|
| |
|
(Updated September 16th,
2009) |
|
Cognition and Learning
(Joint Ph.D. Program in
Educational Studies) |
|
Fall
Session (Week of September 8, 2009 – Week of December 1, 2009) -- Location: On-Line |
| NETiquette |
| Check these on-line rules for
Netiquette |
We can negotiate some additional on-line rules to
ensure that everyone is comfortable with the environment. For now
consider three "Dos" and three "Don'ts."
|
Do |
Don't |
| 1. Post substantive comments that show
you are investing thought, research, reflection, and critical
skills. It is
suggested that you aim for postings between 50 and 200 words in length.
|
1. Don't use offensive language when it is needless.
Don't use
pejorative or ad hominem comments in place of arguments. This does not mean you should
avoid comments that might be construed as being politically
incorrect. Be prepared to defend your questionable comments. |
| 2. Be actively engaged on a regular basis. |
2. Don't complain.
Rather, ...Argue. |
| 3. Be supportive of your colleagues, but not to the
extent that you avoid pointing out flaws in their comments,
arguments, understanding, research, and so on. |
3. Don't plagiarize.
Rather, ...Create. |
|
|
|
Course
Instructor |
| Dr. Larry
Morton, Ph.D., Professor,
Faculty of Education, University of
Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue., Windsor, Ontario N9B 3P4
Office:
Faculty of Education Building, Room 3202, Phone No.: (519) 253-3000 ext.
3835 E-Mail:
morton@uwindsor.ca |
|
Teaching/Learning/Research Philosophy – Dr. Larry Morton
I
approach this course, like others, with an interest in truth. I hold to the
quaint notion that there is such a thing as truth and just one truth, that
there is such a thing as reality, and just one reality. I’m not in the
postmodern camp. Indeed, I fear those with a vision, the language police,
the politically correct, the neologists, and many other radical
constructivists. I’m impressed by this world full of surprises and the
beautiful order I see emerging subsequent to observation, reason, the
experimental method of the sciences, and the data-driven, reason-based explanations in the
humanities.
In both
teaching and researching I encourage multiple-perspective-taking, all ideas
on the table (with the clear understanding that some ideas are better than
others), experimentation, precision in language, clear thinking, well-honed
logical fallacy detectors, and fun. In fact, I find research and teaching to
be a type of play that leads to both discovery and invention. I value both. |
|
|
Course Description
In this course we will examine and discuss critically 1) the basic cognitive processes underlying
perception, memory, thinking, learning, and so on, 2) how cognitive psychology relates to teaching and
learning, 3) cognition as related to culture, mind, and self, and
4) the process of “schooling minds” in relation to specific school
curricula. To better understand the complex link between human cognitive
development and education, you are encouraged to analyze and critique
past and contemporary cognitive learning theories within the context of
education. Throughout the course, as we attempt to answer questions of cognition and learning, we will draw on theoretical,
empirical, and practical literature. In addition, we will examine how the
process of learning involves the whole person in a dynamically changing set
of cultural contexts. Specific topics will be added throughout the duration
of the course and will be tailored to emerging needs. Throughout the
course, students are expected to demonstrate a growing capacity to critique
theories and research related to cognition and learning, and to make connections to educational
practice.
This course,
ideally, provides a forum inviting students to reflect and discuss the
relation between their own cognitive development and academic experiences
(as teachers, as scholars, as researchers, as learners, as human beings...). Students will be encouraged to engage
in critical reading, constructive writing, and meaningful dialogue with both
self and others concerning the complex issues related to the cognitive links between brain,
mind, heart, soul, and education. |
Course Objectives
·
to
provide a "connected on-line classroom" that will invite critical thinking,
reaction, reflection and writing related to issues
raised in the course readings, peer responses, and the shared experiences
·
to develop,
in terms of breadth and depth,
ability to understand, critique, and deconstruct the concepts
“cognition,” “learning,” and “education,” and examine the relations among
the three constructs
·
to explore various
epistemological approaches to cognitive psychology and education
·
to develop one's
role as a critical consumer of cognitive research by increasing awareness of
how related educational and psychological issues are portrayed in the media
(newspaper, popular magazines, TV programs, etc.)
