.2
At work in the differentiated classroom (videorecording). Produced by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Call#: LB1031 .A8 2002 v.1, LB1031 .A8 2002 v.2, LB1031 .A8 v.3
B.F. Skinner: a demonstration of operant conditioning (videorecording). Produced and directed by Ellen P. Eese. Call#: BF319.5.O6 B2 1971
B.F. Skinner on behaviorism (videorecording). Produced and directed by H. Jon Miller. Call#: BF199 .B3 1977
B.F. Skinner on education (videorecording). Produced by John M. Whiteley, et. al. Call#: LB1-51 .B1111 1980
The brain & mathematics (videorecording). Produced by ASCD and Marcia D’Arcangelo. Call#: QA11.2 .B72 2002 v.1, QA11.2 .B72 2002 v.2
The brain and reading (videorecording). Produced by ASCD and Marcia D’Arcangelo. Call#: LB1050.6 .B73 1999 v.1, LB1050.6 .B73 1999 v.2, LB1050.6 .B73 1999 v.3
Eleven principles of effective character education (videorecording). Robert M. Hanson, exec. prod. Call#: LC268 .E44 1997
Emotional intelligence (videorecording): narrated by Daniel Goleman. Call#: BF561.E46 1997.
How are kids smart?: multiple intelligences (M.I.) in the classroom (videorecording). Robert M. Hanson, exec. prod. Call#: BF432.3 H67 1995
Howard Gardner: answers (videorecording). Produced and directed by Robert DiNozzi. Call#: BF432.3 H68 1996
MI: (videorecording) intelligence, understanding, and the mind: an illustrated presentation by Howard Gardner. Produced and directed by Robert DiNozzi. Call#: BF432.3.M84 1996
Note: Individual Instructors complete the asterisked (*) components of the syllabus. ALL other components will be prescribed by University College, the Department Chair, or Course Custodian and must be included on each instructor’s syllabus as provided.
NEW (CAC Approval Date):
X
UPDATED (Date): 07/06/06
*Spring Session II 2007-08/Santa Maria Campus
COURSE NUMBER, TITLE and CREDIT
EDUU 606 – Seminar in Learning Theory 3 credits
*David R. Preston, Ph.D.
voice :
e-mail: dpreston@chapman.edu
office hours: by appointment
CUC COURSE CUSTODIAN
Nedra Davis, Ph.D. Kathy Theuer, Ed.D.
nedavis@chapman.edu theuer@chapman.edu
BULLETIN COURSE DESCRIPTION
This course helps students to develop an understanding of how people process information and learn; studies the history, content and educational applications pertaining to intelligence and thinking dispositions. Students study various learning theories and their implications for instruction. This includes the development of the mind and brain and their role in education.
PREREQUISITES
EDUU 600
ESSENTIAL EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES
Overhead projector, and ideally LCD projector, PowerPoint and access to the Internet.
Classroom television with VHS capability.
Classroom should have adequate tables and chairs or desk and chair space for small groups.
COURSE LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of the course the candidate should be able to . . .
l. understand the cognitive, affective and biological basis of human brain function and be able
to apply cognitive development and basic causal scientific findings of the brain to
education.
2. demonstrate salient principles of learning including the effects of positive and negative
prior knowledge.
3. demonstrate knowledge of the major learning and instructional theories.
4. apply learning theories and instructional theories to a variety of educational situations;
5. be able to describe the basic principles of human learning and development including
areas germane to pupils with regular as well as special needs;
6. understand theories of motivation and intelligence and their application in the classroom.
