P444/544: Applied Cognition and Learning Strategies
 Indiana University: Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology
Spring, 1997, Room 1084 (Section 5207 & 5215; Tues: 1:00-3:45)
Curtis Jay Bonk, Ph.D., CPA
Office: 4022 Education Building
Phone: (812) 856-8353 (Office)
Office Hours: Tues 11:45-12:45 or as arranged
E-Mail: cjbonk@indiana.edu

 Course Description/Purpose:

This course, available to both graduate and undergraduate students, offers an introduction to practical applications of cognitive psychology. More specifically, we will address applied cognitive learning principles and strategies such as: human information processing; schema theory; the role of prior knowledge in learning; thinking skills and problem solving; mnemonic/memory aids; study skills; expert-novice research; reading comprehension strategies; process writing and protocol analysis; problem representation and associated buggy algorithms in math; misconceptions research in science; ill-structured problems in social studies; the fusing of motivation research and metacognitive learning strategies; and issues of competence addressed by new cognitive assessment tools. Over the course of 15 weeks, we will come to discover why many educational psychologists have embraced applied cognitive psychology as a framework that links researchers and teachers in addressing student thinking skills across content areas. Students will be encouraged to consider how their own area(s) of interest (e.g., study skill training, IST, business, journalism, ed. psych., teaching, counseling, adult literacy, reading, special ed., etc.) are influenced by new strategies or approaches within cognitive psychology.

This course is designed to assist students in building deeper and more reasoned understanding of human learning both in and outside of school and its relationship to assessment and vice versa. The course will focus on two central and related questions: (1) "How do we learn?" and (2) "What is fair assessment of this learning?" Another key focus of this course is to familiarize students with the overlap and similarities within various domain-specific cognitive psychology research areas (e.g., reading, writing, math, science, and social studies). We will move from general theory to specific applications and assessment devices in various contexts and subject areas. In doing so, this class will analyze thinking and learning strategies claimed effective by a number of leading applied cognitive researchers. Both you and the instructor will select important contributions to applied cognitive psychology that you will read, evaluate, and critically discuss. Hopefully, the strategies and approaches discussed will not be viewed as prescriptions, but as possibilities.

The Method of Instruction:

In this class, an active learner strategy will be promoted. Nevertheless, extensive lecture on the assigned readings may occur at appropriate moments, followed by discussion, other impromptu and informal lectures, or small group activities. My hope is that we can achieve an atmosphere resembling a productive, creative research group and quasi-think tank. We will attempt to do this by combining in-depth discussions, student generated conceptual structures, self-directed learning activities, and our own journal publications. Extensive reading will be assigned early to develop a common cognitive knowledge base along with your own personal models and viewpoints on learning and cognition. I also plan to incorporate a number of small group activities intended to foster conceptual growth and understanding. During these activities, we may try out some of the cognitive assessment tools discussed in that week's articles or hold candid discussion about your own studying, reading, writing, and math strategies. Such activities are meant to open your eyes to the diverse thinking and learning possibilities available to each of you everyday. In effect, this class will help you learn about yourself as a learner and should serve as a vehicle for furthering your thinking, writing, and presentation skills.

[Back to top of Page]

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


2. Book of Readings (available in the Education Library).

Proposed Topical Outline (weekly topic and class activities):

[Back to top of Page]

Summary of Course Implementation and Grading:

Final grades in this class will be based on performance on:

110 Points I. Participation, FirstClass Conferences, & Attendance (Partic: to share and reinforce new knowledge);

20 Points II. Self-Directed Learning Presentation Activity (Pursuits: to extend/amplify knowledge in interest areas);

80 Points III. Concept Mapping and Personal Summaries (Personal Pictures: to construct & represent knowledge);

130 Points IV. Scholarly Journal Publications (Publications: to generate new knowledge and put into action).

340 Total Points

I will use the following rating scale at the end of the semester, though it may change slightly:

A+ = highest score B+ = 297 points C+ = 263 points

A = 317 points B = 283 points C = 249 points

A- = 306 points B- = 272 points F/incomplete = no work received or inadequate/impaired.

