P640: THINKING & LEARNING IN SOCIAL CONTEXTS
Fall, 2002; ROOM 1201, Tuesday, 2:30-5:15, Section 6009
Department of Educational Psychology
Curtis J. Bonk, Ph.D., CPA
Office: 4022 W. W. Wright Education Bldg.
Phone: 856-8353 (W)
Office Hours: Tuesdays 5:30-6:30, or as arranged
Instructional Assistant: ???
Larger Version of Syllabus with Pictures (1.7M)
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
Objectives (After the course, students should be able to):
- Form personal definitions and examples for sociocultural terminology and
- Understand what journals and scholars relate to this field.
- Compare and contrast Piagetian and Vygotskian viewpoints on learning and
- Compare/contrast research on individual cognition & that aimed at the
social context of learning.
- Describe the social underpinnings of thought and language.
- Reflect on issues of power, control, and responsibility in the classroom.
- Appreciate the impact of learner interaction, shared dialogue/conflict, &
- Feel comfortable using teacher guided and scaffolded instructional
- Interpret research and reform efforts based on sociocultural theory.
- 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
A. Required Texts (Pick 2; Note that the instructor will have a few loaner
B. Book of Readings, C. J. Bonk (2002). Reading Packet for P640.
Available at Mr. Copy.
- Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information.
Harvard Business School.
- Foreman, Minick, & Stone (Eds.). (1993). Contexts for lrng: Socio dyn in
children's dev. Oxford.
- Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated lrng: Legitimate peripheral partic.
- Moll, L. C. (Eds.) (1990). Vyg & Ed: Instr Imps & Apps of Sociohist Psych.
- O'Donnell, A., & King, A. (1999). Cognitive perspectives on Peer Learning.
- Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Devel in Social
Context. NY: Oxford.
- Salomon, G. (Ed.) (1993). Distrib cognitions: Psych.'l & educ.'l
considerations. NY: Cambridge.
- Tharp & Gallimore (1988). Rousing Minds to Life: Tchg, lrng, & sch in
social context. Cambrid.
- Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and
- Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
- Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural App to Mediated
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The devel of higher psych
processes. MA: Harvard.
- Cole, Engestrom, & Vasquez (1997). Mind, culture, & act: Sem papers. NY:
- Engestrom, Y., & Middleton, D. (1998). Cognition and communication at work.
- Wertsch, J. V., Rio, P. & Alverez. A. (1995). Sociocultural Studies of
- Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.). (1985). Culture, commun, & cog: Vygotskian pers. NY:
- Wilson, B. G. (Ed). (1996). Constructivist learning envir's: Case studies
in ID. Ed Tech Pub.
- Other (any instructor approved selection)
Weekly Topical Outline:
1 (Sept 3rd): Introduction to Syllabus, 15 Books, and
2 (Sept 10th): First Book: Cognitive Apprenticeship & Guided
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:
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
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-
14 (Dec 3rd): Second Book & Recap (Select book) (Task #4: Final)
Due: Do (that's the "Due-Do") Assignment; Student Research
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
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
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):
- 40 pts READ--Interpreter of Signs and Symbols (20% of grade).
- 40 pts DISCUSS--Peer Supporter, Dialogue Partner, and Negotiator of Meaning
- 60 pts DISPLAY--Designer of Internalization-Externalization (DIE) Exhibit:
- 60 pts DO--Analyzer of Scaffolding, Mediated Lrng, or Zones of Proximal
- 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:
1. READ--Interpreter of Signs & Symbols (20% of grade). You will be given
a checklist to indicate which assigned articles were beneficial as well as
extra readings you did. You must read three articles or chapters each week
plus five of the tidbits or skipped articles. You will be asked to react
to the articles you have read as well as rate them.
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%
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:
- Ideas (info richness, elaboration, originality, interesting, unique
analogies b/t top and bottom charts)
- Sequential Flow (coherence, unity, organization, logical sequence,
understandable style, clarity)
- Completeness (adequate info presented, valid pts, fulfills task intent,
some breadth and depth)
- Relevancy (related to class topics, meaningful links to class,
descriptions correspond to picture)
- Relationships Drawn (indicates understanding, verbal descriptions,
- 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
4. DO--Analyzer of Scaffolding, Mediated Learning, and/or Zones of Proximal
- Article Ratings: personal rating of articles read for class, including
- Questions: questions you provide to the class readings to spark discussion
- Research Topic Selection: 1 page summary of topic chosen to fulfill task #4
- Journal Logs: weekly personal reflections on the class or readings.