MAJOR STUDY UNITS
Brain-based teaching and learning
1. How the brain processes information
2. Brain structure, memory, and learning
3. Memory, retention and transfer of learning
4. Problem Solving
5. Integration of knowledge
The Role of Theory in Learning and Instruction
1. Learning theory and research
2. Functions of theory
Behaviorist Theories of Learning
1. Ivan Pavlov’s classical conditioning
2. B.F. Skinner’s operant conditioning
Cognitive Development Theories of Learning
1. Jean Piaget’s cognitive development theory
2. Lev Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory
Social Cognitive Theories
1. Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory
2. Robert Gagne’s conditions of learning
Constructivism
1. Constructivist learning principles
2. Situated learning
Motivation and Learning
1. Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
2. Lawrence Kohlberg’s moral reasoning
3. Bernard Weiner’s attribution theory
Theories of Intelligence
1. Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences
2. Robert Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence
INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES
· Group discussions
Lectures
Student presentations, oral and written
Video tapes, power point, cassette recordings, CD recordings
Socio drama
Reading texts and Internet resources
REQUIRED TEXTS
· Sousa, David A. (2006). How the Brain Learns - 3rd Edition
Corwin Press. ISBN # 1-4129-3661-6
· Woolfolk, A. (2005). Educational Psychology – 10th Edition
Allyn and Bacon Publishing. ISBN # 0-205-49383-1
RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL TEXTS FOR INSTRUCTOR IF NEEDED
· Brooks, J.G. and M. (1999). The case for constructivist classroom.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
ISBN 0-87120-358-8
· Zull, James E. (2002). The Art of Changing the Brain. Stylus Publishing
ISBN 1-57922-054-1
Chapman On-Line Bookstore: www.mbsdirect.net/chapman
STUDENT PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
For post baccalaureate work at Chapman University, a grade of B is considered above average. The grade of “A” is awarded only in cases of clearly exceptional performance. Students working towards a Masters degree are expected to maintain a 3.0 (B) average. Students shall have a working knowledge of the Internet and be prepared to access it on a regular basis.
*METHODS OF EVALUATION FOR DETERMINING GRADES
To be determined by individual instructors’ outlines of expectations.
It is recommended that final grades should be based on multiple measures of assessment. Ideas might include a research project and presentation of a topic related to brain research (ie. enhancing memory, sleep and learning, stress, autism) with the preparation of a paper that illustrates the parts of the brain affected, impact on learning and application of information to the classroom, projects or examinations (midterm and/or final), quizzes, class participation and attendance.
*ATTENDANCE AND OTHER CLASS POLICIES
Class Attendance policies are determined by each instructor and shall be included on the course outline distributed during the first week of each class. The university recommends as a minimal policy that students who are absent 20% of the course should be failed.
CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
ACADEMIC WRITING STANDARDS
Specific writing standards differ from discipline to discipline, and learning to write persuasively in any genre is a complex process, both individual and social, that takes place over time with continued practice and guidance. Nonetheless, Chapman University has identified some common assumptions and practices that apply to most academic writing done at the university level. These generally understood elements are articulated here to help students see how they can best express their ideas effectively, regardless of their discipline or any particular writing assignment.
Venues for writing include the widespread use of e-mail, electronic chat spaces and interactive blackboards. Chapman University is committed to guaranteeing that students can expect all electronic communication to meet Federal and State regulations concerning harassment or other “hate” speech. Individual integrity and social decency require common courtesies and a mutual understanding that writing--in all its educational configurations--is an attempt to share information, knowledge, opinions and insights in fruitful ways.
Academic writing (as commonly understood in the university) always aims at correct Standard English grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
The following details are meant to give students accurate, useful, and practical assistance for writing across the curriculum of Chapman University College.
Students can assume that successful collegiate writing will generally:
· Delineate the relationships among writer, purpose and audience by means of a clear focus (thesis statements, hypotheses or instructor-posed questions are examples of such focusing methods, but are by no means the only ones) and a topic that’s managed and developed appropriately for the specific task.
· Display a familiarity with and understanding of the particular discourse styles of the discipline and/or particular assignment.
· Demonstrate the analytical skills of the writer rather than just repeating what others have said by summarizing or paraphrasing
· Substantiate abstractions, judgments, and assertions with evidence specifically applicable for the occasion whether illustrations, quotations, or relevant data.
· Draw upon contextualized research whenever necessary, properly acknowledging the explicit work or intellectual property of others.
· Require more than one carefully proofread and documented draft, typed or computer printed unless otherwise specified.
DOCUMENTATION
Any material not original to the student must be cited in a recognized documentation format (APA, ASA, MLA or Chicago-style) appropriate to the particular academic discipline. For quick reference to documentation standards for various fields you may refer to: www.chapman.edu/library/reference/styles.