·
to encourage and
promote ability to identify specific strategies and approaches
that can foster a constructive dialogue between the fields of education
and cognitive psychology
·
to further develop
metacognitive abilities by encouraging reflection on how one’s sense of self, self-development,
and self-regulation plays a critical role in
educational experiences
·
to develop
ability to apply knowledge of education and cognitive
psychology to personal research areas of interest |
|
Required
Texts:
1. Sternberg, R., &
Grigorenko, E. (Eds.) (2003). The psychology of abilities, competencies,
and expertise. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
ISBN: 0-521-00776-3
2. Matlin,
M. W. (2009) Cognition (7th edition). NJ: John Wiley and Sons Inc. ISBN:
978-0470-08764-0
The
above
texts are required reading for the course and are available through on-line
sources like:
http://www.Chapters.ca
http://www.Amazon.ca
Or see 1-800-CALL WILEY (225-5945) (for the
Matlin text)
And Cambridge University Press (for the Sternberg and
Grigorenko text)
Note. Some of the used texts from Amazon are quite good as
well, and delivery is usually less than two weeks.
Another possibility is to access the texts from your local
university library or interlibrary loan.
The texts contain the basic course material, and will
provide the foundation for the course. You should try to read the
appropriate chapter (relevant sections) by the date indicated in the course
syllabus.
Articles identified for readings can be accessed
through on-line journals. |
|
You might
also consider purchasing the current edition of the
Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA) as many
journals and dissertations in Education require APA format. Note that
the APA Manual is also available in the Reference section of most university
libraries. |
Course Components,
Expectations, and Evaluation
"Classes" will consist of directed
readings, on-line critical commentary and interactions, and independent
study. Through the duration of the course, critical analysis and
discussion of the course material will be encouraged through activities that
promote engagement,
dialogue and enquiry activities. Given the on-line format of this course,
informed and thoughtful participation is essential. This applies to on-line class discussions, student participation,
and student leadership. Students will be required to facilitate peer
reflections and critique, and will be expected to participate in sessions lead by
others. Students will apply course content and concepts as part of a
reflective, applied, on-line presentation. Finally, students will prepare a
research paper exploring a topic of interest in the general field of
cognition, learning, and teaching. |
|
CLASS
PARTICIPATION/LATE PAPER POLICY
If it is necessary to miss time, or
deadlines, you should contact the instructor. You are
responsible for reading assigned materials, participating in ongoing
discussion posts, and
completing all assignments on time.
If students fail any one component of
the course (e.g. on-line discussion, research paper, etc.) you are in danger of failing the entire course, and may be
required to take the course again the following year.
To make optimal use of our time,
it is crucial that you participate consistently, and be prepared to
engage posted text from the instructor and from classmates. Each week we will engage
in various activities intended to support your developing understanding
about cognitive psychology and education. |
|
Course
Evaluation
1.
Discussion Leader and Questions (10%)
2.
Class Engagement:
Ongoing on-line dialogue (40% total)
a. Dialogue --on-line activity
(30%)
b. Four on-line critical
reflections (10%)
Reflections (2-3 pages, approx.
500 to 750 words)
P-Reflection
1 Due
Sept 15, 2008
(Not really a reflection; rather it is a reflective piece on what you hope
to gain from the course)
Reflection
2 Due
Oct. 13, 2008
(A reflection on the course work to date.)
Reflection
3 Due
Nov. 3, 2008
(A reflection on the course work to date.)
Reflection 4 (Course
Summary) Due Dec.
7, 2008
(A reflection on the course work to date.)
3.
Final Paper (50%)
Proposal (5%) Due Oct.
6, 2008
Final Paper
(45%) Due Dec.
7, 2008
Note:
Session topics and dates may change as a function of class needs/time
constraints. |
|
*Check
the following website for further description of some rubrics considered when grading the assignments. |
|
Discussion Leader and Questions (10%)
You will be
assigned the role of “Discussion Leader” for one session in one of the
Modules (see course syllabus). To encourage both individual and
collaborative critical thinking skills regarding the integration of theory,
research, and educational practice in cognitive development, leaders will
prepare in advance, for their sessions, several thought-provoking
questions concerning the readings for that week. The questions should be
designed to stimulate discussion about the assigned readings as they relate
to (1) the other readings in the course, and throughout the program, (2) professional
practice, and (3) lived experiences. Also, to illustrate the claim that
cognitive psychology and educational research speak to many everyday,
real-world issues, and to promote the critical analysis of how media
represents research and education, at least one of the questions could
relate to a recent article from a newspaper, magazine, or website that
corresponds with the topic of your question. Alternatively, you could find
a media article in your area of interest and then find a corresponding
question that furthers the discourse on the same topic (e.g., creativity,
intelligence and schooling, gender issues, emotions, etc.). Feel free
to expand your
question/s in relation to relevant readings.
