Curtis J. Bonk, Ph.D., CPA           
Office: 4022 W. W. Wright Education Bldg.                                
Phone: 856-8353 (W)                  
E-mail: CJBonk@indiana.edu
Office Hours: Tuesdays 5:30-6:30, or as arranged                          
Instructional Assistant: ???   

Larger Version of Syllabus with Pictures (1.7M)

Course Description/Purpose:
A major cause of poor performance on tasks that require the generation of relevant subproblems, arguments, and summarizations is that many prominent twentieth-century learning theories were based on the acquisition of knowledge in simple, quantifiable terms. Most educational curricula of the 21st century continues to emphasize the memorization of facts and the acquisition of isolated sub-skills taught out-of-context and didactically. However, human learning is a social enterprise and negotiation process, not a competitive, individual learning one. As a result, a new educational perspective is generating significant appeal among educators, parents, and community leaders. This new approach, known as "cognitive apprenticeship," is a unique synthesis of cognitive, developmental, and social psychology research that replaces traditional classroom learning with more rigorous and authentic educational environments.

A key goal of this course is that we achieve an atmosphere resembling a productive, creative research group and quasi-think tank for in-depth discussions. To achieve this atmosphere, all class members must think critically about the class readings and presentations, contribute original ideas to group discussion, and reflect on how their interests (e.g., CEP, IST, ELPS, or C&I) are influenced by research in this area. We shall examine Vygotskian and Piagetian theoretical linkages, cognitive apprenticeships and guided participatory learning, active/constructivist learning environments, social interaction and dialogue, collaborative learning, problem/project-based learning, and educational reform. During this time, we may put together models and diagrams of guided learning and the transfer of learning responsibility to the student. Just how are strategies modeled during social interaction internalized by learners? When and how should an instructor intervene in the learning process? While finding our answers, we will extensively explore and become familiar with such an amalgam of recent educational research, that, by the end of the course, we may understand why I call it "Thinking and Learning in Social Contexts."

Objectives (After the course, students should be able to):

1. Form personal definitions and examples for sociocultural terminology and concepts.
2. Understand what journals and scholars relate to this field.
3. Compare and contrast Piagetian and Vygotskian viewpoints on learning and development.
4. Compare/contrast research on individual cognition & that aimed at the social context of learning.
5. Describe the social underpinnings of thought and language.
6. Reflect on issues of power, control, and responsibility in the classroom.
7. Appreciate the impact of learner interaction, shared dialogue/conflict, & knowledge bldg.
8. Feel comfortable using teacher guided and scaffolded instructional techniques.
9. Interpret research and reform efforts based on sociocultural theory.
10. Design a study to look at sociocultural variables in learning.

Course Texts: There are 15 books (you pick any two) as well as a Book of Readings.

1. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Harvard Business School.
2. Foreman, Minick, & Stone (Eds.). (1993). Contexts for lrng: Socio dyn in children's dev. Oxford.
3. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated lrng: Legitimate peripheral partic. NY: Cambridge.
4. Moll, L. C. (Eds.) (1990). Vyg & Ed: Instr Imps & Apps of Sociohist Psych. NY: Cambridge.
5. O'Donnell, A., & King, A. (1999). Cognitive perspectives on Peer Learning. Erlbaum.
6. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Devel in Social Context. NY: Oxford.
7. Salomon, G. (Ed.) (1993). Distrib cognitions: Psych.'l & educ.'l considerations. NY: Cambridge.
8. Tharp & Gallimore (1988). Rousing Minds to Life: Tchg, lrng, & sch in social context. Cambrid.
9. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge.
10. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
11. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural App to Mediated Action. Harvard.
12. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The devel of higher psych processes. MA: Harvard.

