Active learning is a model of instruction that focuses the responsibility of learning on learners.

It
was popularized in the 1990s by its appearance on the Association for the Study of Higher Education
(ASHE) report (Bonwell & Eison 1991). In this report they discuss a variety of methodologies for
promoting "active learning". They cite literature which indicates that to learn, students must do more
than just listen: They must read, write, discuss, or be engaged in solving problems. It relates to the
three learning domains referred to as knowledge, skills and attitudes (KSA), and that this taxonomy
of learning behaviours can be thought of as "the goals of the learning process" (Bloom, 1956). In
particular, students must engage in such higher-order thinking tasks as analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation.[1] Active learning engages students in two aspects doing things and thinking about the
things they are doing (Bonwell and Eison, 1991).

Active learning exercises[edit]

See also: Cooperative learning Techniques
Bonwell and Eison (1991) suggested learners work collaboratively, discuss materials while roleplaying, debate, engage in case study, take part in cooperative learning, or produce short written
exercises, etc. The argument is "when should active learning exercises be used during instruction?".
Numerous studies have shown that introducing active learning activities (such as simulations,
games, contrasting cases, labs,..) before, rather than after lectures or readings, results in deeper
learning, understanding, and transfer.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] The degree of instructor guidance students need
while being "active" may vary according to the task and its place in a teaching unit. In an active
learning environment learners are immersed in experiences within which they are engaged in
meaning-making inquiry, action, imagination, invention, interaction, hypothesizing and personal
reflection Cranton (2012).
Examples of "active learning" activities include

A class discussion may be held in person or in an online environment. Discussions can be

conducted with any class size, although it is typically more effective in smaller group settings.
This environment allows for instructor guidance of the learning experience. Discussion requires
the learners to think critically on the subject matter and use logic to evaluate their and others'
positions. As learners are expected to discuss material constructively and intelligently, a
discussion is a good follow-up activity given the unit has been sufficiently covered already.
[10]

Some of the benefits of using discussion as a method of learning are that it helps students

explore a diversity of perspectives, it increases intellectual agility, it shows respect for students
voices and experiences, it develops habits of collaborative learning, it helps students develop
skills of synthesis and integration (Brookfield 2005). In addition, by having the teacher actively
engage with the students, it allows for them to come to class better prepared and aware of what
is taking place in the classroom.[11]

A think-pair-share activity is when learners take a minute to ponder the previous lesson,
later to discuss it with one or more of their peers, finally to share it with the class as part of a
formal discussion. It is during this formal discussion that the instructor should clarify
misconceptions. However students need a background in the subject matter to converse in a
meaningful way. Therefore a "think-pair-share" exercise is useful in situations where learners
can identify and relate what they already know to others. So preparation is key. Prepare learners
with sound instruction before expecting them to discuss it on their own. If properly implemented,
it saves instructor time, keeps students prepared, helps students to get more involved in class
discussion and participation and provide cumulative assessment of student progress. The "thinkpair-share" method is useful for teachers to hear from all students even those who are quiet in
class. This teaching method functions as a great way for all the students in the class to get
involved and learn to work together and feel comfortable sharing ideas. It can also help teachers
or instructors to observe students and see if they understand the material being discussed.
[12]

This is not a good strategy to use in large classes because of time and logistical constraints

(Bonwell and Eison, 1991). Think-pair-share is helpful for the instructor as it enables organizing
content and tracking students on where they are relative to the topic being discussed in class,
saves time so that he/she can move to other topics, helps to make the class more interactive,
provides opportunities for students to interact with each other (Radhakrishna, Ewing, and
Chikthimmah, 2012).

A learning cell is an effective way for a pair of students to study and learn together. The
learning cell was developed by Marcel Goldschmid of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
in Lausanne (Goldschmid, 1971). A learning cell is a process of learning where two students
alternate asking and answering questions on commonly read materials. To prepare for the
assignment, the students will read the assignment and write down questions that they have
about the reading. At the next class meeting, the teacher will randomly put the students in pairs.
The process begins by designating one student from each group to begin by asking one of their
questions to the other. Once the two students discuss the question, the other student will ask a
question and they will alternate accordingly. During this time, the teacher is going around the
class from group to group giving feedback and answering questions. This system is also referred
to as a student dyad.

A short written exercise that is often used is the "one minute paper." This is a good way to
review materials and provide feedback. However a "one minute paper" does not take one minute
and for students to concisely summarize it is suggested[who?] that they have at least 10 minutes to
work on this exercise. (See also: Quiz#In education.)

A collaborative learning group is a successful way to learn different material for different
classes. It is where you assign students in groups of 3-6 people and they are given an

assignment or task to work on together. This assignment could be either to answer a question to
present to the entire class or a project. Make sure that the students in the group choose a leader
and a note-taker to keep them on track with the process. This is a good example of active
learning because it causes the students to review the work that is being required at an earlier
time to participate. (McKinney, Kathleen. (2010). Active Learning. Normal, IL. Center for
Teaching, Learning & Technology.) In order to create participation and draw on the wisdom of all
the learners the classroom arrangement needs to be flexible seating to allow for the creation of
small groups (Bens, 2005).