These questions will serve as the
engine for the dialogue (on-line postings). The
Discussion Leaders will post their questions on-line no later than the
Tuesday (and preferably by the preceding weekend) of the week when the readings are scheduled (see course syllabus).
To
encourage in-depth thinking and discussion, leaders are encouraged to
situate their questions within a particular perspective. That is, the
questions could reflect multiple perspectives such as: 1) cognitive
psychologist (researcher), 2) an educator (practitioner), or 3) a media
and/or government employee (i.e., newspaper editor, TV producer,
politician).
I suggest (1) a conceptual
question, (2) a methodological/research question, and (3) an applied
question related to the readings. |
| |
|
1.
Class Engagement
Due to the “distance” element of
this course, to a large extent, the success of the course will be contingent
upon class participation. Therefore, it is expected that all will participate regularly in the
dialogues. In addition, all students will post a final on-line written
critical response or reflection for each Module which will address readings
and the on-line experiences (4 modules in total) (1 reflection = maximum
3 pages, or 750 words). As part of this reflection, individuals are
encouraged to bring closure to one or more of the original statements or
questions, synthesize the group discussion as well as their own responses,
emotions, beliefs and lived experiences that emerged during the Module.
In the past threaded discussions
were a large part of the on-line dialogue. Use of WebCT was conducive to
this approach. Using CLEW, however, the interaction takes a
somewhat different focus. Rather that threaded discussions the format is
both (1) more formal, in part, with a formal discussion post in DISCUSSIONS,
and (2) informal with discussion threads in FORUM. Think of the formal
DISCUSSION format as stages as follows:
| DISCUSSIONS (in the
DISCUSSIONS section of CLEW) |
| #1. A formal post reflective of the reading, with
a question to encourage reflection, analysis, synthesis, and a
crafted response. (Two questions, as suggested
above.) |
Set by the discussion leader for the week. |
| #2. A formal response to the posted question (50
to 200 words). One response for each question. |
By each participant |
| #3. Reactions to any aspect of the posted
responses (25-100 words, not including the embedded text from the
post to which you are targeting your response). |
By each participant, and typically for
several of the posts. |
| #4. Reactions to any posted responses by others at the #3
level. |
By each participant, and for a couple of the
responses. |
| #5. Possibly: a suggestion for a new question to
consider given the discussion and the formulation of a rationale. |
By anyone. |
| Think of this format as a
scholarly interchange that you might find in a journal rather than a
seminar-based classroom. Someone publishes an article and others
respond with "letters to the editor." The original author responds
to the "letters' as might others who read the "letters." A written
dialogue ensues over the course of several issues. The dialogue is
thoughtful, reflective, fixed-in-text, elaborated, clarified,
corrected, and ...seminal. It pushes people in new directions. |
| |
| The FORUM discussions are threaded
and topical. They are more informal. |
| #1. A formal post reflective of the readings,
with a question to encourage reflection, analysis, synthesis,
and application of the information. (One or two questions, as suggested
above.) |
Set by the discussion leader for the week. |
| #2. Less formal responses to the posted question/s (10
to 100 words). There could be multiple responses by each
participant. |
By each participant, and in the form of a
dialogue. |
| #3. Reactions to any aspect of the posted
responses (10 to 100 words, not including the embedded text from the
post to which you are targeting your response). |
By each participant, and in the form of a
dialogue, and typically for
several of the posts. |
| #4. Possibly: a suggestion for a new directions
and questions to consider given the discussion. |
By anyone. |
| Think of this format as a
dialogue that you might find in a seminar-based classroom, or a
research colloquium, ...or the pub. It is relatively informal. It
may involve humour, banter, perhaps sarcasm, or irrelevant tangents.
At the same time there should be evidence of knowledge, insight,
reading, understanding, risk-taking, and application--application to
knowledge building, to life, to research projects, to education, to
society, and so on. Something substantive might emerge! |
Note. If the "Forum" section
proves to be more successful than the "Discussions" section we may shift to
rely more on the Forum. If there is a need to provide more
closure to a particular Learning Module, at the end of each Module, a
2-hour teleconference could be scheduled. |
Attendance and Participation
As noted above, to make optimal use
of our contact time, it is crucial that students post their discussions on
time and be prepared to engage in on-line activities. All students are
expected to have read the assigned materials and be prepared to discuss the
readings and any of the assignments. Pre-reading will be essential to your successful engagement in these on-line
activities.