    Other Choices:

13. Cole, Engestrom, & Vasquez (1997). Mind, culture, & act: Sem papers. NY: Cambridge.
14. Engestrom, Y., & Middleton, D. (1998). Cognition and communication at work. Cambridge.
15. Wertsch, J. V., Rio, P. & Alverez. A. (1995). Sociocultural Studies of Mind. Cambridge.
16. Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.). (1985). Culture, commun, & cog: Vygotskian pers. NY: Cambridge
17. Wilson, B. G. (Ed). (1996). Constructivist learning envir's: Case studies in ID. Ed Tech Pub.
18. Other (any instructor approved selection)

Weekly Topical Outline:
1 (Sept 3rd): Introduction to Syllabus, 15 Books, and Sociocultural Theory
2 (Sept 10th): First Book: Cognitive Apprenticeship & Guided Participation Processes
3 (Sept 17th): First Book Continued: Recent Educational Debates on Piagetian and Vygotskian Theory
4 (Sept 24th): Piaget, Dewey, & Vygotsky in Debate: Historical and Cultural Underpinnings of Theory
Presentation by students from previous years (Brian, Jamie, Sonny, Manjari, Noriko)
5 (Oct 1st): Vygotsky: Scaffolding, Zones of Proximal Development, and Dynamic Assessment
6 (Oct 8th): Neo-Vygotskian Ideas: Situated Cognition, Anchored Instruction, & Reciprocal Tchg
7 (Oct 15th): Activity Settings and Cultural Tools/Artifacts (T#3: Draft)
8 (Oct 22nd): Dilemmas in Measuring Social Interaction: Peer tutoring and mentor assistance
9 (Oct 29th): Dilemmas in Measuring Social Inter: Conversations, Talk, and Tutoring (T#3: Final)
Due (it or): DIE Assignment
10 (Nov 5th): Building Cognitive Apprenticeships in the Content Areas
Roll the Die: Students to present best DIE stuff, even if apparently dead.
11 (Nov 12th): Emerging Techniques: Collaborative Writing and Cooperative Reading (T#4: Select)
12 (Nov 19th): Project, Problem, and Case-Based Learning Communities
13 (Nov 26th): Socioculturally-Based Communities of Learners (AERA Week- Curt gone)
14 (Dec 3rd): Second Book & Recap (Select book) (Task #4: Final)
Due: Do (that's the "Due-Do") Assignment; Student Research Presentations
15 (Dec 10th): Second Book & Recap (Finish book) (Task #4: Final)
Student Book Reports & More Research Presentations (meet with my P600 class to celebrate the end of the semester?)

Sample terminology of this course:
A. Vygotskian and Piagetian Psychology--Vygotsky-related terms: zones of proximal development, internalization, potential and actual developmental level, dynamic assessment, semiotics, cognitive tools, interpersonal & intrapersonal planes/spheres, learning potential, procedural facilitation, social constructivist, self-verbalization, verbal mediation, mediational means, inner and planful speech, other-regulation, intersubjectivity, socio- cultural and socio-historical influences on development (Piagetian terms include: assimilation, accommodation, disequilibrium, schemata, perspective taking, decentering, stages of cognitive development).

B. Cognitive Apprenticeships and Guided/Participatory Learning--social construction of knowledge, meaningfulness, situated cognition, expert scaffolding, coaching, guided interaction, teacher modeling, proleptic teaching, contextually-based learning, multicomponent strategies.

C. Constructivism and Active Learning Environments--student and teacher autonomy, negotiated meaning, active learning, shared meanings and knowledge, prior knowledge, intersubjectivity, reflectivity, student- centeredness, co-construction of meaning, student initiated learning, transformative education, misconceptions, open-ended dialogue, extending ideas.

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

E. Collaborative/Cooperative Learning--heterogeneous groupings, peer response groups, reward and task structures, high level elaborations, social cognition, outside other, dyadic instruction, cognitive conflict, individual accountability, positive interdependence, controversy/consensus, cognitive restructuring, distance learning.

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

Summary of Course (A.) Grading and (B.) Activities: As explained below, in this class students will be expected to read the material (Task #1), discuss it with their peers (Task #2), depict their understanding of it (Task #3), and use it (Task #4). In the fourth task, students will code and analyze a situation rich in social interaction and dialogue processes or write a comparable research proposal. Although there is an escape clause (Task #5), it is expected that you will perform these tasks as scheduled in this syllabus or as negotiated with the instructor.