A student debate is an active way for students to learn because they allow students the
chance to take a position and gather information to support their view and explain it to others.
These debates not only give the student a chance to participate in a fun activity but it also lets
them gain some experience with giving a verbal presentation. (McKinney, Kathleen. (2010).
Active Learning. Normal, IL. Center for Teaching, Learning & Technology.)

A reaction to a video is also an example of active learning because most students love to
watch movies. The video helps the student to understand what they are learning at the time in
an alternative presentation mode. Make sure that the video relates to the topic that they are
studying at the moment. Try to include a few questions before you start the video so they will
pay more attention and notice where to focus at during the video. After the video is complete
divide the students either into groups or pairs so that they may discuss what they learned and
write a review or reaction to the movie. (McKinney, Kathleen. (2010). Active Learning. Normal,
IL. Center for Teaching, Learning & Technology.)

A small group discussion" is also an example of active learning because it allows students
to express themselves in the classroom. It is more likely for students to participate in small group
discussions than in a normal classroom lecture because they are in a more comfortable setting
amongst their peers, and from a sheer numbers perspective, by dividing the students up more
students will get opportunities to speak out. There are so many different ways a teacher can
implement small group discussion in to the class, such as making a game out of it, a
competition, or an assignment. Statistics show that small group discussions is more beneficial to
students than large group discussions when it comes to participation, expressing thoughts,
understanding issues, applying issues, and overall status of knowledge. [13]

A class game is also considered an energetic way to learn because it not only helps the
students to review the course material before a big exam but it helps them to enjoy learning
about a topic. Different games such as Jeopardy! and crossword puzzles always seem to get the
students' minds going. (McKinney, Kathleen. (2010). Active Learning. Normal, IL. Center for
Teaching, Learning & Technology.)

Learning By Teaching is also an example of active learning because students actively

research a topic and prepare the information so that they can teach it to the class. This helps
students learn their own topic even better and sometimes students learn and communicate
better with their peers than their teachers.

Bloom's taxonomy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bloom's wheel, according to the Bloom's verbs and matching assessment types. The verbs are intended to be
feasible and measurable.

Bloom's taxonomy is a way of distinguishing the fundamental questions within the education
system. It is named after Benjamin Bloom, who chaired the committee of educators that devised the
taxonomy. He also edited the first volume of the standard text, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives:
The Classification of Educational Goals.[1]
Bloom's taxonomy refers to a classification of the different objectives that educators set for students
(learning objectives). It divides educational objectives into three "domains": cognitive, affective,
and psychomotor (sometimes loosely described as "knowing/head", "feeling/heart" and
"doing/hands" respectively). Within the domains, learning at the higher levels is dependent on having
attained prerequisite knowledge and skills at lower levels.[2] A goal of Bloom's taxonomy is to
motivate educators to focus on all three domains, creating a more holistic form of education.[1]
Bloom's taxonomy is considered to be a foundational and essential element within the education
community.[3] A mythology has grown around the taxonomy, possibly due to many people learning
about the taxonomy through second hand information. Bloom himself considered the Handbook "one
of the most widely cited yet least read books in American education".[4]

History[edit]
Although named after Bloom, the publication of Taxonomy of Educational Objectives followed a
series of conferences from 1949 to 1953, which were designed to improve communication between
educators on the design of curricula and examinations.[5]
The first volume of the taxonomy, Handbook I: Cognitive (Bloom et al. 1956) was published in 1956.
"Handbook II: Affective" (Krathwohl, Bloom & Masia 1965) followed in 1965. A third volume, for the
psychomotor domain, was planned, but never published. Other educators created their own
taxonomies within this domain, including Simpson (1966),Harrow (1972) and Dave (1975).[6][7] A
revised version of the taxonomy for the cognitive domain was created in 2000. [8][7]

Cognitive[edit]

Categories in the cognitive domain of the revised Bloom's taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2000)

Skills in the cognitive domain revolve around knowledge, comprehension, and critical thinking on a
particular topic. Traditional education tends to emphasize the skills in this domain, particularly the
lower-order objectives.
There are six levels in the taxonomy, moving through the lowest order processes to the highest:

Knowledge[edit]
Exhibit memory of learned materials by recalling facts, terms, basic concepts, and answers

Knowledge of specifics - terminology, specific facts

Knowledge of ways and means of dealing with specifics - conventions, trends and
sequences, classifications and categories, criteria, methodology

Knowledge of the universals and abstractions in a field - principles and generalizations,

theories and structures

Questions like: What are the health benefits of eating apples?

Comprehension[edit]
Demonstrate understanding of facts and ideas by organizing, comparing, translating, interpreting,
giving descriptions, and stating the main ideas

Translation

Interpretation

Extrapolation

Questions like: Compare the health benefits of eating apples vs. oranges.

Application[edit]
Using acquired knowledge. Solve problems in new situations by applying acquired knowledge, facts,
techniques and rules
Questions like: Would apples prevent scurvy, a disease caused by a deficiency in vitamin C?

Analysis[edit]
Examine and break information into parts by identifying motives or causes. Make inferences and find
evidence to support generalizations

Analysis of elements

Analysis of relationships

Analysis of organizational principles

Questions like: List four ways of serving foods made with apples and explain which ones have the
highest health benefits. Provide references to support your statements.