Deliberate use of information or material from outside sources without proper citation is considered plagiarism and can be grounds for disciplinary action. See the explanation of Academic Integrity below.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
As a learning community of scholars, Chapman University emphasizes the ethical responsibility of all its members to seek knowledge honestly and in good faith. Students are responsible for doing their own work, and academic dishonesty of any kind will not be tolerated. "Violations of academic integrity include, but are not limited to, cheating, plagiarism, or misrepresentation of information in oral or written form. Such violations will be dealt with severely by the instructor, the dean/center director, and the standards committee. Plagiarism means presenting someone else's idea or writing as if it were your own. If you use someone else's idea or writing, be sure the source is clearly documented." Other guidelines for acceptable student behavior are specified in the Chapman University College Catalog.
ACADEMIC WRITING GUIDE
Student’s Name________________________________ Instructor _______________________________
Paper Assignment ______________________________Course Title______________________________
(Instructor: Read the entire paper through then reflect on its merits employing the following criteria. Our goal is to provide guidance to the student progressively in order to improve the quality of his or her writing.)
Criteria
Comments
NSW
Dev
WD
The writer demonstrates an understanding of the assignment by using a style, form and language that is appropriate for its intended audience.
The writer has chosen a topic in accord with the assignment and limited it sufficiently to explore in depth in the space allotted.
The paper focuses its presentation by means of a clear statement of purpose (thesis statement, hypothesis or instructor posed question) and logically organized sub-topic paragraphs or sections.
The writer substantiates abstractions, judgments and assertions with specific illustrations, facts and evidence appropriate to the assignment and/or discipline.
The writer has added to on-going discussions of the topic with his or her own critical analysis, rather than simply repeating what others have said through quotation-stacking, paraphrasing or summaries.
The writer draws upon research whenever necessary to support critical analysis or assertions made and properly acknowledges the work of others by utilizing a standard documentation format acceptable for the course.
The paper conforms to the minimal essentials of Standard American English grammar, word choice, spelling and punctuation.
N S W = Needs Significant Work, D = Developing WD = Well Developed
OVERALL RATING
The writer meets the needs of the particular audience and succeeds in his or her intended purpose--honestly engaging the subject and establishing her or his authority by offering a persuasive and supportable analysis.
Needs
Significant Developing Well Developed
Work
ô¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾¾®
Comments:
A. If this version of the paper is to receive a grade, the grade is_______. Instructor______ Date ______
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT STATEMENT
Any personal learning accommodations that may be needed by a student covered by the “Americans with Disabilities Act” must be made known to the Campus Director or Advisor as soon as possible. This is the student's responsibility. Information about services, academic modifications and documentation requirements can be obtained from the Director of a Chapman University College campus.
QUICK ACCESS TO THE ON-LINE CHAPMAN LIBRARY RESOURCES
http://www.chapman.edu/library/
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Almy, M. (1966). Young children’s thinking. New York: Teachers College Press.
Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D., et. al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA :ASCD.
Arredondo, D. and Block. J. (1990). Recognizing the connections between thinking skills and mastery learning, Educational Leadership, 47, 4-10.
Astington, J.W. (1993). The child’s discovery of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bandura, A. (1971). Psychological modeling: Conflicting theories. Chicago: Atherton.
Bandura, A., (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Bigge, M. (1982). Learning theories for teachers. New York: Harper and Row.
Bodrova, E. & Leong, D.J. (1996). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Brooks, J.G. & M. (1999). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ACSD).
Bruner, J. (1977). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York: Norton and Co.
Bruner, J., Goodnow, J. & Austin, G.A. (1967). A Study of thinking. New York: Wiley.
Blythe, T. & Associates (1998). The teaching for understanding guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Caine, R. & Caine, G. (1991). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Caine, R. & Caine, G. (1997). Education on the edge of possibility. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Clifford, M. (1981). Practicing educational philosophy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Costa, A. (1985). Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. NewYork: Harper Perennial: Division of Harper Collins Publishers.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, (1997). Finding Flow: The psychology of engagement in everyday life. New York, Basic Books.
Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: MacMillan.
Diamond, M. & Hopson, J. (1998). Magic trees of the mind. How to nurture your child’s intelligence, creativity, and healthy emotions from birth through adolescence. New York: Plume.
Eisner, E. (1994). Cognition and curriculum revisited. New York: Columbia University Teachers Press.
Gagne, R.M. (1974). The conditions of learning, 3rd ed. New York: Holt-Rinehart and Winston.