- Thought Papers: personal 1-3 page reflection(s) on topic(s) that motivate
or inspire you.
- Peer Interaction Logs: recordings of discussions or debates with your
- Article Summaries or Note cards: notes made regarding articles read.
- Learning Models, Flowcharts, Coding Schemes: innovative/integrative visuals
for class topics.
- Personal Investigative Activity: any exploratory, inquisitive, volunteer
activity to clarify an issue.
- Concept Maps: visual depict of concepts, hierarchical from top (main ideas)
to bottom (details).
- Article Critiques: critical analysis or rebuttal of any article read.
Individual or Group Presentation: an interesting concept, film, idea,
model, or activity to class.
- Other: anything you have done to learn the material better.
I want you to be an active, autonomous learner. Consequently, this final
activity gives you some options while targeting application of the
material. Note that Option "A" is preferred and also that the required
page length varies by option. For any option, you are to tell the
instructor your intent either orally or in writing. Approval for your
final project is needed by November 19th. Final papers/reports are due Dec
3rd or 10th.
Grading Scale from Options A, B, and C (Note 1 (low) to 10 (high) for each
of the following criteria):
- Review of the Problem and Literature (interesting, relevant,
current, organized, thorough)
- Research Activity/Design/Topic (clear, doable/practical, detailed,
important research q's)
- Implications/Future Directions (generalizability, options
available, research focus)
- Overall Richness of Ideas (richness of information, elaboration,
originality, unique coding)
- Overall Coherence (unity, organization, logical sequence, synthesis,
style, accurate coding)
- 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:
- raw footage or transcripts of classroom or counseling situations (e.g.,
class observations, tapes).
- observations of literacy training (e.g., Reading Recovery, Success For All,
- transcripts or tapes of mentoring or tutoring situations (IU's writing lab,
study skills courses).
- collab writing interactions/correspondences (e.g., student fdbk,
conferences, social negotiation).
- e-mail dialogue (e.g., SitesScape Forum, COW, web-based instruction, e-
- human-computer interactions in prompted lrng envirs (e.g., writing tools,
ERIC, info kiosks).
- videotapes of teacher-student interactions (e.g., tapes for undergrad ed.
- CD's/videodiscs of teacher-student interactions (e.g., small group learning
CDs; ILF, LTTS).
- verbal protocol data involving coaching (e.g., Jeff Huber's IU divers or IU
- 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
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.
Option A. Research Activity: (8-16 double spaced pages)
I. Title Page (Name, affiliation, topic title, acknowledgments)
II. Topic Literature and Method (7-14 pages)
III. Results and Discussion: 1.Preliminary Results; 2. Discussion of
results (4-8 pages)
- Research topic & materials;
- Brief statement of problem and why important (1-2 pages)
- Brief review of the relevant literature (3-4 pages)
- Methods: (2-6 pages)
- Subjects & design (i.e., who/how selected);
- Materials/setting (i.e., hard/software, text)
- Procedure (i.e., how data was obtained)
- Coding Schemes & Dep. measures/instruments (i.e., how segment/code data)
- Analyses or comparisons
IV. References (APA style: see syllabus for example)
V. Appendices (e.g., pictures, charts, figures, models, tests, scoring
criteria, coding procedures)
Option B. Research Proposal: (14-20 double spaced pages)
I. Title Page (Name, affiliation, topic title, acknowledgments)
II. Review of the Literature (6-12 pages)
III. Method Section (3-7 pages)
- Intro to Topic/Problem (purpose, history, importance) (1 page)
- Review of Literature (contrast relevant literature on the topic) (6-9
- Statement of Hypotheses/Research Q's (what do you expect to occur) (1 page)
IV. Results and Discussion (OPTIONAL): 1. Antic/dummied results; 2.
Discussion of results
- Subjects and design (i.e., sample, who and how assigned to groups)
- Materials/setting (i.e., hardware, software, text, models, figures)
- Dependent measures/instruments (i.e., tests)
- Procedure (i.e., training)
- Other (i.e., coding, other materials)
- Exp analyses or comparisons
V. References (APA style: see syllabus for example)
VI. Appendices (e.g., pictures, charts, figures, models, tests, scoring
criteria, coding procedures)
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)
Week 1 (Sept 3rd): Introduction to Syllabus, 15 Books, and Sociocultural Theory
Week 2 (Sept 10th): 15 Books Continued: Cognitive Apprenticeship & Guided
- Glossary for P600, Deborah Hamilton (1994).