Synthesis[edit]
Builds a structure or pattern from diverse elements; it also refers the act of putting parts together to
form a whole (Omari, 2006). Compile information together in a different way by combining elements
in a new pattern or proposing alternative solutions

Production of a unique communication

Production of a plan, or proposed set of operations

Derivation of a set of abstract relations

Questions like: Convert an "unhealthy" recipe for apple pie to a "healthy" recipe by replacing your
choice of ingredients. Explain the health benefits of using the ingredients you chose vs. the original
ones.

Evaluation[edit]
Present and defend opinions by making judgments about information, validity of ideas or quality of
work based on a set of criteria

Judgments in terms of internal evidence

Judgments in terms of external criteria

Questions like: Which kinds of apples are best for baking a pie, and why?

Affective[edit]

Skills in the affective domain describe the way people react emotionally and their ability to feel
other living things' pain or joy. Affective objectives typically target the awareness and growth
in attitudes, emotion, and feelings.
There are five levels in the affective domain moving through the lowest order processes to the
highest:

Receiving[edit]
The lowest level; the student passively pays attention. Without this level no learning can occur.
Receiving is about the student's memory and recognition as well.

Responding[edit]
The student actively participates in the learning process, not only attends to a stimulus; the student
also reacts in some way.

Valuing[edit]
The student attaches a value to an object, phenomenon, or piece of information. The student
associates a value or some values to the knowledge they acquired.

Organizing[edit]
The student can put together different values, information, and ideas and accommodate them within
his/her own schema; comparing, relating and elaborating on what has been learned.

Characterizing[edit]
The students at this level tries to build abstract knowledge.

Psychomotor[edit]
Skills in the psychomotor domain describe the ability to physically manipulate a tool or instrument
like a hand or a hammer. Psychomotor objectives usually focus on change and/or development in
behavior and/or skills.
Bloom and his colleagues never created subcategories for skills in the psychomotor domain, but
since then other educators have created their own psychomotor taxonomies. [6]Simpson (1972)
proposed the following levels:

Perception[edit]
The ability to use sensory cues to guide motor activity. This ranges from sensory stimulation, through
cue selection, to translation. Examples: Detects non-verbal communication cues. Estimate where a
ball will land after it is thrown and then moving to the correct location to catch the ball. Adjusts heat
of stove to correct temperature by smell and taste of food. Adjusts the height of the forks on a forklift
by comparing where the forks are in relation to the pallet. Key Words: chooses, describes, detects,
differentiates, distinguishes, identifies, isolates, relates, selects.

Set[edit]
Readiness to act. It includes mental, physical, and emotional sets. These three sets are dispositions
that predetermine a person's response to different situations (sometimes called mindsets).
Examples: Knows and acts upon a sequence of steps in a manufacturing process. Recognize one's
abilities and limitations. Shows desire to learn a new process (motivation). NOTE: This subdivision of
Psychomotor is closely related with the Responding to phenomena subdivision of the Affective
domain. Key Words: begins, displays, explains, moves, proceeds, reacts, shows, states, volunteers.

Guided response[edit]

The early stages in learning a complex skill that includes imitation and trial and error. Adequacy of
performance is achieved by practicing. Examples: Performs a mathematical equation as
demonstrated. Follows instructions to build a model. Responds to hand-signals of instructor while
learning to operate a forklift. Key Words: copies, traces, follows, react, reproduce, responds.

Mechanism[edit]
This is the intermediate stage in learning a complex skill. Learned responses have become habitual
and the movements can be performed with some confidence and proficiency. Examples: Use a
personal computer. Repair a leaking tap. Drive a car. Key Words: assembles, calibrates, constructs,
dismantles, displays, fastens, fixes, grinds, heats, manipulates, measures, mends, mixes, organizes,
sketches.

Complex overt response[edit]

The skillful performance of motor acts that involve complex movement patterns. Proficiency is
indicated by a quick, accurate, and highly coordinated performance, requiring a minimum of energy.
This category includes performing without hesitation, and automatic performance. For example,
players will often utter sounds of satisfaction or expletives as soon as they hit a tennis ball or throw a
football, because they can tell by the feel of the act what the result will produce. Examples:
Maneuvers a car into a tight parallel parking spot. Operates a computer quickly and accurately.
Displays competence while playing the piano. Key Words: assembles, builds, calibrates, constructs,
dismantles, displays, fastens, fixes, grinds, heats, manipulates, measures, mends, mixes, organizes,
sketches. NOTE: The Key Words are the same as Mechanism, but will have adverbs or adjectives
that indicate that the performance is quicker, better, more accurate, etc.

Adaptation[edit]
Skills are well developed and the individual can modify movement patterns to fit special
requirements. Examples: Responds effectively to unexpected experiences. Modifies instruction to
meet the needs of the learners. Perform a task with a machine that it was not originally intended to
do (machine is not damaged and there is no danger in performing the new task). Key Words: adapts,
alters, changes, rearranges, reorganizes, revises, varies.

Origination[edit]
Creating new movement patterns to fit a particular situation or specific problem. Learning outcomes
emphasize creativity based upon highly developed skills. Examples: Constructs a new theory.
Develops a new and comprehensive training programming. Creates a new gymnastic routine. Key
Words: arranges, builds, combines, composes, constructs, creates, designs, initiate, makes,
originates.