Proposed Summary of Requirements:

I. Attendance (10 points) + Class participation (20 points) + 80 Pts (FirstClass) = 110 points)

Your class attendance of 10 points will be accrued from taking attendance randomly throughout the semester; only physicians or university excuse are acceptable here. For 20 participation points, students will be expected to react to the assignments, lectures, handouts, and videos presented in class. You will also be expected to discuss personally confusing or interesting aspects of the readings using the FirstClass computer conferencing tool. Each week, at least one discussion starter and one discussion wrapper will take responsibility to begin and end our FirstClass conferences. Although all class members are required to do all the required readings each week, the conference leader will be responsible for coming up with several thought-provoking comments, questions, or concerns from that week's articles in order to get the discussion started, while the conference wrapper will summarize and synthesize the comments made and point out the issues that remain open. Everyone will contribute to the weekly discussion. Your FirstClass comments are to be printed out and turned in at the end of the semester along with any peer feedback on your comments. Keep in mind that this is a mastery assignment wherein students will receive an automatic 80 points for participating (Note: undergraduate students only have to participate in half the discussions). We will bring our FirstClass contributions to 3-4 of our classes to spur class discussion of controversial topics.

II. Self-Selection Tasks (20 Group Presentation Pts = 20 Pts)

You have four weeks to read what you want. Initially, (i.e., Weeks 3 and 4), this is more of an individual task. Later on in the semester, (i.e., Weeks 12 and 13), you will working with a group of peers with common interests. During your self-selection assignments, I would like for you to reflect on how your explorations fostered important learning and cognition connections. To do this, I would like for you to fill out some reflection worksheets to document the linkages and thinking this assignment facilitated. Additionally, at the end of the group activity, your group will make a presentation to the class on what you've learned.

[Back to top of Page]

III. Concept Maps And Personal Summaries (CMAPS) (80 points)

A. Concept Map Inspiration: In this task, I want you to demonstrate your own unique course linkages, conceptual gains, and new knowledge based on lectures, text, and other sources. To accomplish this, I would like each of you to create three computer-enhanced concept maps of your understanding of key P444/544 terms and ideas (some terms are below), using the software tool, Inspiration, which I will demonstrate how to use. Your three concept maps should cover the following: (1) Human Information Processing or the Applied Cognitive Field; (2) Learning Strategies, Expert-Novice Research, or Cognitive Psychology related to a particular field of study (e.g., reading); and (3) any other topic or one based on your self-directed reading (related to this class). Once your ideas are generated, you are encouraged to share your ideas and explorations with others in the class. I would like for you to specify the main ideas (i.e., put macropropositions at or near the top of the concept map), details/minor ideas (i.e., micropropositions near the bottom of the map/web), causal relationships between terms (i.e., put in some lines and arrows to link terms), and verbal descriptions of relationships and connections. The CMaps are due between March 4th and 11th (NO later than the 12th). We will auction your best work in a Starving Artists Art Fair and Gallery Tour on March 11th.

B. Personal Glossary: Keep a list of at least 40-50 terms related to this class that you have identified as personally important to you in your concept maps or in the course (e.g., a new word you can identify with) and update this as you do the readings. Alphabetize your list and provide both a textbookish definition and a personal one. The personal one should be flavored with a practical or personal example.

C. Term-Map Verbal Linkage: For those that lack visual and artistical wizardry, don't fret, I also require a verbal description of one's glossaries and maps as well as associated changes during the assignment. You should attach this two-page or so single-spaced commentary to your glossaries and concept map drawings to illustrate what you have internalized and linked to your prior knowledge.

CMAPS Quality Rating (Scale 1 (low) to 10 (high) for this dimension) Grading Based on 8 dimensions:

1. Ideas (info richness, elaboration, originality, interesting, unique analogies in maps and writing)

2. Clarity (sequential flow, coherence, unity, organization, logical sequence, understandable style)

3. Completeness (adequate info presented, valid pts, fulfills task intent, some breadth and depth)

4. Relevancy (related to class topics, meaningful links to class, descriptions correspond to picture)

5. Relationships Drawn (indicates personal understanding, verbal descriptions, connections, some uniqueness)

6. Format (mechanics, spelling, grammar, sentence structure, readable, indexed symbols, coded, presentable)

7. Overall Creative Reps & Examples (impressiveness, original, artistic, unusual, color, design, perspective)

          8. Overall Logical Reps & Examples (depth, breadth, development, accurate portrayal, coherent/useful summary)


IV. Scholarly Journal Publication Assignment (130 points):

Let's create our own applied cognition and learning strategy scholarly journals! First, we'll create editorial boards that will be responsible for "publishing" an issue of a journal. This means soliciting manuscripts by means of a journal purpose and scope, reviewing articles, making acceptance and rejections decisions, providing feedback and guidance to authors, writing editorial notes, receiving "camera ready" copy from each author, and, ultimately, producing a scholarly journal issue. The completed issue will be submitted to the instructor for evaluation with the number of articles equaling the number of members of the editorial team. Like last year, the final self-selection groups will likely become an editorial board and produce a scholarly journal together. (Note: undergraduate students cannot be the head editor, group leader, or publisher.)