Should you wish to discuss any questions or concerns about
course content and/or assignments you may contact me via e-mail, or arrange
a time to connect through telephone or personal meeting.
|
|
3. Main Paper (50% = 5% proposal + 45% final paper)
This
assignment will provide you with the opportunity to engage in and reflect on
your personal journey as a researcher/teacher/learner within the context of
the course material. Each student will choose a particular topic relevant
to course content, which should, ideally, speak to both your heart and
mind. However,
you
are expected to develop and substantiate an argument using course and additional
readings more so than opinion and lived experience. Critical reflection on the topic must
be evident in the paper.
As the
course unfolds, each student will develop a 2 page (approx 500 words)
précis of their proposed paper + at least 10 academic references that
addresses any topic of interest from within the general field of cognition
and learning. This précis will be submitted (via email)
by the date specified in the Course Syllabus.
Final Paper Proposal
Length:
2 pages (not including at least 10 academic references)
Due:
Oct. 2, 2009
Once the paper
proposal is approved, each student will submit the completed paper (20 to 25 pages, approx.
4000 to 5000 words, not including
references/resources) by the date specified in the Course Syllabus.
Final Paper
Length:
20-25 pages (not including substantial list of academic references)
Due:
Dec. 7, 2008 (approximately one week after the last session) |
|
As the course unfolds, each
student will develop a 2 page (500 words) précis of their proposed paper
that addresses one of the following topics within the field of cognition and
learning:
1.
Perception
2.
Language
3.
Information Processing (Attention, Memory, ...)
4.
Metacognition
5.
Artificial
Intelligence
6.
Problem-Solving
7.
Neurospsychology
/ Cognitive Neuroscience
8.
Creativity
9.
Mind / Consciousness and
Qualia
10.
Emotions and
Feelings
11.
Morality and
Ethics
12.
Culture and
Cognition
13. Social Cognition
14. Social Cognitive
Neuroscience
13.
Ways of Knowing
14.
Religiosity/Spirituality
15. Learning Problems /
Language Problems / Cognitive Problems
16.
“The Outer
Limits”(e.g., dreams, parapsychology, embodied knowing, meditation, animal
cognition, etc.) |
General
Guidelines for all Written Assignments
All assignments are to follow the
Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th
Ed.).
Remember
when writing to be as clear and concise as possible. You need to keep in
mind the admonition "less is more." Scholars look for evidence of what David Perkins
refers to as "performances of understanding" (Smart Schools,
p. 75-78). That is, what is the
evidence of your ability to think critically about the material we have been
reading and discussing. The criteria for evaluation will consist of typical
qualities of good scholarship, generally these include:
·
evidence of an
accurate interpretation and understanding of key concepts
·
insightful
application of these concepts to your own research
·
a critical,
personal perspective and contribution to the issues raised
·
clarity and
coherence in your written expression (showing clear evidence of
proofreading, editing, polish, and recursivity)
·
originality and/or
creativity in your approach
Note:
The preference is to submit papers electronically in MS-Word format, double-spaced
throughout (12 pt font) and leave a 1-inch margin all around. Number
each page clearly and please meet but not exceed the length requirement.
Proofread. Edit. Revise. Think. Rethink. Write.
Rewrite. Rethink. Rewrite. Proofread. Submit. |
|
On-Line Sources (This list is in-progress as it will be posted on-line in
September and continue to grow throughout the course)
You may
wish to check the following on-line resources for assistance and useful
information regarding writing:
http://.owl.english.purdue.edu
- an On-line English lab created by Purdue University.
For APA
style, check out the following websites:
www.apastyle.org (APA’s official
website)
www.psychwww.com/resource – a
website created by Russ Dewey, Georgia Southern University to provide
various links to sites which discuss APA style, 5th edition.
www.docstyles.com/apacrib.htm
– a website created by Russ Dewey, Georgia Southern University to provide a
summary of rules for using APA style (Updated April, 2004).
For ideas
for general resources around issues of psychology, check out the following
website:
www.psychwww.com
- Psych Web
www.apa.org – American Psychological Association
www.cpa.ca - Canadian Psychological Association |
| |
|
|
|
| Module |
Topic |
First Day of Session |
Leaders |
|
|
Module 1 |
Introduction to Course |
|
|
|
Session 1 |
|
Sept. 8 |
Instructor |
|
Module 2 |
Foundations of Cognition |
|
|
|
Session 2
|
|
Sept.
