EDPSY506: Instructional Theory

	Winter 1998	Wednesdays, 4:30 – 6:50	Miller 423A

Philip Bell		Office:		322J Miller Hall
email:	pbell@u.washington.edu		Office Hours:	Tues 3:30-5:00
phone:	221-3642								Wed 10:30-12:00

Course Overview

This course will explore how theories of learning, development, and cognition can shape the design of instruction. Readings will explore a range of instructional theories (including behaviorist, constructivist , and situated perspectives) as well as highlight the underlying influences on those theories (e.g., sociocultural theory, epistemological assumptions, research on collaboration and group learning, domain-specific aspects of conceptual change). Although we will begin with a brief survey of historical trends in the field, the primary course focus will be on current and emerging theories of instruction. In particular, distributed and dynamical views of cognition and learning are two new perspectives that will be explored.  Students will be encouraged to present and discuss their research interests and projects as they relate to the focus of the course.  

Student Assignments & Grading

To receive credit for the course, students are expected to do the following:

	LEADING CLASS: Different class members will be asked to lead class each week (probably twice over the course of the quarter). Class leaders will be responsible for producing annotations of the readings and coordinating class activities in order to explore the issues involved in the papers. Annotations should summarize the highlights of the paper and raise relevant issues for discussion. Class activities should include a discussion of the papers, but can also include more creative activities as well (role-playing, problem solving, brainstorming).  
•	PERSONAL RESEARCH PRESENTATION: Each student will be asked to present some aspect of their research or personal interests as it relates to the focus of the course.  The sessions are intended to provide you with feedback on your work. It will count for 10% of your grade.
•	CRITIQUE PAPER: Write a critique of an instructional theory or approach of your choice.  You may select one discussed in class or find another not represented in the course. In your paper:
•	describe the approach and core tenets associated with the theory, 
•	situate the theory into the context of the other instructional theories, 
•	describe the domains or instructional contexts to which the theory could be applied, and
•	summarize the major influences that shaped the theory (e.g., empirical research, assumptions about learning or knowledge, target applications) and discuss the relative value of the theory.  
The paper should be between 8-10 pages in length and is due on February 24th.  It will count for 30% of your grade.  
	FINAL COURSE PAPER: Students will be expected to write an academic paper that either: (1) explores some aspect of instructional theory beyond that covered in the course, (2) describes a proposed study focused on some aspect of applied instructional theory, or (3) develop your own theory of instruction. 
A brief 1-page treatment (or outline) of the final paper is due on March 3rd. The final paper should be between 15-25 pages in length and is due on March 19th.  It will count for 60% of your grade. If possible, students are also encouraged to find a way to relate their paper to other aspects of their academic life or interests.

Class Participation: This seminar will depend upon the active involvement of all of the participants.  This is to ensure that we can benefit from the collective knowledge, experiences, and perspectives represented in the group. 

Writing Standards: All written work should be of academic quality. Proofread your final papers before turning them in. Format the references according to the APA standards.

Readings: All readings will be on reserve in the Undergraduate Library. Some of these papers are available on-line (as indicated below).  

Reading Schedule
WEEK 1	January 6	Introduction to theories of instruction
	Discuss specifics of the course and make personal introductions. 

WEEK 2	January 13	Historical Perspectives on Learning and Instruction
Greeno, J.G., Collins, A.M., & Resnick, L.B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. [41]
Resnick, L.B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Available on-line: <http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/>. [50]

WEEK 3	January 20	Cognitive Influences on Instruction
Tennyson, R.D., Schott, F., Seel, N., & Dijkstra, S. (1997). Instructional design: International perspectives (Vol. 1: Theory, Research, and Models). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [56]
Chapter 1 — Instructional design theory, research, and models, Tennyson & Schott
Chapter 4 — Historical and philosophical foundations of instructional design: A north american view, Molenda
Chapter 5 — Learning theory foundations for instructional design, Tennyson & Elmore
Perkins, D. N. (1986, May). Thinking frames. Educational Leadership, 43, 4-11. [13]
Perkins, D.N., & Simmons, R. (1988). Patterns of misunderstanding: An integrative model for science, math, and programming. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 303-326. [23]
Case, R. (1993). Theories of learning and theories of development. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 219-233. [14]

WEEK 4	January 27	Perspectives on Constructivist Instructional Design
Duffy, T., & Jonassen, D.H. (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [75]
Chapter 1 — Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology, Duffy & Jonassen
Chapter 4 — Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage?, Perkins
Chapter 7 — An instructional designer’s view of constructivism, Dick
Chapter 8 — Constructivism and instructional design, Merrill
Chapter 11 — Attempting to come to grips with alternative perspectives, Duffy & Bednar
Chapter 14 — In defense of extremism, Cunningham
Chapter 15 — What constructivism demands of the learner, Perkins
Chapter 16 — Constructing constructivism, Fosnot
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12. [7]