A. Course Grading (Based on The R3'd Grading Method):

1. 40 pts READ--Interpreter of Signs and Symbols (20% of grade).
2. 40 pts DISCUSS--Peer Supporter, Dialogue Partner, and Negotiator of Meaning (20%).
3. 60 pts DISPLAY--Designer of Internalization-Externalization (DIE) Exhibit: (30%).
4. 60 pts DO--Analyzer of Scaffolding, Mediated Lrng, or Zones of Proximal
5. Dev. (30%). 200 pts Total

A+  = ??? (Excellent plus)       B-  = 160 (Good minus)
A   = 187 (Excellent)             C+  = 154 (Satisfactory plus)
A-  = 180 (Excellent minus)       C   = 147 (Satisfactory)
B+  = 174 (Good plus)             C-  = 140 (Satisfactory minus)
B   = 167 (Good)                  F   = no work received or inadequate

B. Course Activities--(1) READ, (2) DISCUSS, (3) DISPLAY, AND (4) DO:

2. DISCUSS--Peer Supporter, Dialogue Partner, and Negotiator of Meaning (25% of grade). This task includes attending class, leading class discussion, general participation/effort, and other investigative activities. Once or twice during the course, each student will lead class discussion. Volunteer discussion leaders may be solicited to take responsibility for the following week's readings. As discussion leader, you would be responsible for coming up with several thought-provoking questions from the articles you read to get discussion started. Thought questions can range from very general issues, to extremely specific details, to thoughts bridging most of the readings up to that point in the course. About 5-10 typed questions with enough copies for the class is best. We may use Sitescape Forum or Oncourse for these discussions.

3. DISPLAY--Designer of Internalization-Externalization (DIE) Exhibit: (30% of grade). I want to know two things here. First of all, how have you interpreted the history of this field (according to the readings). Secondly, how does this field fit into your main area(s) of interest. I want you to depict both of these two learning elements visually and sequentially. In effect, you are to chart or outline the history of this field from your viewpoint (from left to right) at the top of a 11 X 17 sheet of paper. Below this representation, I want to see your portrayal of the field according to your personal interests or research agenda. In addition, you must attach a two- page or so single-spaced commentary describing the figures, insights, and ideas in your DIE exhibit. Basically, I want to find out what you have internalized about the field in general and also what has made the most sense from your prior knowledge or point of view. First drafts are due for class and peer review on October 15th and final timeline reports are due October 29th. Don't kill yourself over this one!!!

These externalization activities will be graded on 6 dimensions on a 1 (low) to 10 (high) scale:

1. Ideas (info richness, elaboration, originality, interesting, unique analogies b/t top and bottom charts)
2. Sequential Flow (coherence, unity, organization, logical sequence, understandable style, clarity)
3. Completeness (adequate info presented, valid pts, fulfills task intent, some breadth and depth)
4. Relevancy (related to class topics, meaningful links to class, descriptions correspond to picture)
5. Relationships Drawn (indicates understanding, verbal descriptions, connections)
6. Overall External Representations (depth, breadth, development, impressiveness, accurate portrayal)

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

Portfolio underlying the Internalization-Externalization Exercise might include:

1. Article Ratings: personal rating of articles read for class, including extra readings.
2. Questions: questions you provide to the class readings to spark discussion and dialogue.
3. Research Topic Selection: 1 page summary of topic chosen to fulfill task #4 below.
4. Journal Logs: weekly personal reflections on the class or readings.
5. Thought Papers: personal 1-3 page reflection(s) on topic(s) that motivate or inspire you.
6. Peer Interaction Logs: recordings of discussions or debates with your peers.
7. Article Summaries or Note cards: notes made regarding articles read.
8. Learning Models, Flowcharts, Coding Schemes: innovative/integrative visuals for class topics.
9. Personal Investigative Activity: any exploratory, inquisitive, volunteer activity to clarify an issue.
10. Concept Maps: visual depict of concepts, hierarchical from top (main ideas) to bottom (details).
11. Article Critiques: critical analysis or rebuttal of any article read. Individual or Group Presentation: an interesting concept, film, idea, model, or activity to class.
12. Other: anything you have done to learn the material better.