Constructionism (learning theory)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Constructionist learning)

Seymour Papert

Constructionist learning is inspired by the constructivist theory that individual learners construct
mental models in order to understand the world around them. Constructivism advocates studentcentered, discovery learning where students use information they already know to acquire more
knowledge.[1] Students learn through participation in project-based learning where they make
connections between different ideas and areas of knowledge facilitated by the teacher through
coaching rather than using lectures or step-by-step guidance.[2]Further, constructionism holds that
learning can happen most effectively when people are active in making tangible objects in the real
world. In this sense, constructionism is connected with experiential learning and builds on Jean
Piaget's epistemological theory ofconstructivism.[3]
Seymour Papert defined constructionism in a proposal to the National Science
Foundation entitled Constructionism: A New Opportunity for Elementary Science Education as
follows:
The word constructionism is a mnemonic for two aspects of the theory of science education
underlying this project. From constructivist theories of psychology we take a view of learning as a
reconstruction rather than as a transmission of knowledge. Then we extend the idea of manipulative
materials to the idea that learning is most effective when part of an activity the learner experiences
as constructing is a meaningful product.[4]
Some scholars have tried to describe constructionism as a "learning-by-making" formula but,
as Seymour Papert and Idit Harel say at the start of Situating Constructionism, it should be
considered "much richer and more multifaceted, and very much deeper in its implications than could
be conveyed by any such formula."[5]
Papert's ideas became well known through the publication of his seminal book Mindstorms:
Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas (Basic Books, 1980). Papert described children creating
programs in the Logo educational programming language. He likened their learning to living in a
"mathland" where learning mathematical ideas is as natural as learning French while living in
France.[6]
Contents
[hide]

1 Instructional principles

1.1 Problem-based learning

1.2 Constructionism in social sciences

2 Constructionism and technology

3 Computer programming languages

4 References

5 External links

Instructional principles[edit]
Constructionist learning involves students drawing their own conclusions through creative
experimentation and the making of social objects. The constructionist teacher takes on a mediational
role rather than adopting an instructional role. Teaching "at" students is replaced by assisting them to
understandand help one another to understandproblems in a hands-on way.[7] The teacher's role
is not to be a lecturer but a facilitator who coaches students to attaining their own goals. [8]

Problem-based learning[edit]
Problem-based learning is a constructionist method which allows students to learn about a subject
by exposing them to multiple problems and asking them to construct their understanding of the
subject through these problems. This kind of learning can be very effective in mathematics classes
because students try to solve the problems in many different ways, stimulating their minds. [9]
The following five instructional strategies make problem-based learning more effective:
1. The learning activities should be related to a larger task. The larger task is important
because it allows students to see that the activities can be applied to many aspects of life
and, as a result, students are more likely to find the activities they are doing useful. [10]
2. The learner needs to be supported to feel that they are beginning to have ownership of the
overall problem.[11]
3. An authentic task should be designed for the learner. This means that the task and the
learner's cognitive ability have to match the problems to make learning valuable. [12]
4. Reflection on the content being learned should occur so that learners can think through the
process of what they have learned.[13]
5. Allow and encourage the learners to test ideas against different views in different contexts. [14]

Constructionism in social sciences[edit]

Not only can constructivism be applied to mathematics but to the social sciences as well. For
example, instead of having students memorize geography facts, a teacher could give students blank
maps that show unlabeled rivers, lakes, and mountains, and then ask the students to decipher
where major cities might be located without the help of books or maps. This would require students
to locate these areas without using prepared resources, but their prior knowledge and reasoning
ability instead.[15]

Constructionism and technology[edit]

Papert has been a huge proponent of bringing technology to classrooms, beginning with his early
uses of the Logo language to teach mathematics to children. While constructionism has, due to its
impetus, been primarily used in science and mathematics teaching (in the form of inquiry-based
science), it is arguable that it developed in a different form in the field of media studies in which
students often engage with media theory and practice simultaneously in a complementary praxis.
More recently it has gained a foothold in applied linguistics in the field of second language
acquisition (or SLA). One such application has been the use of the popular game SimCity as a
means of teaching English using constructionist techniques.[16]
Beginning in the 1980s, The LEGO Group funded research of Papert's research group at the MIT
Media Laboratory, which at the time was known as the "Epistemology and Learning Group." When
LEGO launched its LEGO Mindstorms Robotics Invention System in 1998, which was based on the
work of his group, it received permission to use the moniker "Mindstorms" from Seymour's 1980
book title. In The LEGO Group's LEGO Serious Play project, business people learn to express
corporate issues and identity through the medium of plastic bricks.[17]
In 2005, Papert, together with Nicholas Negroponte and Alan Kay, launched the One Laptop Per
Child initiative to put constructionist learning into practice in the developing world. The aim is to
provide $100 laptops to every child in the developing world.[18]

Constructivism (philosophy of education)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Constructivism (learning theory))

This article has an unclear citation style. The references used may be made clearer with a
different or consistent style ofcitation, footnoting, or external linking. (November 2011)