By April 15th, students will submit ideas to the editorial board and instructor with a brief (i.e., 1-2 paragraph) proposal of the piece that the author seeks to publish. Once an editorial board accepts a proposal, the author can begin to prepare the article for publication. The editorial board will be responsible for draft development, editorial advice, final layout, and placement. By April 29th, each editorial board will create its own journal or personal publication of peer work (tools like Pagemaker work well here). Each journal should have: (a) a journal title or label; (b) journal purpose and scope page, (f) detailed admission and review policies (e.g., length of manuscripts, response time, acceptance rate), (g) an article introduction section (i.e., introduce the articles in this issue) and, at the end, (h) put out a "call for papers" on a topic of your choice for the next issue of the journal. Other useful items include: a sample reviewer evaluation form, lists of reviewers, journal costs, annual circulation, etc.

Please keep names of research subjects or participants confidential, use APA format, and note your affiliation and title. Appendices might include charts, figures, models, tests, scoring criteria, coding procedures, and pictures. Print at least two copies of your journal. All articles should be about 5-15 single-spaced pages in length on a topic of your own choice. Note that the assignment is worth 130 points: 70 points for your work and 40 points based on the journal format, clarity, originality, and completeness as well as 20 other points based on the average score of the papers in your particular journal.

[Back to top of Page]

Journal Publication Manuscript Options:

A. Review of the Research or Thinking Skill Program:

In this option, you are to review the literature in an area you find interesting related to this class. Typically, this would entail a critical review of the research, but this option also encourages reviews of thinking skill, study skill, and problem solving programs. In your article, describe the topic, its importance, the problem, key steps or procedures, the relevant research (including study designs, methods, results), interpretations, the practical implications, and future directions of this field. Be sure to select a fairly narrow topic area or ask for help.

B. Research Proposal:

Here students must write up an applied cognitive study related to this class that extends or modifies the research of someone else or suggests a totally unique but reasonable research project or study. The topic can be regarding anything related to applied cognition and learning strategies (i.e., any domain or age group), but need not include actual data or research findings; this is simply a proposal. Please include the following information about your topic in your summary proposal: Topic intro, brief literature review (introduce topic/problem, history, importance, relevant literature), proposed method of inquiry/intervention (with hypotheses, sample size, age group(s), materials and setting, dependent measures/instruments (if applicable), and procedures. In addition, you have the option of including a section with anticipated or dummied results.

C. Book, Conference, Technical/Government Report, or Special Journal Issue Review:

This option allows you read an applied cognitive book, a series of articles in a special journal issue, conference proceedings, or government report on a topic you are interested in and then write a paper that links these articles, reports, or book chapters to this class. Your review will be written in a combined critique/reader advice column pointing out the strengths, weaknesses, and appropriate audience for this book, proceedings, report, or special issue in terms of the applied cognitive field. You also are to point out points of interest, whether it extends the field, any flaws, and what one might expect to gain from obtaining a copy. Basically, you should be helping one decide if this book or special journal issue is worth perusing.

D. Creating Responses, Rejoinders, and Rebuttals:

Here, I would like for you to either find a sequence of applied cognitive articles wherein the authors are debating each other and trace their arguments (e.g., commentary-reply-rejoinders, point-counterpoint). Then write your own rebuttal or response to them. Or, if you cannot find any, than just find a controversial article and write a critique to it. I would like for you to trace the arguments, points, and counterpoints made in each article as they relate to the material from this class. If you feel creative, you might want to write a few plausible arguments the original authors might make to your claims or add a visual regarding the debate.

E. Creating Fictional Educational Psychologists Interviews:

You can also create a unique dialogue among researchers and theorists hashing out an issue. Identify 1-3 key players in a field and select a controversial article on a topic they might be interested in and write a fictitious but plausible interview. Write the transcript to the discussion or interview(s) they might have on a controversial topic or book. Include research flaws and concerns that would be noted by each member.