Grading Scale from Options A, B, and C (Note 1 (low) to 10 (high) for each of the following criteria):

1. Review of the Problem and Literature (interesting, relevant, current, organized, thorough)
2. Research Activity/Design/Topic (clear, doable/practical, detailed, important research q's)
3. Implications/Future Directions (generalizability, options available, research focus)
4. Overall Richness of Ideas (richness of information, elaboration, originality, unique coding)
5. Overall Coherence (unity, organization, logical sequence, synthesis, style, accurate coding)
6. Overall Completeness (adequate info presented, explicit, relevant, precise, valid pts)

Option A. Research Activity: (8-16 double spaced pages)
Here, I want you to code or analyze a situation rich in social interaction and dialogue processes or one wherein you might capture the mechanisms of minute cognitive change or the processes leading to the internalization of cognitive strategies. Stated another way, I want you to do something with the material we are learning. For instance, you might analyze mother-child or daycare-related situations for the degree of shared responsibility for learning, teacher or peer scaffolding, negotiations of meaning, internalization of cognitive strategies, and activities that appear within or beyond one's zone of development. This action could take place in formal or informal settings and may include one or more partners. Possible activities include observing and analyzing the following for teacher- student, mentor-mentee, student-student, or student-tool interactions.

Possible Data Sources:

1. raw footage or transcripts of classroom or counseling situations (e.g., class observations, tapes).
2. observations of literacy training (e.g., Reading Recovery, Success For All, tutoring programs).
3. transcripts or tapes of mentoring or tutoring situations (IU's writing lab, study skills courses).
4. collab writing interactions/correspondences (e.g., student fdbk, conferences, social negotiation).
5. e-mail dialogue (e.g., SitesScape Forum, COW, web-based instruction, e- correspondences).
6. human-computer interactions in prompted lrng envirs (e.g., writing tools, ERIC, info kiosks).
7. videotapes of teacher-student interactions (e.g., tapes for undergrad ed. psych. courses).
8. CD's/videodiscs of teacher-student interactions (e.g., small group learning CDs; ILF, LTTS).
9. verbal protocol data involving coaching (e.g., Jeff Huber's IU divers or IU basketball camps).
10. data from other mediated environments (e.g., parent-child interactions, keystrokes, log data).

Option B. Research Proposal: (14-20 double spaced pages)
In this option, students must write a paper on a topic related to thinking or learning in a social context that: (1) extends or modifies the research of someone else, or (2) suggests a totally unique but reasonable research project/study. It can be either a quantitative intervention or qualitative study. Your proposal can be related to any relevant age group.

Option C. Grant Proposal: (See me for more info; 14-20 double spaced pages).
Thoroughly read a topic area and then draft a research proposal to an institution offering grants in an area where you work (or would like to work). You pick the funding agency, title, and monies needed ($2,000- $200,000; it's your call). In the proposal, you should discuss such things as the topic, timeline, procedures, implications, and budget. An extensive literature review and associated research questions should ground your proposal, while the names and addresses of 3 reviewers and your resume should end your proposal.

Option D. Other: There are options to the above, but see me on any options you might think of.

Sample Formats:

1. Research topic & materials;
2. Brief statement of problem and why important (1-2 pages)
3. Brief review of the relevant literature (3-4 pages)
4. Methods: (2-6 pages)
   1. Subjects & design (i.e., who/how selected);
   2. Materials/setting (i.e., hard/software, text)
   3. Procedure (i.e., how data was obtained)
   4. Coding Schemes & Dep. measures/instruments (i.e., how segment/code data)
   5. Analyses or comparisons

1. Intro to Topic/Problem (purpose, history, importance) (1 page)
2. Review of Literature (contrast relevant literature on the topic) (6-9 pages)
3. Statement of Hypotheses/Research Q's (what do you expect to occur) (1 page)

1. Subjects and design (i.e., sample, who and how assigned to groups)
2. Materials/setting (i.e., hardware, software, text, models, figures)
3. Dependent measures/instruments (i.e., tests)
4. Procedure (i.e., training)
5. Other (i.e., coding, other materials)
6. Exp analyses or comparisons