Jean Piaget, founder of constructivism

Constructivism is a theory of knowledge[1] that argues that humans generate knowledge and
meaning from an interaction between their experiences and their ideas. It has influenced a number
of disciplines, including psychology, sociology, education and the history of science. [2] During its
infancy, constructivism examined the interaction between human experiences and their reflexes or
behavior-patterns.Jean Piaget called these systems of knowledge schemata. Constructivism is not a
specific pedagogy, although it is often confused withconstructionism, an educational theory
developed by Seymour Papert, inspired by constructivist and experiential learning ideas of Piaget.
Piaget's theory of constructivist learning has had wide ranging impact on learning
theories and teaching methods in education and is an underlying theme of many education

reform movements. Research support for constructivist teaching techniques has been mixed, with
some research supporting these techniques and other research contradicting those results.
Contents
[hide]

1 History

2 Constructivist theory
2.1 Constructivist learning intervention

2.1.1 The nature of the learner

2.1.1.1 The importance of the background and culture of the learner

2.1.1.2 Responsibility for learning

2.1.1.3 The Harkness discussion method

2.1.1.4 The motivation for learning

2.1.2 The role of the instructor

2.1.3 The nature of the learning process

2.1.3.1 Learning is an active, social process

2.1.3.2 Dynamic interaction between task, instructor and learner

2.1.4 Collaboration among learners

2.1.4.1 Learning by teaching (LdL) as constructivist method

2.1.4.2 The importance of context

2.1.5 The selection, scope, and sequencing of the subject matter

2.1.2.1 Instructors as facilitators

2.1.5.1 Knowledge should be discovered as an integrated whole

2.1.5.2 Engaging and challenging the learner

2.1.5.3 The structuredness of the learning process

2.1.6 In adult learning

3 Pedagogies based on constructivism

3.1 Research and evidence supporting constructivism

4 Criticism of educational constructivism

4.1 A rebuttal to the criticisms of Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark

4.2 Criticism of discovery-based teaching techniques

4.3 The math wars and discovery-based teaching techniques

4.4 Importance of structure in constructivist learning environments

5 Confusion between constructivist and maturationist views

6 Social constructivism

7 Influence on computer science

8 See also

9 References

10 Further reading

11 External links

History[edit]
Earlier educational philosophies did not place much value on what would become constructivist
ideas; children's play and exploration was seen as aimless and of little importance.Jean Piaget did
not agree with these traditional views, however. He saw play as an important and necessary part of
the student's cognitive development and provided scientific evidence for his views. Today,
constructivist theories are influential throughout the formal and informal learning sectors. In museum
education, constructivist theories inform exhibit design. One good example of constructivist learning
in a non-formal setting is the Investigate Centre at The Natural History Museum, London. Here
visitors are encouraged to explore a collection of real natural history specimens, to practice some
scientific skills and make discoveries for themselves. Writers who influenced constructivism include:

John Dewey (18591952)

Maria Montessori (18701952)

Wadysaw Strzemiski (18931952)

Jean Piaget (18961980)

Lev Vygotsky (18961934)

Heinz von Foerster (19112002)

George Kelly (19051967)

Jerome Bruner (1915)

Herbert Simon (19162001)

Paul Watzlawick (19212007)

Ernst von Glasersfeld (19172010)

Edgar Morin (1921)

Humberto Maturana (1928)

For more detailed information on the philosophy of the construction of human knowledge,
see constructivist epistemology.

Constructivist theory[edit]
Formalization of the theory of constructivism is generally attributed to Jean Piaget, who articulated
mechanisms by which knowledge is internalized by learners. He suggested that through processes
of accommodation and assimilation, individuals construct new knowledge from their experiences.
When individuals assimilate, they incorporate the new experience into an already existing framework
without changing that framework. This may occur when individuals' experiences are aligned with
their internal representations of the world, but may also occur as a failure to change a faulty
understanding; for example, they may not notice events, may misunderstand input from others, or
may decide that an event is a fluke and is therefore unimportant as information about the world. In
contrast, when individuals' experiences contradict their internal representations, they may change
their perceptions of the experiences to fit their internal representations.
According to the theory, accommodation is the process of reframing one's mental representation of
the external world to fit new experiences. Accommodation can be understood as the mechanism by
which failure leads to learning: when we act on the expectation that the world operates in one way
and it violates our expectations, we often fail, but by accommodating this new experience and
reframing our model of the way the world works, we learn from the experience of failure, or others'
failure.
It is important to note that constructivism is not a particular pedagogy. In fact, constructivism is a
theory describing how learning happens, regardless of whether learners are using their experiences
to understand a lecture or following the instructions for building a model airplane. In both cases, the
theory of constructivism suggests that learners construct knowledge out of their experiences.
However, constructivism is often associated with pedagogic approaches that promote active
learning, or learning by doing. There are many critics of "learning by doing" (a.k.a. "discovery
learning") as an instructional strategy (e.g. see the criticisms below).[3][4] While there is much
enthusiasm for constructivism as a design strategy, according to Tobias and Duffy "... to us it would
appear that constructivism remains more of a philosophical framework than a theory that either
allows us to precisely describe instruction or prescribe design strategies.(p.4)". [3] This is unfortunate
because there is quite a bit of promise to the educational philosophy behind constructivism, but
constructivists seem to be having difficulties defining testable learning theories. [citation needed]

Constructivist learning intervention[edit]