Sample Grading Criteria for this assignment (70 points for your manuscript)

1. Ideas (richness of information, elaboration, originality, interesting)
2. Originality (creativity, unusualness, artistic, max effort, risk)
3. Coherence (clarity, unity, organization, transitions, logical sequence, synthesis, style)
4. Completeness (adequate info presented, fulfilled spirit of assignment, depth of disc.)
5. Linkage (relevancy to class, impt points made, shows evidence of learning, chapter refs)
6. Mechanics (spelling, format, punctuation, grammar, sentence structure)
7. Overall Holistic (general impression rating, summary rating)

 Scale: 1 (low) to 10 (high) for each dimension = 70 Possible Points

              Scholarly Journal Scores (10 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 20 = 60 Possible Points: [Back to top of Page]

Weekly Course Readings:

Week 1: Applied Cognitive Terms and Principles
Bruning, Schraw, & Ronning (1995). Chapters 1-2 (or Pressley Chapters 1-2)

Week 2: Human Information Processing (HIP) Theory
Bruning, Schraw, & Ronning (1995). Chapters 3-5 (or Pressley Chapters 3-4 & 10)

Graduate Students Only (GSO):
GSO: Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Hare, V. C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 315-343.
Week 3: Study Skills Training and Learning Strategies
Derry, S. J. (1988/89). Putting learning strategies to work. Educational Leadership, 46(4), 4-10.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1991). Teaching students ways to remember: Strategies for learning
    mnenomically. Chapter 2: Mnemonic vocabulary instruction: Using the keyword method (pp. 9-29). Cambridge, MA:
    Brookline Books.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1992). Remembering the forgotten art of memory. American Educator, Winter, 31-37.

GSO: King, A. Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures.
    American Educational research Journal, 29(2), 303-323.

GSO: Kiewra, K. A., & Mayer, R. E., Christensen, M., Kim, S-I., Risch, N. (1991). Effects of repetition an recall and
    note-taking strategies for learning from lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 120-123.

GSO: Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Levin, J. R. (1987). Learning-disabled students' memory for expository prose:
    Mnemonic versus nonmnemonic pictures. American Educational Research Journal, 24(4), 505-519.

Week 4: Thinking Skill, Literacy, and Problem Solving Programs (Self-Selection #1: Applications)
Bruning, Schraw, & Ronning (1995). Chapter 8 (or Pressley Chapter 11) Student Self-Selected Articles from Library Reserve
    Stack. (please read 3 chapters)

Week 5: Reading Comprehension Processes and Metacognition
Bruning, Schraw, & Ronning (1995). Chapters 11; maybe skim 10 (or Pressley Chapter 14)

Pressley, M., & Associates (1990). Cognitive strategy instruction that really works. Chapter3--Reading Comprehension
    strategies (pp. 45-69). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.

Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L.

Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Reder, L. M. (1985). Techniques available to author, teacher, and reader to improve retention of main ideas of a chapter.
    In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: (Vol. 2) Research and open
    questions (pp. 37-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

GSO: Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children's metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and
    instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3 & 4), 255-278.
Week 6: Writing Processes, Tools, and Protocols
Bruning, Schraw, & Ronning (1995). Chapter 12 (or Pressley Chapter 15)

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. In S.

Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: (Vol. #2) Reading, writing, and language learning. New
       York: NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1983). Uncovering cog. processes in writing: An intro to protocol analysis. In P. Mosenthal, &
    L. Tamor (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles and methods (Chapter 7: pp. 207-220). New York: Longman.

Bonk, C. J., & Reynolds, T. H. (1992). Early adolescent composing within a generative-evaluative computerized prompting
    framework. Journal of Computers in Human Behavior, 8(1), 39-62.

GSO: Beal, C. R., Garrod, A. C., & Bonitatibus, G. J. (1990). Fostering children's revision skills through training in
    comprehension monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 275-280.

Week 7: Mathematical Problem Solving Strategies and New Standards
Bruning, Schraw, & Ronning (1995). Chapter 13 (or Pressley Chapter 13)

Romberg, T. A. (1992). Mathematics learning and teaching: What we have learned in ten years. In C. Collins & J. N. Mangieri
    (Eds.), Teaching thinking: An agenda for the 21st century (pp. 43-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Peterson, P. L. (1994). Knowledge transforming: Teachers, students, and researchers as learners in a community. In
    J.N. Mangieri & C. C. Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students: Diverse perspectives (pp. 51-79).
    Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace & Company.