5. Escape Clause:
Just like Austin Powers, Madonna, Tiger Woods, Tom Hanks, Dick Cheney, the Indianapolis Colts, and Britney Spears, you have an escape clause in your contract. The escape clause here relates to Assignments #3 or #4. If you go to a relevant conference during the fall and attend 4-5 sessions related to sociocultural theory, write a one page summary of your activities, and report on these to the class, you can skip one of these two assignments. Or if you could become significantly involved in an AERA, MidWERA, APA or a similar conference paper or symposium proposal as a result of this class, you can skip one of these two assignments. Or if you interview 1-2 famous sociocultural theorists during the semester, reflect upon and summarize these, and then share this with the class, you can skip one of these two assignments. Or if you help someone analyze research from a sociocultural perspective and submit this publication or for a conference during the semester, you can skip one of these two assignments. Or if you propose a new model or perspective for the field and present it to the class...Or if.Or if.Or if.

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

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

1. Your book-pick 3-4 chapters (If Rogoff, pages 1-110 (Esp. Chapters 2, 4, & 5)
   Tidbits:
   
2. John Dewey, (1897). My Pedagogic Creed, The School Journal, 54(3), 77-80.
   
3. APA Presidential Task Force on Psychology in Education/McREL, (1993). Learner-centered psychological principles: Guidelines for school redesign and reform, Washington, DC: APA.
   
4. Britain: New Skool Rules, Ok? (1998, Feb. 7th). The Economist, 57-58.
   

Week 3 (Sept 17th): Recent Educational Debates on Piagetian and Vygotskian Theory

1. Your book, If Rogoff; pp. 111-210 (Esp. Chapt. 7, 9, & 10)
   Tidbits:
   
2. Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000, Jan-Feb). Communities of practice: the organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 139-145.
   
3. Wenger, E. C. (2002). Supporting communities of practice: Executive summary. From: Supporting communities of practice: A survey of community- oriented technologies. See also, http://www.ewenger.com/tech/executive_summary.htm and http://www.ewenger.com/tech/
   
4. Jerome Bruner's Invited address, (1996, Sept.). Celebrating Piaget and Vygotsky: An exercise in dialectic. From Growing Mind Conference: 100th Anniversary of Piaget's Birth, Geneva, Switzerland.
   
5. Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. (1998, January 31st). Beyond the individual-social antimony in discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. (found at: http://www.massey.ac.nz/~ALock/virtual/colevyg.htm; for additional papers: http://www.massey.ac.nz/~ALock/virtual/project2.htm; or http://www.massey.ac.nz/~ALock/virtual/welcome.htm)
   

1. Marti, E., (1996). Mechanisms of internalisation and externalisation of knowledge in Piaget's and Vygotsky's theories. In A. Tryphon, & J. Voneche (Eds.), Piaget-Vygotsky: The social genesis of thought (pp. 57-83). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
2. Prawat, R. S. (2000). Dewey meets the "Mozart of Psychology" in Moscow: The untold -story. American Educational Research Association, 37(3), 663- 696.
3. Prawat, R. S. (2002, June-July). Dewey and Vygotsky viewed through the rearview mirror-and dimly at that. Educational Researcher, 31(5), 16-20.
   1. O'Brien, L. M. (2002, June-July). A Response to.37(3), pp. 21-23.
   2. Glassman, M. (2002, June-July). Experience and responding. 37(3), pp. 24- 27.
4. Davydov, V. V. (1995). The influence of L. S. Vygotsky on education theory, research, and practice. Educational Researcher, 24(3), 12-21.
5. Confrey, J. (1995). How compatible are radical constructivism, sociocultural approaches, & social construct? In Steffe & Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in ed. (pp. 185-225). Erlbaum.
   Tidbits:
   
6. Blanck, G. (1990). Vygotsky: The man & his cause. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky & educ: Instructional implics & applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 31-58). Cambridge.
7. Vygodskaia, G. L. (1995). Remembering father. Educational Psychologist, 30(2), 57-59.
8. Ayman-Nolley, S. (1992). Vygotsky's perspective on the development of imagination and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 5(1), 77-85.