The nature of the learner[edit]
Social constructivism not only acknowledges the uniqueness and complexity of the learner, but
actually encourages, utilizes and rewards it as an integral part of the learning process (Wertsch
1997).
The importance of the background and culture of the learner[edit]
Social constructivism or socioculturalism encourages the learner to arrive at his or her version of the
truth, influenced by his or her background, culture or embedded worldview. Historical developments
and symbol systems, such as language, logic, and mathematical systems, are inherited by the
learner as a member of a particular culture and these are learned throughout the learner's life. This
also stresses the importance of the nature of the learner's social interaction with knowledgeable
members of the society. Without the social interaction with other more knowledgeable people, it is
impossible to acquire social meaning of important symbol systems and learn how to utilize them.
Young children develop their thinking abilities by interacting with other children, adults and the
physical world. From the social constructivist viewpoint, it is thus important to take into account the
background and culture of the learner throughout the learning process, as this background also
helps to shape the knowledge and truth that the learner creates, discovers and attains in the learning
process (Wertsch 1997).
Responsibility for learning[edit]
Furthermore, it is argued that the responsibility of learning should reside increasingly with the learner
(Glasersfeld, 1989). Social constructivism thus emphasizes the importance of the learner being
actively involved in the learning process, unlike previous educational viewpoints where the
responsibility rested with the instructor to teach and where the learner played a passive, receptive
role. Von Glasersfeld (1989) emphasized that learners construct their own understanding and that
they do not simply mirror and reflect what they read. Learners look for meaning and will try to find
regularity and order in the events of the world even in the absence of full or complete information.
The Harkness discussion method[edit]
It is called the "Harkness" discussion method because it was developed at Phillips Exeter
Academy with funds donated in the 1930s by Edward Harkness. This is also named after the
Harkness table and involves students seated in a circle, motivating and controlling their own
discussion. The teacher acts as little as possible. Perhaps the teacher's only function is to observe,
although he/she might begin or shift or even direct a discussion. The students get it rolling, direct it,
and focus it. They act as a team, cooperatively, to make it work. They all participate, but not in a
competitive way. Rather, they all share in the responsibility and the goals, much as any members
share in any team sport. Although the goals of any discussion will change depending upon what's
under discussion, some goals will always be the same: to illuminate the subject, to unravel its
mysteries, to interpret and share and learn from other points of view, to piece together the puzzle
using everyone's contribution. Discussion skills are important. Everyone must be aware of how to get
this discussion rolling and keep it rolling and interesting. Just as in any sport, a number of skills are
necessary to work on and use at appropriate times. Everyone is expected to contribute by using
these skills.
The motivation for learning[edit]
Another crucial assumption regarding the nature of the learner concerns the level and source of
motivation for learning. According to Von Glasersfeld (1989) sustaining motivation to learn is strongly
dependent on the learners confidence in his or her potential for learning. These feelings of
competence and belief in potential to solve new problems, are derived from first-hand experience of
mastery of problems in the past and are much more powerful than any external acknowledgment

and motivation (Prawat and Floden 1994). This links up with Vygotskys "zone of proximal
development" (Vygotsky 1978) where learners are challenged within close proximity to, yet slightly
above, their current level of development. By experiencing the successful completion of challenging
tasks, learners gain confidence and motivation to embark on more complex challenges.
The role of the instructor[edit]
Instructors as facilitators[edit]
According to the social constructivist approach, instructors have to adapt to the role of facilitators
and not teachers (Bauersfeld, 1995). Whereas a teacher gives a didactic lecture that covers the
subject matter, a facilitator helps the learner to get to his or her own understanding of the content. In
the former scenario the learner plays a passive role and in the latter scenario the learner plays an
active role in the learning process. The emphasis thus turns away from the instructor and the
content, and towards the learner (Gamoran, Secada, & Marrett, 1998). This dramatic change of role
implies that a facilitator needs to display a totally different set of skills than that of a teacher
(Brownstein 2001). A teacher tells, a facilitator asks; a teacher lectures from the front, a facilitator
supports from the back; a teacher gives answers according to a set curriculum, a facilitator provides
guidelines and creates the environment for the learner to arrive at his or her own conclusions; a
teacher mostly gives a monologue, a facilitator is in continuous dialogue with the learners (Rhodes
and Bellamy, 1999). A facilitator should also be able to adapt the learning experience in mid-air by
taking the initiative to steer the learning experience to where the learners want to create value.
The learning environment should also be designed to support and challenge the learner's thinking
(Di Vesta, 1987). While it is advocated to give the learner ownership of the problem and solution
process, it is not the case that any activity or any solution is adequate. The critical goal is to support
the learner in becoming an effective thinker. This can be achieved by assuming multiple roles, such
as consultant and coach.
A few strategies for cooperative learning include

Reciprocal Questioning: students work together to ask and answer questions

Jigsaw Classroom: students become "experts" on one part of a group project and teach it to
the others in their group

Structured Controversies: Students work together to research a particular controversy

(Woolfolk 2010)

The nature of the learning process[edit]

Learning is an active, social process[edit]
Social constructivism, strongly influenced by Vygotsky's (1978) work, suggests that knowledge is
first constructed in a social context and is then appropriated by individuals (Bruning et al., 1999; M.
Cole, 1991; Eggan & Kauchak, 2004). According to social constructivists, the process of sharing
individual perspectives-called collaborative elaboration(Meter & Stevens, 2000)-results in learners
constructing understanding together that wouldn't be possible alone (Greeno et al., 1996) [citation needed]
Social constructivist scholars view learning as an active process where learners should learn to
discover principles, concepts and facts for themselves, hence the importance of encouraging
guesswork and intuitive thinking in learners (Brown et al.1989; Ackerman 1996). In fact, for the social
constructivist, reality is not something that we can discover because it does not pre-exist prior to our
social invention of it. Kukla (2000) argues that reality is constructed by our own activities and that
people, together as members of a society, invent the properties of the world.

