This syllabus may change as the course progresses. The official version of the syllabus is online at http://ndwild.psych.und.nodak.edu/psy501. 

The library will make course materials available through UND eJournals.

To gain access, you will have to authenticate using your UND email name and password. If you do not have an U-Mail account (you probably have an account, but need to activate), contact me immediately. Information explaining how to activate you U-mail account can be found online.

Instructor : Mark Grabe
Phone: 3920: e-mail: mark_grabe@und.nodak.edu;
IM:markgrabe@mac.com

Learning Aloud (Grabe blog and other ed tech projects) - if you are curious about the topics I consider for personal development

Assigned Text: Mayer, R. (2008). Learning and Instruction. Prentice Hall. 2nd Ed.

Book review questions (voluntary)

This course will make use of the UND Blackboard course management system. Instructions for connecting are available online.

Course Description: A graduate level educational psychology course could take many different approaches. One approach would be to cover a variety of theories and models of human behavior as in an undergraduate course, but to attempt to cover this material in a little greater depth. We are not going to approach this course in such a fashion. In part, I will not take a "hodge-podge" approach because I am willing to make the assumption that your undergraduate training provided you with this variety. I feel it is important for graduate students to attempt to see their field in an integrated fashion (a sort of "BIG PICTURE" perspective). I believe that a "Cognitive/Information Processing/Constructivist" model of human behavior allows me to effectively discuss the greatest variety of relevant topics within the context of a single model. This model also seems most in favor at the present time as a guide for educational research and practice. In my thinking, constructivist ideas represent the combination of a philosophy of learning and a view of how learning occurs. To me, cognitive models operate at a more fundamental level and do not represent an opposing school of thought. I hope you will find the approach this course takes to be a useful and challenging way to think about teaching and learning.

Evaluation Procedure: An evaluation of course performance will be based on two essay examinations and a review or research paper.

Paper (50 pts.). Topics for the paper/presentation must be taken from a list I will provide (hopefully by the second week). The papers should reflect a research-oriented approach. The format of the paper (e.g., review, research proposal, application of theory) is up to you, but you should discuss your plans with me. I would suggest that you think about your paper very early in the course. Library resources are your responsibility and you will want to get started as soon as possible. You will be asked to prepare a summary of your paper for presentation to the class. Papers are due April 20. We will talk about the appropriateness of class presentations based on the paper - perhaps we can do something online. Topics for papers and related evaluation expectations. The reference section for your papers will deviated from the normal APA style and will be annotated. Your annotations will be used to evaluate the quality of the resources you are using. Comments on annotation are included on the same page listing paper topics.

Examinations (50 pts each). The examinations will be of the essay type. My essay items usually consist of multiple components. Usually, you will be asked to first provide some basic information and then to apply, criticize, or in some other way extend this information to demonstrate a deeper level of understanding. Your ability to communicate information in good form and style is considered one of several bases for evaluation. The dates for the examinations will be announced in class. The exams are to be taken with no notes.

Final for Monday at 5 Class Time - Wednesday, May 13 - 7:45 (this is the official time - we will discuss to see if we can continue our Monday time)

Online Discussion (25 pts) - Posts should be completed before the class associated with the assigned unit and be of high quality - well written, thoughtful, and accurate. There is also an advantage to being original. Second discussion task for each unit required. First task will be discussed in class.

In-Class Writing and Discussion (5 pts) - Short, 10 minute, unannounced, in-class writing tasks followed by discussion. One point each. No exemptions for absences (6 tasks)

Additional comments on evaluation.

Topical Outline and Schedule of Reading Assignments
(numbers represent chapters in Bruning et al., names represent readings)

Kucan and Beck

Burkhardt and Schoenfeld

Learning

Chapter 1: Introduction to Learning and Instruction (Jan. 26)

Mayer & Johnson (2008)

Chapters 2 & 3: Learning to Read and Reading to Learn (Feb. 9)

Chapter 4: Writing (Feb 23)

Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Hurley, M.M. & Wilkinson, B. (2004)

Chapter 6: Science (Mar. 2)

Midterm

Instruction

Chapter 8: Discovery, Concreteness & Familiarity (Mar. 23)

Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006)
(OR Lesgold (2001); Mayer (2004))
Kuhn (2007)

Chapter 14: Motivation (Mar. 30)

Becker & Ravitz (1999)
Harackiewicz, et al. (2002)

Mastery Learning (Apr. 6)

AERA (2007)
Kulik, C., Kulik, J. & Bangert-Drowns, R. (1990).
Slavin, R. (1987)

Chapter 7: Feedback (Apr. 20)

Deci., E.L., Koestner, R. & Ryan, R.M. (2001)

Chapter 11: Learning Strategies (Apr. 20)

Grabe, M & Christopherson, K. (2005)
Maki R H, & Serra M. (1992).

Chapter 12: Problem Solving (Apr. 27)

Salomon, G. & Perkins, D. (1989)

Chapter 10: Guiding Cognitive Processes (May 4)

Chapter 13: Cognitive Apprenticeship

Chapter 9: Examples

REFERENCES

AERA (2007). Time to learn. Essential Information for Education Policy (pdf in Blackboard)

Arlin, M. (1984) Time variability in mastery learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 103-120 (not available online)

Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Hurley, M.M. & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29-58.

Becker & Ravitz (1999). The influence of computer and Internet use on teachers’ pedagogical practices and perceptions. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 356–384.

Burkhardt, H. & Schoenfeld, a. (2003). Improving educational research, Educational Researcher, 32, 3-14.
http://www-gse.berkeley.edu/faculty/AHSchoenfeld/AHSchoenfeld.html

Deci., E.L., Koestner, R. & Ryan, R.M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71, 1-27.

Grabe, M & Christopherson, K. (2005). Evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of providing lecture notes: The role of internet technology as a delivery system and research tool. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 291-298

Harackiewicz, J.M., Barron, K.E., Tauer, J.M., & Elliot, A.J. (2002). Predicting success in college: A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and performance from freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 562-575.

Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86.

Kucan, L. & Beck, I. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension: Inquiry, Instruction, and Social Interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67(3), 271-299. (Use ProQuest option if accessing through online UND library)

Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question? Educational Psychologist, 42, 109-113.

Kulik, C., Kulik, J. & Bangert-Drowns, R. (1990). Effectivness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 265-299.

Lesgold, A. (2001). The nature and methods of learning by doing. American Psychologist, 56(11), 964-973.

Maki R H, & Serra M. (1992). Role of practice tests in the accuracy of test predictions on text material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(2): 200~210

Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14-19.

Mayer, R. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 380-386.

Salomon, G. & Perkins, D. (1989). Rocky road to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113-142.

Slavin, R. (1987). Mastery learning reconsidered. Review of Educational Research, 57(2), 175-213. (not available online)