1. Stone, A. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In Forman et al. (Eds.). Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development. Oxford.
2. Gaffney, J. S., & Anderson, R. C. (1991). Two-tiered scaffolding: Congruent processes of teaching and learning. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices, & policies. NY: Teachers College Press.
3. Lunt, I. (1993). The practice of assessment. In H. Daniels (Ed.), Charting the agenda: Educational activity after Vygotsky (Chapter 7: pp. 145-170). NY: Routledge.
4. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Ed Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.
5. Allal, L., & Ducrey, G. P. (2000). Assessment of-or in-the zone of proximal development. Learning and Instruction, 10, 137-152.
   Tidbits:
   
6. Kozulin, A., & Falk, L. (1995). Dynamic cognitive assessment of the child. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(6), 192-196.
7. Goldstein, L. S. (1999). The relational zone: The role of caring relationships in the co-construction of mind. American Educational Research Association. 36(3), 647-673.

1. Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling, and literate discourse. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 175-205). NY: Cambridge.
2. Brown, Collins, & Duguid, (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Ed Res'er, 18(1), 32-42.
3. Cognition & Tech Grp at Vandy (1990). Anchored instruction and its relation to situated cognition. Educ. Researcher, 19(6) 2-10.
4. Hung, D. W. (1999). Activity, apprenticeship, and epistemological appropriateion: Implications from the writings of Michael Polanyi. Educational Psychologist, 34(4), 193-205.
5. Schunk, D., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educ Psych, 32(4), 195-208.
   Tidbits:
   
6. Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. (2000). Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity. Educational Researcher, 29(4), 11-13.
7. Billett, S. (1996). Situated lrng: Bridging sociocultural & cognitive theorizing. Learning & Instruction, 6(3), 263-280.
8. Lebrow D., (1993). Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward a new mindset. ETR&D, 41(3), 4-16.

1. Kozulin, A. (1986). The concept of activity in Soviet Psychology: Vygotsky, his disciples, and critics. American Psychologist, 41(3), 264-274.
2. John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H., (1995). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian Framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 191-206.
3. Gelman, R., Massey, C. M., & McManus, M. (1991). Characterizing supporting environments for cognitive development: Lessons from children in a museum. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington, D.C.: APA.
4. Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distrib cogs: Psych and ed considerations (pp. 1-46). New York: Cambridge.
5. Bonk, C. J., & Kim, K. A. (1998). Extending sociocultural theory to adult lrng. In M. C. Smith & T. Pourchot (Ed.), Adult lrng & devel: Perspectives from educ psych (pp. 67-88). Erlbaum.
   Tidbits:
   
6. You could also read any online article from Gordon Wells at: http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/~gwells/)

1. King, A. (1997). Ask to THINK-TEL WHY: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher level complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 32(4), 221-235.
2. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.). Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 841-873). NY: Macmillan Library Reference.
3. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35.
4. Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2000). Studying and understanding the instructional contexts of classrooms: Using our past to forge our future. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 69-85.
5. Wink, J., & Putney, L. (2002). A vision of Vygotsky: Chapter 7. Mentoring: Extending Vygotsky's vision. Boston, MA: pp. 156-167. Allyn & Bacon.
   Tidbits:
   
6. Schwandt, T. A. (1996). Notes in being an interpretivist. In From Positivism to interpretivsm and beyond: Takes of transformation in educational and social research (The Mind-Body Connection). Teachers College, Columbia University.
7. Ridley, C. (2000). The ministry of mentoring: Reflections on being a mentor. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 19(4), 33-225.
8. Davidson, M. N., & Foster-Johnson, L. (2001). Mentoring in the preparation of graduate researchers of color. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 549-574.
9. Mentoring: The Faculty-graduate student relationship (1991, May-June). Communicator: Council for Graduate Studies, XXIV (5/6), 1-3.
10. Research Student and Supervisor: An approach to good supervisory practice (1990). Council for Graduate Studies. Washington, DC, pp. 1-11.