Other constructivist scholars agree with this and emphasize that individuals make meanings through
the interactions with each other and with the environment they live in. Knowledge is thus a product of
humans and is socially and culturally constructed (Ernest 1991; Prawat and Floden 1994). McMahon
(1997) agrees that learning is a social process. He further states that learning is not a process that
only takes place inside our minds, nor is it a passive development of our behaviors that is shaped by
external forces and that meaningful learning occurs when individuals are engaged in social activities.
Vygotsky (1978) also highlighted the convergence of the social and practical elements in learning by
saying that the most significant moment in the course of intellectual development occurs when
speech and practical activity, two previously completely independent lines of development,
converge. Through practical activity a child constructs meaning on an intra-personal level, while
speech connects this meaning with the interpersonal world shared by the child and her/his culture.
Dynamic interaction between task, instructor and learner[edit]
A further characteristic of the role of the facilitator in the social constructivist viewpoint, is that the
instructor and the learners are equally involved in learning from each other as well (Holt and WillardHolt 2000). This means that the learning experience is both subjective and objective and requires
that the instructors culture, values and background become an essential part of the interplay
between learners and tasks in the shaping of meaning. Learners compare their version of the truth
with that of the instructor and fellow learners to get to a new, socially tested version of truth (Kukla
2000). The task or problem is thus the interface between the instructor and the learner (McMahon
1997). This creates a dynamic interaction between task, instructor and learner. This entails that
learners and instructors should develop an awareness of each other's viewpoints and then look to
their own beliefs, standards and values, thus being both subjective and objective at the same time
(Savery 1994).
Some studies argue for the importance of mentoring in the process of learning (Archee and Duin
1995; Brown et al. 1989). The social constructivist model thus emphasizes the importance of the
relationship between the student and the instructor in the learning process.
Some learning approaches that could harbour this interactive learning include reciprocal teaching,
peer collaboration, cognitive apprenticeship, problem-based instruction, web quests, anchored
instruction and other approaches that involve learning with others.
Collaboration among learners[edit]
Learners with different skills and backgrounds should collaborate in tasks and discussions to arrive
at a shared understanding of the truth in a specific field (Duffy and Jonassen 1992).
Most social constructivist models, such as that proposed by Duffy and Jonassen (1992), also stress
the need for collaboration among learners, in direct contradiction to traditional competitive
approaches. One Vygotskian notion that has significant implications for peer collaboration, is that of
the zone of proximal development. Defined as the distance between the actual developmental
level as determined by independent problem-solving and the level of potential development as
determined through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable
peers, it differs from the fixed biological nature of Piaget's stages of development. Through a
process of 'scaffolding' a learner can be extended beyond the limitations of physical maturation to
the extent that the development process lags behind the learning process (Vygotsky 1978).
Learning by teaching (LdL) as constructivist method[edit]
Main article: Learning by teaching
If students have to present and train new contents with their classmates, a non-linear process of
collective knowledge-construction will be set up.
The importance of context[edit]

The social constructivist paradigm views the context in which the learning occurs as central to the
learning itself (McMahon 1997).
Underlying the notion of the learner as an active processor is "the assumption that there is no one
set of generalised learning laws with each law applying to all domains" (Di Vesta
1987:208). Decontextualised knowledge does not give us the skills to apply our understandings to
authentic tasks because, as Duffy and Jonassen (1992) indicated, we are not working with the
concept in the complex environment and experiencing the complex interrelationships in that
environment that determine how and when the concept is used. One social constructivist notion is
that of authentic or situated learning, where the student takes part in activities directly relevant to the
application of learning and that take place within a culture similar to the applied setting (Brown et al.
1989). Cognitive apprenticeship has been proposed as an effective constructivist model of learning
that attempts to "enculturate students into authentic practices through activity and social interaction
in a way similar to that evident, and evidently successful, in craft apprenticeship" (Ackerman
1996:25).
Holt and Willard-Holt (2000) emphasize the concept of dynamic assessment, which is a way of
assessing the true potential of learners that differs significantly from conventional tests. Here the
essentially interactive nature of learning is extended to the process of assessment. Rather than
viewing assessment as a process carried out by one person, such as an instructor, it is seen as a
two-way process involving interaction between both instructor and learner. The role of the assessor
becomes one of entering into dialogue with the persons being assessed to find out their current level
of performance on any task and sharing with them possible ways in which that performance might be
improved on a subsequent occasion. Thus, assessment and learning are seen as inextricably linked
and not separate processes (Holt and Willard-Holt 2000).
According to this viewpoint instructors should see assessment as a continuous and interactive
process that measures the achievement of the learner, the quality of the learning experience and
courseware. The feedback created by the assessment process serves as a direct foundation for
further development.
The selection, scope, and sequencing of the subject matter[edit]
Knowledge should be discovered as an integrated whole[edit]
Knowledge should not be divided into different subjects or compartments, but should be discovered
as an integrated whole (McMahon 1997; Di Vesta 1987).
This also again underlines the importance of the context in which learning is presented (Brown et al.
1989). The world, in which the learner needs to operate, does not approach one in the form of
different subjects, but as a complex myriad of facts, problems, dimensions, and perceptions
(Ackerman 1996).
Engaging and challenging the learner[edit]
Learners should constantly be challenged with tasks that refer to skills and knowledge just beyond
their current level of mastery. This captures their motivation and builds on previous successes to
enhance learner confidence (Brownstein 2001). This is in line with Vygotskys zone of proximal
development, which can be described as the distance between the actual developmental level (as
determined by independent problem-solving) and the level of potential development (as determined
through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers)
(Vygotsky 1978).
Vygotsky (1978) further claimed that instruction is good only when it proceeds ahead of
development. Then it awakens and rouses to life an entire set of functions in the stage of maturing,
which lie in the zone of proximal development. It is in this way that instruction plays an extremely
important role in development.