WEEK 5	February 3	Instructional Design Models & Frameworks
Tennyson, R.D., Schott, F., Seel, N., & Dijkstra, S. (1997). Instructional design: International perspectives (Vol. 1: Theory, Research, and Models). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [37]
Chapter 17 — A model for the systematic design of instruction, Dick
Chapter 19 — Instructional transaction theory: An instructional design model based on knowledge objects, Merrill
Chapter 21 — A system dynamics approach to instructional systems development, Tennyson
ANY TWO OF THE FOLLOWING:
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1998). Designing a community of young learners: Theoretical and practical lessons. In N. M. Lambert & B. L. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education (pp. 153-186). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [32]
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1996). Multimedia environments for enhancing learning in mathematics. In S. Vosniadou, E. D. Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International Perspectives on the Design of Technology-Supported Learning Environments, (pp. 285 - 305). Mahwah, NJ: LEA. [20]
Linn, M. C., Bell, P., & Hsi, S. (in press). Using the internet to enhance student understanding of science: The knowledge integration environment. Interactive Learning Environments. [33]

WEEK 6	February 10	Group Interaction and Learning in the Classrooom
Palincsar, A.S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 49, 345-375. [25]
Webb, N.M., & Palincsar, A.S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841-873). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. [31]
Linn, M.C., & Burbules, N.C. (1993). Construction of knowledge and group learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 91-119). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). [25]
OPTIONAL:
Cohen, E.G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35. [35]

WEEK 7	February 17	Subject Matter & Epistemological Influences on Instruction
Shulman, L.S., & Quinlan, K.M. (1996). The comparative psychology of school subjects. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 399-422). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.  [23]
Lampert, M. (1986). Knowing, doing, and teaching multiplication. Cognition and Instruction, 3, 305-342. [37]
diSessa, A. A. (1996). What do "just plain folk" know about physics? In D. R. Olson (Ed.), Handbook of Education and Human Development: New Models of Learning, Teaching, and Schooling. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. [26]
Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235-251. [16]

WEEK 8	February 24	Conceptual Change Instruction in Science
	Critique papers are due in class. 
White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1989). Metalearning and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 577-586. [9]
Pea, R. D. (1993). Learning scientific concepts through material and social activities: Conversation analysis meets conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 265-277. [11]
Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived:  A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences.
diSessa, A. A., & Minstrell, J. (1998). Cultivating conceptual change with benchmark lessons. In J. G. Greeno & S. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [27]

WEEK 9	March 3	Mediating Distributed Cognition
	A treatment or outline for the final course paper is due in class. 
Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations, (pp. 47-87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [40]
Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals’ cognition: a dynamic interactional view. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations, (pp. 111-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [27]
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chapter 7: Learning in Context. [30]

WEEK 10	March 10	Toward Instructional Implications of the 
Dynamical Hypothesis
Cziko, G. A. (1989). Unpredictability and indeterminism in human behavior: Arguments and implications for educational research. Educational Researcher, 18(3), 17-25. [8]
Thelan, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamical systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chapter 2: The Crisis in Cognitive Development. [23]
Santa Fe Institute. (1996, Fall). Today locomotion, tomorrow chess?: Dynamical hypothesis meets cognitive science. Santa Fe Institute Bulletin, 11. Available on-line: <http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/Bulletins/bulletin-fall96/works.html>. [1]
Clark, A. (1997). The dynamical challenge. Cognitive Science, 21(4), 461-481. [20]
OPTIONAL:
van Gelder, T., & Port, R. F. (1995). It's about time: An overview of the dynamical approach to cognition. In R. F. Port & T. van Gelder (Eds.), Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition (pp. 1-43). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

March 19
	Course papers due in my box by the end of the business day.

Administrative Note about Teaching at the University of Washington:

If you have any concerns about the course or your instructor, please see the instructor about these concerns as soon as possible. If you are not comfortable talking with the instructor or not satisfied with the response that you receive, you may contact Bob Abbott (Chair of EdPsych), 616-6308, abbottr@u.washington.edu.

If you are still not satisfied with the response that you receive, you may contact Sheila Lowenbraun (for TEP students) 3-9840, sheilal@u.washington.edu or Richard Neel (for other graduate students) 543-4940, rickneel@u.washington.edu.  For your reference these procedures are posted on the bulletin board just outside Student Services, 206 Miller.