Low, R., & Over, R. (1993). Gender differences in solution of algebraic word problems containing irrelevant information.
    Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 331-339.

GSO: Hegarty, M. H., Mayer, R. E., & Green, C. E. (1992). Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: Evidence from
    students' eye fixations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 76-84.
Week 8: Scientific Inquiry, Constructivism, and Misconceptions
Bruning, Schraw, & Ronning (1995). Chapters 9 and 14 (or Pressley Chapter 12)
Briscoe, C., & LaMaster, S. U. (1991). Meaningful learning in college biology through concept mapping. The American
    Biology Teacher, 53(4), 214-219.

Anderson-Inman, L., & Zeitz, L. (1993). Computer-based concept mapping: Active studying for active learners. The
    Computing Teacher, 21(1), 6-10.

GSO: Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American
    Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 117-153.

Week 9: Social Science Problem Fuzziness and Classroom Thoughtfulness
Glover, J. A., Ronning, R. R., & Bruning, R. H. (1990). Cognitive psychology for teaches (Chapter 14: Social science
    problem solving, pp. 355-367). New York: Macmillan.

Spoehr, K. T., & Spoehr, L. T. (1994). Learning to think historically. Educational Psychologist, 29(2), 71-77.

Newmann, F. W. (1992). The prospects for classroom thoughtfulness in high school social studies. In C. Collins & J. N.

Mangieri (Eds.), Teaching thinking: An agenda for the 21st century (pp. 105-132). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Furlong, P. R. (1993). Personal factors influencing informal reasoning of economic issues and the effects of specific instructions.
    Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 171-181.

GSO: Gregg, S. M., & Leinhardt, G. (1994). Mapping out geography: An example of epistemology and education. Review of
    Educational Research, 64(2), 311-361.
Week 10: Motivation and Cognition: Fusing Skill and Will
Bruning, Schraw, & Ronning (1995). Chapters 6-7 (or Pressley Chapter 5)

Reeve, J. M. (1996). Internalization and self-regulation. In Motivating others: Nurturing inner motivational resources
    (Chapter 3: pp. 42-59). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Deci, E., L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination
    perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 325-346.

GSO: Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic
    performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
Week 11: Alternative Cognitive Assessment and Achievement
(Pressley Chapters 16-17; maybe 18)

 Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16-25.

Cole, N. S. (1990). Conceptions of educational achievement. Educational Reearcher, 19(3), 2-7.

Educational Researcher. (1991). Interviews on assessment issues with Lorrie Shepard and James Popham. Educational
    Researcher, 20, 21-27.

Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward a more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 703-713.

GSO: Paris, S. G., Lawton, T. A., Turner, J. C., & Roth, J. L. (1991). A developmental perspective on standardized
    achievement testing. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 12-20.

Week 12: The Emergence of a Field (Self-Selection #2: Theory for final projects)
GSO: Mayer, R. E. (1992). Cognition and instruction: Their historic meeting within educational psychology. Journal of
    Educational Psychology, 84(4), 405-412.

GSO: Derry, S. J. (1992). Beyond symbol processing: Expanding horizons for educational psychology. Journal of
    Educational Psychology, 84(4), 413-418.

GSO: Mayer, R. E. (1993). Educational psychology--Past and future: Comment on Derry (1992). Journal of Educational
    Psychology, 85(3), 551-553.

Week 13: Course Interlude and Catch Up (Self-Selection #3: Research for final projects)
Some Recommended Journals (or edited books of research) (e.g., AERJ, JEP, RER, JECR, RTE):

Week 14: Final Personal Explorations (Self-Selection #4: Anything goes!)
Students select and share articles with interest group: (e.g., early childhood learning, adolescent learning, adult cognition and aging, corporate training, instructional design, adult learning, computers and cognition, literacy, interactive technologies, language learning, cross-cultural research, reading, mathematics, science, writing, social studies, interdisciplinary learning, study skills and learning strategies, assessment, qualifying exams, thinking skills, special education, bilingual education)

Week 15: Final Personal Explorations (Self-Selection #5: Anything goes!)

[Back to top of Page]

Tentative P444/544 Changes for 1998:

[Back to top of Page]

[Back to my homepage]