Gagne, R.M. (1974). Essentials of learning for instruction. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.
Gardner, H. (1982). Art, mind and the human brain: A cognitive approach to creativity. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: What all students should understand. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think & how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ginsburg, H. & Opper, S. (1979). Piaget’s theory of intellectual development, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Good, T. & Brophy, J. (1995). Contemporary educational psychology, 5th ed. New York: Longman.
Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A.N. & Kuhl, P.K. (1999). The scientist in the crib: Minds, brains, and how children learn. New York: William Morrow & Co.
Granot, N. & Parziale, J. (Eds.) (2002). Microdevelopment: Transition processes in development and learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gredler, M. (2001). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice, 4th ed. New York: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Hewitt, J. (1997). Self and society: A symbolic interactionist social psychology, 7th Ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hogan, K. & Pressley, M., (Eds.). (1997). Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches & issues. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Huttenlocher, P.R. (2002). Neural plasticity: The effects of environment on the development of the cerebral cortex. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Issacs, N. (1961). A brief introduction to Piaget. New York: Agathon Press.
Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Jones, B.F. & Idol, L. (eds.) (1989). Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Jones, B.F. & Palinscar, A.S., et. al. (1987). Strategic teaching and learning: cognitive instruction in the content areas. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Joyce, B. and Weil, M. (1996). Models of teaching. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
LeDoux, J. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Touchstone.
LeDoux, J. (2002). Synaptic self: How our brains become who we are. New York: Viking.
Link, F. (1985). Essays on the intellect: Teaching with dimensions of learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Luria, A.R. (1980). Higher cortical functions in man, 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books.
Marzano, R. (1992). A different kind of classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Maslow, A.H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being, 2nd ed. New York: Van Nostrand and Reinhold.
Moll, L. (1989). Vygotsky and education. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
National Research Council (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (1999). Improving student learning: A strategic plan for education research and its utilization. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Oldberg, E. (2001). The executive brain: Frontal lobes and the civilized mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools: Better thinking and learning for every child. New York: The Free Press.
Perkins, D. (1995). Outsmarting IQ: The emerging science of learnable intelligence. New York: The Free Press.
Rieber, R. & Carton, A. (Eds). (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Problems of general psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Plenum Press.
Rieber, R. & Carton, A. (Eds). (1993). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: The fundamentals of defectology. (Vol. 2). New York: Plenum Press.
Rieber, R. & Wollock, J. (Eds). (1997). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Problems of the theory and history of psychology. (Vol. 3). New York: Plenum Press.
Rieber, R. (Ed). (1997). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: The history of the development of higher mental functions. (Vol. 4). New York: Plenum Press.
Rieber, R. (Ed). (1998). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Child psychology. (Vol. 1). New York: Plenum Press.
Rogers, C. (1983). Freedom to learn in the 80's. Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.
Restak, R., MD (2001). The secret life of the brain. Washington D.C.: Dana Press and Joseph Henry Press.
Ritchhart, R. (2002). Intellectual character: What it is, why it matters, and how to get it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Seigler, R.S. (1986). Children’s thinking. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall.
Skinner, B.F. (1982). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.
Spitzer, M. (1999). The mind within the net. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Sternberg, R. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York: Viking Press.
Sylvester, R. (1995). A celebration of neurons: Educators guide to the human brain. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tishman, S., Perkins, D. & Jay, E. (1995). The thinking classroom. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. & Kozulin, A. (Ed.). (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Waite-Stupiansky, S. (1997). Building understanding together: A constructivist approach to early childhood education. New York: Del Mar Publishers.
Watson, J. (1958). Behaviorism. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Wiske, M.S, ed. (1998). Teaching for understanding: linking research with practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zull, J., (2002). The Art of Changing the Brain. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing , LLC.