- Your book-pick 3-4 chapters (If Rogoff, pages 1-110 (Esp. Chapters 2, 4, & 5)
- John Dewey, (1897). My Pedagogic Creed, The School Journal, 54(3), 77-80.
- APA Presidential Task Force on Psychology in Education/McREL, (1993).
Learner-centered psychological principles: Guidelines for school redesign
and reform, Washington, DC: APA.
- Britain: New Skool Rules, Ok? (1998, Feb. 7th). The Economist, 57-58.
Week 3 (Sept 17th): Recent Educational Debates on Piagetian and Vygotskian Theory
Week 4 (Sept 24th): Dewey, Piaget, & Vygotsky in Debates:
Historical/Cultural Underpinnings of Theory
- Your book, If Rogoff; pp. 111-210 (Esp. Chapt. 7, 9, & 10)
- Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000, Jan-Feb). Communities of practice:
the organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 139-145.
- Wenger, E. C. (2002). Supporting communities of practice: Executive
summary. From: Supporting communities of practice: A survey of community-
oriented technologies. See also,
- 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.
- 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:
Week 5 (Oct 1st): Vygotsky: Scaffolding, Zones of Proximal Development, and
- 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.
- Prawat, R. S. (2000). Dewey meets the "Mozart of Psychology" in Moscow:
The untold -story. American Educational Research Association, 37(3), 663-
- Prawat, R. S. (2002, June-July). Dewey and Vygotsky viewed through the
rearview mirror-and dimly at that. Educational Researcher, 31(5), 16-20.
- O'Brien, L. M. (2002, June-July). A Response to.37(3), pp. 21-23.
- Glassman, M. (2002, June-July). Experience and responding. 37(3), pp. 24-
- Davydov, V. V. (1995). The influence of L. S. Vygotsky on education theory,
research, and practice. Educational Researcher, 24(3), 12-21.
- Confrey, J. (1995). How compatible are radical constructivism,
sociocultural approaches, & social construct? In Steffe & Gale (Eds.),
Constructivism in ed. (pp. 185-225). Erlbaum.
- 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.
- Vygodskaia, G. L. (1995). Remembering father. Educational Psychologist,
- Ayman-Nolley, S. (1992). Vygotsky's perspective on the development of
imagination and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 5(1), 77-85.
Week 6 (Oct 8th): Neo-Vygotskian Ideas: Situated Cognition, Anchored
Instruction, & Reciprocal Tchg
- 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.
- 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
- Lunt, I. (1993). The practice of assessment. In H. Daniels (Ed.), Charting
the agenda: Educational activity after Vygotsky (Chapter 7: pp. 145-170).
- Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Ed
Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.
- Allal, L., & Ducrey, G. P. (2000). Assessment of-or in-the zone of proximal
development. Learning and Instruction, 10, 137-152.
- Kozulin, A., & Falk, L. (1995). Dynamic cognitive assessment of the child.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(6), 192-196.
- 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.
Week 7 (Oct 15th): Activity Settings and Cultural Tools/Artifacts
- 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.
- Brown, Collins, & Duguid, (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Ed Res'er, 18(1), 32-42.
- Cognition & Tech Grp at Vandy (1990). Anchored instruction and its relation
to situated cognition. Educ. Researcher, 19(6) 2-10.
- Hung, D. W. (1999). Activity, apprenticeship, and epistemological
appropriateion: Implications from the writings of Michael Polanyi.
Educational Psychologist, 34(4), 193-205.
- Schunk, D., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory
competence. Educ Psych, 32(4), 195-208.
- Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. (2000).
Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity. Educational Researcher,
- Billett, S. (1996). Situated lrng: Bridging sociocultural & cognitive
theorizing. Learning & Instruction, 6(3), 263-280.