Week 9 (Oct 29th): Dilemmas in Meas Social Inter: Conversations, Talk, & Tutoring

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

1. Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension: Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67(3), 271-299.
2. Schultz, K., & Fecho, B. (2000). Society's child: Social context and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 51-62.
3. Clay, M. M., & Cazden, C. B. (1990). A Vygotskian interpretation of Reading Recovery. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and approaches of sociohistorical psychology. NY: Cambridge University Press.
4. Willemson, E. W., & Gainen, J., (1995). Reenvisioning statistics: A cognitive apprenticeship approach. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 61, 99-108.

1. McKenna, M. C., Robinson, R. D., & Miller, J. W. (1990). Whole language: A research agenda for the 90's. Educational Researcher, 19(8), 3-6.; rejoinder: Edelsky (pp. 7-11); reply: McKenna (pp. 12-13).
2. Greene, S., & Ackerman, J. M. (1995). Expanding the constructivist metaphor: A rhetorical perspective on literacy research and practice. Review of Educational Research, 65(4), 383-420.
3. Gavelek, J. R., & Raphael, T. E. (1996). Changing talk about text: New roles for teachers and students. Language Arts, 73, 182-192.
4. Nicolopoulou, A. (1997). The invention of writing and the development of numerical concepts in Sumeria: Some implications for developmental psychology. In M. Cole, Y. Engestrom, & O. Vasquez (Eds.), Mind, culture, and activity: Seminal papers from the laboratory of comparative human cognition (pp. 205-225). NY: Cambridge.
   Tidbit:
   
5. Mathes, P. G., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1997). Cooperative story mapping. Remedial and Special Education, 18(1), 20-27.

1. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135-148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Tech Pubs.
2. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motiv. project-based lrng: Sustaining the doing, supporting the lrng. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369-398.
3. Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J., & Chambers, J. C. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165-178.
4. Williams, S. B. (1992). Putting case-based instruction into context: Examples from legal and medical education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(4), 367-427.
   Tidbit:
   
5. Sittenfeld, C. (2002, March). Think for a change. Fast Company, 56, pp. 48, 50, & 52.
6. Rogoff, B. (2001, November 14th). Why a nonconventional college decided to add grades. Chronicle of Higher Education, B17.
7. Bowlin, W. (2001, Spring). Experiential learning: Benefits for academia and the local community. Management Accounting Quarterly, pp. 21-27.
8. Edens, K. (2000). Preparing problem solvers for the 21st century through problem-based learning. College Teaching, 48(2), 55-60.
9. Groth, D. P., & Robertson, E. L. (1999, November). It's all about process: Project-oriented teaching of software engineering. Technical Report No. 532, Computer Science Department, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

1. Tharp, R. (1993). Instit & Social Context of Educ Prac & Reform, In Forman et al. (Eds.). Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 269-282). Oxford.
2. Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psych and educational considerations (pp. 188-228). New York: Cambridge University Press.
3. Barron, B., Vye, N., Zech, L., Schwartz, D., Bransford, J., Goldman, S., et al. (1995). Creating contexts for community-based problem solving: The Jasper challenge series. In C. N. Hedley, P. Antonacci, & M. Rabinowitz (Eds.), Thinking and literacy: The mind at work (pp. 47-71). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Bransford, J., Vye, N., & Bateman, H. (2002). Creating high quality learning environments: Guidelines from research on how people learn. National Education Council. Report of a Workshop. The Knowledge Economy and Postsecondary Education (pp. 159-197). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5. Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., & Laine, R. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research. 66(3), 361-396
   Tidbit:
   
6. Holloway, M. (1999, January). Profile: Fylnn's Effect: Intelligence scores are rising., Scientific American, 37-38.
7. Stalker, D. (2002, April 26th). How to duck out of teaching. The Chronicle of Higher Education, B17-18.
8. Curtis, D. (2001). Innovative classrooms: 12 tips for transforming schools. Edutopia, pp. 16-17.
9. Bruder, I. (1992, April). The house that Williston built. Electronic Learning, pp. 28-29.

Week 15 (Dec 10th): Student Self-Selection Week & Recap (SAME CHOICES AS WEEK 14)