* SELECTED WEBSITES:
Black, H. (2001). Amygdala’s inner workings. The Scientist, 15, 19:20. Retrieved March 9, 2003 from http://www.the- scientist.com/yr2001/oct/research2_011001.html
Bloom’s taxonomy (n.d.). Retrieved October 19, 1998 from http://www.dlrn.org/library/dl/guide4.html
Boeree, C.G. (1998). B.F. Skinner. Retrieved December 4, 2001 from http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/skinner.html
Brain and cognition. (2003). Retrieved June 28, 2003 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02782626
Brain connection, glossary. (n.d.). Retrieved January 15, 2003 from http://www.brainconnection.com/gen/gloss.html
Bruer, J.T. (1997). Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational Researcher, Vol. 26, No. 8. , pp. 4-16 Retrieved March 10, 2003 from http://litd.psch.uic.edu/docs/bruer.j_1997.pdf
Bruer, J.T. (1999). In search of…brain-based education. Kappan, 80, 9. Retrieved January 15, 2003 from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbru9905.htm
Chen, I. (n.d.). An electronic textbook on instructional technology. Retrieved January 15, 2003 from University of Houston College of education Web Site: http://users.coe.uh.edu/~ichen/ebook/ET-IT/cover.htm
Chen, I. (n.d.). Overview of behavioral theories. Retrieved January 19, 2003 from University of Houston College of education Web Site: http://users.coe.uh.edu/~ichen/ebook/ET-IT/behavior.htm
Edge Foundation, Inc. Flow. Retrieved February 19, 2003 http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/csik.html
Eisner, E.W. (1999). The uses and limits of performance assessment. Kappan, May. Retrieved January 15, 2003 from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/keis9905.htm
ERIC Digests (1998). Creating learning centered classrooms. What does learning theory have to say? Retrieved June 29, 2003 from http://www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed422777.html
Gagne, R. (n.d.). Conditions of learning. Retrieved January 20, 2003 from http://tip.psychology.org/gagne.html
Gorman, J.M., Kent, J.M., Sullivan, G.M., & Coplan, J.D. (2000). Neuroanatomical hypothesis of panic disorder (Fear), revised. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 4, 493-505. Retrieved January 19, 2003 from http://www.psycheducation.org/emotion/amygdala.htm
Gwynne, R. (1997). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Retrieved March 7, 2003 from http://web.utk.edu/~gwynne/maslow.html
Jean Piaget Society. (n.d.) Society for the study of knowledge and development. Retrieved June 28, 2003 from http://www.piaget.org/links.html
Learning and the brain. (n.d.). Retrieved January 15, 2003 from http://www.edupr.com
Learning Theories (n.d.). Retrieved June 25, 2003 from http://www.funderstanding.com/constructivism.cfm
Livingston, Jennifer A. (1997). Metacognition: An overview. Retrieved June 25, 2003 from
http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/fas/shuell/cep564/Metacog.htm
Metacognition: Its importance, relation to the classroom, professional implications, and implementation. Retrieved June 25, 2003 from http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~mlhersh/metacognition.html
Metacognition: A literature review. (n.d.) Retrieved July 1, 2003 from http://www.ioe.ac.uk/cdl/CHAT/cahtmeta1.htm
Mind Institute at UC Davis (n.d.). Retrieved March 9, 2003 from http://mindinstitute.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/index.htm
Murphy, E. (1997). Constructivism: from theory to practice. Retrieved May 31, 2002 from http://www.stemnet.nf.ca/~elmurphy/emurphy/cle2b.html
National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington DC. National Academies Press. Available online at: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309070368/html/index.html
National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. National Academies Press. Retrieved July 7, 2003 http://www.nap.edu/books/0309070368/html/index.html
National Research Council. (1999). Improving student learning: A strategic plan for education research and its utilization. Washington DC. National Academies Press. Retrieved July 7, 2003 from http://www.nap.edu/books/0309070368/html/index.html
New Horizons In Learning. Flow P.O. Box 15329. Seattle, WA 98115 Retrieved February 19, 2003 from http://www.newhorizons.org
O’Neil, J. (1996). On emotional intelligence: A conversation with Daniel Goleman. Educational Leadership, 54, 1. Retrieved April 22, 2002 from http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9609/oneil.html