- Lebrow D., (1993). Constructivist values for instructional systems design:
Five principles toward a new mindset. ETR&D, 41(3), 4-16.
Week 8 (Oct 22nd): Dilemmas in Measuring Social Interaction: Peer Tutoring
& Mentor Assistance
- Kozulin, A. (1986). The concept of activity in Soviet Psychology: Vygotsky,
his disciples, and critics. American Psychologist, 41(3), 264-274.
- John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H., (1995). Sociocultural approaches to learning
and development: A Vygotskian Framework. Educational Psychologist,
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- You could also read any online article from Gordon Wells at:
- King, A. (1997). Ask to THINK-TEL WHY: A model of transactive peer tutoring
for scaffolding higher level complex learning. Educational Psychologist,
- 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.
- Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive
small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35.
- 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.
- Wink, J., & Putney, L. (2002). A vision of Vygotsky: Chapter 7. Mentoring:
Extending Vygotsky's vision. Boston, MA: pp. 156-167. Allyn & Bacon.
- 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.
- Ridley, C. (2000). The ministry of mentoring: Reflections on being a
mentor. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 19(4), 33-225.
- Davidson, M. N., & Foster-Johnson, L. (2001). Mentoring in the preparation
of graduate researchers of color. Review of Educational Research, 71(4),
- Mentoring: The Faculty-graduate student relationship (1991, May-June).
Communicator: Council for Graduate Studies, XXIV (5/6), 1-3.
- 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, &
Week 10 (Nov 5th): Building Cognitive Apprenticeships in the Content Areas
- Meloth, M. M., & Deering, P. D. (1994). Task talk and task awareness under
different cooperative learning conditions. AERJ, 31(1), 138-165.
- 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.
- Schacter, J. (2000). Does individual tutoring produce optimal learning?
American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 801-829.
- 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.
- Jarvela, S., Bonk, C. J., Lehtinen, E., & Lehti, S. (1999). A theoretical
analysis of social interactions in computer-based learning environments:
Evidence for reciprocal understandings Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 21(3), 359-384.
Week 11 (Nov 12th): Emerging Techniques: Collaborative Writing and
- Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension:
Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational
Research, 67(3), 271-299.
- Schultz, K., & Fecho, B. (2000). Society's child: Social context and
writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 51-62.
- 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.
- Willemson, E. W., & Gainen, J., (1995). Reenvisioning statistics: A
cognitive apprenticeship approach. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 61, 99-108.
Week 12 (Nov 19th): Project, Problem, and Case-Based Learning Communities
- 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).
- 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.
- Gavelek, J. R., & Raphael, T. E. (1996). Changing talk about text: New
roles for teachers and students. Language Arts, 73, 182-192.
- 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.
- Mathes, P. G., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1997). Cooperative story mapping.
Remedial and Special Education, 18(1), 20-27.
Week 13 (Nov 26th): Socioculturally-Based Communities of Learners and
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Sittenfeld, C. (2002, March). Think for a change. Fast Company, 56, pp. 48,
50, & 52.
- Rogoff, B. (2001, November 14th). Why a nonconventional college decided to
add grades. Chronicle of Higher Education, B17.
- Bowlin, W. (2001, Spring). Experiential learning: Benefits for academia and
the local community. Management Accounting Quarterly, pp. 21-27.
- Edens, K. (2000). Preparing problem solvers for the 21st century through
problem-based learning. College Teaching, 48(2), 55-60.
- Groth, D. P., & Robertson, E. L. (1999, November). It's all about process:
Project-oriented teaching of software engineering. Technical Report No.
532, Computer Science Department, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Week 14 (Dec 3rd): Student Self-Selection Week & Recap (Select from books
- 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.
- 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.
- 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,
- 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
- Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., & Laine, R. D. (1996). The effect of school
resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research. 66(3),
- Holloway, M. (1999, January). Profile: Fylnn's Effect: Intelligence scores
are rising., Scientific American, 37-38.
- Stalker, D. (2002, April 26th). How to duck out of teaching. The Chronicle
of Higher Education, B17-18.
- Curtis, D. (2001). Innovative classrooms: 12 tips for transforming schools.
Edutopia, pp. 16-17.
- 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