15 |
Instructor |
|
Session 3 |
|
Sept. 22 |
Instructor |
|
Session 4 |
|
Sept 29 |
Instructor |
|
Session 5 |
Formative Discussion |
Oct. 6 |
Instructor |
|
Session 6 |
|
Oct. 13 |
|
|
Session 7 |
|
Oct. 20 |
|
|
Module 3
|
Context/Implications |
|
|
|
Session 8 |
|
Oct 27 |
|
|
Session 9 |
|
Nov. 3 |
|
|
Session 10 |
|
Nov. 10 |
|
|
Session 11 |
Module Summary |
Nov. 17 |
|
|
Module 4
|
Presentation (Application) |
|
|
|
Session 12 |
|
Nov. 24 |
|
|
Session 13 |
|
Dec. 3 |
Instructor |
|
(Dates are all tentative and
subject to change) |
|
|
Session and Date |
Focus |
Assigned Readings and Activities
|
Module 1
1.
Sept. 8, 2009 |
Introduction to Course
What is
Cognition?
Leader: Morton |
Matlin
– Ch. 1
Sternberg Ch. 1
Goswami,
U. (2004). Neuroscience and education. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 74, 1-14. |
Module 2
2.
Sept. 15, 2009
*P-Reflection #1 Due |
Foundations
Perception
Leader: Morton |
Matlin
– Ch. 2 & 3
Shayer,
M. (2003). Not just Piaget; not just Vygotsky, and certainly not
Vygotsky as alternative to Piaget. Learning and Instruction, 13,
465-485. |
| 3.
Sept. 22, 2009 |
Foundations
Memory
Leader: Morton |
Matlin– Ch. 4 & 5
Gathercole, S. E.,
Durling, E. Evans, M., Jeffcock, S., & Stone, S. (2008). Working memory
abilities and children's performance in laboratory analogues of
classroom activities. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1019-1037. |
| 4.
Sept. 29, 2009 |
Foundations
Metacognition
Leader: Morton |
Matlin
– Ch. 6 & 7
Peskin,
J., & Astington, J. W. (2004). The effects of adding metacognitive
language to story texts. Cognitive Development, 19, 253-273
|
| 5.
Oct. 6, 2009
*Research Paper Proposal Due |
Foundations
Knowledge & Thinking
Leader: Monique |
Matlin
– Ch. 8
Kveraga, K. Ghuman, A.
S., & Bar, M. (2007) Top-down predictions in the cognitive brain. Brain
and Cognition, 65, 145-168.
|
| 6.
Oct. 13, 2009
*Reflection #2 Due |
Foundations
Language
Leader:
Boguslawa |
Matlin
– Ch. 9 & 10
Poeppel,
D., & Hickok, G. (2004). Towards a new functional anatomy of language.
Cognition, 92, 1-12.
|
|
7.
Oct. 20, 2009 |
Foundations
Problem Solving and Creativity
Leader:
Jennifer |
Matlin
– Ch. 11
Warden,
D., & McKinnon, S. (2003). Prosocial children, bullies, and victims…British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21,
367-385. |
|
8.
Oct. 27, 2009 |
Foundations
Reasoning and Decision Making
Leader:
Kristen |
Matlin - Ch. 12
Sternberg - Ch. 3 (Multiplier Effect)
Editorial, (2003). The social construction of implicit knowledge.
Cognitive Development, 18, 451-454.
|
Module 3
9.
Nov. 3, 2009
*Reflection #3 Due |
Context/Implications/Application
Emotion
Leader: Adam |
Koole, S. L. (2009).
The psychology of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Cognition
and Emotion, 23(1) 4-41.
Demoulin et al. (2004). Dimensions of “uniquely” and non-uniquely” human
emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 71-96.
*Bohnert,
A., Crnic, K., & Lim, K. (2003). Emotional competence and aggressive
behavior in school-age children. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 31, 79-91. |
| 10. Nov.
10, 2009 |
Context/Implications/Application/
Music
Leader: Morton |
Sternberg - Ch. 7
Hébert,
S. & Cuddy, L. L. (2006). Music-reading deficiencies and the brain.
Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 2(2-3), 199-206.
Kenny, D. T. & Osborne,
M. S. (2006). Music performance anxiety: New insights from young
musicians. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 2(2-3), 103-112.
|
| 11.
Nov. 17, 2009 |
Context/Implications/Application
Learning Problems
Leader:
Deidre |
Sternberg - Ch. 6
Editorial (2007).
Social cognitive and affective neuroscience: Developmental and clinical
perspectives. Brain and Cognition, 65, 1-2.