On Purpose Associates (1998). Behaviorism. Retrieved May 6, 2002 from http://www.funderstanding.com/behaviorism.cfm
On Purpose Associates (n.d.). Constructivism. Retrieved May 6, 2002 from http://funderstanding.com/constructivism.cfm
Operant conditioning (n.d.). Retrieved May 7, 2002 from http://tip.psychology.org/dkinner.html
Pfizer (2000). BRAIN: The world inside your head. Retrieved June 23, 2003 from http://www.pfizer.com/brain/map.html
Relationship of learning theory to instructional design. (n.d.). Retrieved May 6, 2002 from California State University at Long Beach Education Web Site: http://www.csulb.edu/~dkumrow/conference/learning_theory.html
Robert Gagne (n.d.). Retrieved May 6, 2002 from http://www.my-ecoach.com/idtimeline/theory/gagne.html
Roschelle, J. (1995). Learning in interactive environments: Prior knowledge and new experience. Public Institutions for Personal Learning: Establishing a Research Agenda, The American Association of Museums. Retrieved January 15, 2003 from http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/museumeducation/priorknowledge.html
The secret life of the brain (n.d.). Retrieved March 10, 2003 from http://books.nap.edu/html/secret_brain/index.html
The teaching for understanding framework. (n.d.). Retrieved January 19, 2003, from Harvard University Graduate School Project Zero Web Site: http://learnweb.harvard.edu/ent/workshop/ccdt_framework.cfm
Theory into practice (TIP) (n.d.). Retrieved June 29, 2003 http://tip.psychology.org/index.html
Welcome to LeDoux lab. (n.d.). Retrieved January 19, 2003 from New York University Center for Neural Science Web Site: http://www.cns.nyu.edu/home/ledoux
What is constructivism? (n.d.). Retrieved May 7, 2002 from http://hagar.up.ac.za/catts/learner/lindavr/lindapg1.htm
What is the difference between a student learning multiplication tables from a textbook and another student solving similar problems with an interactive computer (n.d.). Retrieved January 15, 2003 from the National Academy of Sciences, Learning About Learning Web site: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/techgap/navigate.cgi
Note: in order to access the above referenced page, after navigating to website, scroll down and in the “Navigate to:” box , scroll and click on Learning About Learning.
What is Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences? (2002). Retrieved January 19, 2003 from http://www.askeric.org/Virtual/Qa/archives/General_Education/Learning_ Theories/intelligences.html
3-D brain anatomy. (n.d.). Retrieved January 15, 2003, from KPBS: The Secret Life of The Brain Web Site: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/brain/3d/index.html
SELECTED VIDEOS:
Cites direct availability through Chapman University Orange Library (Thurmond Clarke)
ADHD, inclusive and collaborative practices (videorecording). Presented by Sandra Rief. Call#: LC4713 .A2 1995
Albert Bandura (videorecording). Produced by Richard I. Evans. Call#: RC339.52.B3 A4 1988 v.1, RC339.52.B3 A4 1988 v.2
At work in the differentiated classroom (videorecording). Produced by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Call#: LB1031 .A8 2002 v.1, LB1031 .A8 2002 v.2, LB1031 .A8 v.3
B.F. Skinner: a demonstration of operant conditioning (videorecording). Produced and directed by Ellen P. Eese. Call#: BF319.5.O6 B2 1971
B.F. Skinner on behaviorism (videorecording). Produced and directed by H. Jon Miller. Call#: BF199 .B3 1977
B.F. Skinner on education (videorecording). Produced by John M. Whiteley, et. al. Call#: LB1-51 .B1111 1980
The brain & mathematics (videorecording). Produced by ASCD and Marcia D’Arcangelo. Call#: QA11.2 .B72 2002 v.1, QA11.2 .B72 2002 v.2
The brain and reading (videorecording). Produced by ASCD and Marcia D’Arcangelo. Call#: LB1050.6 .B73 1999 v.1, LB1050.6 .B73 1999 v.2, LB1050.6 .B73 1999 v.3
Eleven principles of effective character education (videorecording). Robert M. Hanson, exec. prod. Call#: LC268 .E44 1997
Emotional intelligence (videorecording): narrated by Daniel Goleman. Call#: BF561.E46 1997.
How are kids smart?: multiple intelligences (M.I.) in the classroom (videorecording). Robert M. Hanson, exec. prod. Call#: BF432.3 H67 1995
Howard Gardner: answers (videorecording). Produced and directed by Robert DiNozzi. Call#: BF432.3 H68 1996
MI: (videorecording) intelligence, understanding, and the mind: an illustrated presentation by Howard Gardner. Produced and directed by Robert DiNozzi. Call#: BF432.3.M84 1996
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)