Iarocci, G. Yager, J. &
Elfers, T. (2007). What gene-environment interactions can tell us about
social competence in typical and atypical populations. Brain and
Cognition, 65, 112-127.
|
| 12.
Nov. 24, 2009 |
Context/Implications/Application
Individual Differences (Gender, etc.)
Leader:
Blessing |
Sternberg Ch. 10
Rueckert, L. & Naybar,
N. (2008). Gender differences in empathy: The role of the right
hemisphere. Brain and Cognition, 67, 162-167
Washburn-Ormachea, J. et al. (2004). Gender and gender-role orientation
differences on adolescents’ coping with peer stressors. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 33, 31-40.
|
Module 4
13.
Dec. 1, 2009 |
Application
Expertise, Creativity, Exceptionalities
Leader: Morton |
Sternberg - Ch. 8
Sternberg - Ch. 3
Sternberg, R. (2003). What is an expert student? Educational
Researcher, 32, 5-9.
|
|
Dec. 7, 2009
*Final Reflection Due (#4)
Final Paper
Due |
|
|
|
|
|
*Potentially Interesting Readings and Useful Resources** List in-progress (this list will
be posted on-line and updated throughout the duration of the course)
Bentham, S.
(2002). Psychology and education. New York: Routledge.
(especially 1st
chapter “Perspectives on learning: The cognitive approach” – this
introductory chapter provides an overview of the Piaget, Vygotsky, &
Bruner’s theories of learning.)
Bruner, J.
(1996). The culture of education.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brunning,
R. H., Schraw, G./ J., Norby, M. N., & Ronning, R. R. (2004). Cognitive
psychology and instruction (4th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Dawson, M.
R. W. (1998). Understanding cognitive science. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Flavell, J.,
Miller, P., & Miller, S. (2002). Cognitive development (4th
Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
(Note...You might see this listed with a 2001 publication date but I
suspect it is just an early release date) ISBN: 0-13-791575-6
Gardner, H. (1985). The mind's new
science, A history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2007). Five minds for the
future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hulme, C. & Snowling, M.
J. (2009). Developmental disorders of language learning and cognition. Chichester,
West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kandel, E. R. (2006). In search of
memory. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Pinker, S.
(2003). The blank slate. New York: Penguin USA.
Reed, J. & Warner-Rogers,
J. (Eds.) (2008). Child neuropsychology. Wiley-Blackwell.
Rogers, L. J. & Andrew, R.
J. (Eds) (2002) Comparative vertebrate lateralization. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Son, L. & Vandierendonck,
A. (2007). Bridging cognitive science and education: Learning, Memory and
Metacognition. Hove & New York: Psychology Press, Taylor and Francis Group.
Striano, T. & Reid, V.
(Eds.) (2009). Social cognition, Development, neuroscience, and Autism.
Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
|
|
Other
Useful Resources:
Bechtel,
W., & Graham, G. (1998). A companion to cognitive science. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Gazzaniga, M. (1995). The cognitive
neurosciences. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press
Wilson, R.
W., & Keil, F. (1999). MIT Encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
|
|
Some Electronic Journals (Available as full-text journals)
Brain and Mind
Brain and Cognition
Brain and Language
British Journal of Developmental Psychology
British Journal of Educational Psychology
Cognition
Cognitive
Development
Cognition
and Emotion
Cognition
and Instruction
Educational
Researcher
Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology
Journal of
Educational Psychology
Journal of
Youth and Adolescence
Learning
and Instruction
Social
Cognition
Teachers
College Record
|
|
| The Research Paper
Marking Guidelines |
|
Final
Paper (50% in total)
| Paper |
Factors Considered |
|
|
Proposal (5%) |
Research survey |
|
| |
Conceptual
Framework |
|
| |
Discussion
issues |
|
| |
Writing |
|
| |
|
|
| Final Paper (45%) |
Critical
Review of Literature |
|
| |
Conceptual Analysis of Topic |
|
| |
Discussion |
|
| |
Applications: Future Directions for
Research, Policy Statements, Curricula,
etc.
|
|
| |
Writing
Clarity/Style |
|
| |
APA |
|
|
|
Class List |
| Name |
University |
E-Mail |
|
| Anne |
LU |
|
|
| Boguslawa |
Wi |
|
|
| Jennifer |
LU |
|
|
| Blessing |
Wi |
|
|
| Kristen |
LU |
|
|
| Monique |
BU |
|
|
| Adam |
LU |
|
|
| Diedre |
Wi |
|
|
|
|
|