To fully engage and challenge the learner, the task and learning environment should reflect the
complexity of the environment that the learner should be able to function in at the end of learning.
Learners must not only have ownership of the learning or problem-solving process, but of the
problem itself (Derry 1999).
Where the sequencing of subject matter is concerned, it is the constructivist viewpoint that the
foundations of any subject may be taught to anybody at any stage in some form (Duffy and
Jonassen 1992). This means that instructors should first introduce the basic ideas that give life and
form to any topic or subject area, and then revisit and build upon these repeatedly. This notion has
been extensively used in curricula.
It is important for instructors to realize that although a curriculum may be set down for them, it
inevitably becomes shaped by them into something personal that reflects their own belief systems,
their thoughts and feelings about both the content of their instruction and their learners (Rhodes and
Bellamy 1999). Thus, the learning experience becomes a shared enterprise.
The emotions and life contexts of those involved in the learning process must therefore be
considered as an integral part of learning. The goal of the learner is central in considering what is
learned (Brown et al. 1989; Ackerman 1996).
The structuredness of the learning process[edit]
It is important to achieve the right balance between the degree of structure and flexibility that is built
into the learning process. Savery (1994) contends that the more structured the learning environment,
the harder it is for the learners to construct meaning based on their conceptual understandings. A
facilitator should structure the learning experience just enough to make sure that the students get
clear guidance and parameters within which to achieve the learning objectives, yet the learning
experience should be open and free enough to allow for the learners to discover, enjoy, interact and
arrive at their own, socially verified version of truth.
In adult learning[edit]
Constructivist ideas have been used to inform adult education. Where pedagogy applies to the
education of children, adults educators often speak instead of andragogy. Methods must take
account of differences in learning, due to the fact that adults have many more experiences and
previously existing neurological structures.
Approaches based on constructivism stress the importance of mechanisms for mutual planning,
diagnosis of learner needs and interests, cooperative learning climate, sequential activities for
achieving the objectives, formulation of learning objectives based on the diagnosed needs and
interests.
Personal relevance of the content, involvement of the learner in the process, and deeper
understanding of underlying concepts are some of the intersections between emphases in
constructivism and adult learning principles.

Pedagogies based on constructivism[edit]

Main article: Constructivist teaching methods
Various approaches in pedagogy derive from constructivist theory. They usually suggest that
learning is accomplished best using a hands-on approach. Learners learn by experimentation, and
not by being told what will happen, and are left to make their own inferences, discoveries and
conclusions.

Research and evidence supporting constructivism[edit]

Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn cite several studies supporting the success of the
constructivist problem-based and inquiry learning methods. For example, they describe a project

called GenScope, an inquiry-based science software application. Students using the GenScope
software showed significant gains over the control groups, with the largest gains shown in students
from basic courses.[5]
Hmelo-Silver et al. also cite a large study by Geier on the effectiveness of inquiry-based science for
middle school students, as demonstrated by their performance on high-stakes standardized tests.
The improvement was 14% for the first cohort of students and 13% for the second cohort. This study
also found that inquiry-based teaching methods greatly reduced the achievement gap for AfricanAmerican students.[5]
Guthrie et al. (2004) compared three instructional methods for third-grade reading: a traditional
approach, a strategies instruction only approach, and an approach with strategies instruction and
constructivist motivation techniques including student choices, collaboration, and hands-on activities.
The constructivist approach, called CORI (Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction), resulted in better
student reading comprehension, cognitive strategies, and motivation. [6]
Jong Suk Kim found that using constructivist teaching methods for 6th graders resulted in better
student achievement than traditional teaching methods. This study also found that students
preferred constructivist methods over traditional ones. However, Kim did not find any difference in
student self-concept or learning strategies between those taught by constructivist or traditional
methods.[7]
Doru and Kalender compared science classrooms using traditional teacher-centered approaches to
those using student-centered, constructivist methods. In their initial test of student performance
immediately following the lessons, they found no significant difference between traditional and
constructivist methods. However, in the follow-up assessment 15 days later, students who learned
through constructivist methods showed better retention of knowledge than those who learned
through traditional methods.[8]

Criticism of educational constructivism[edit]

Several cognitive psychologists and educators have questioned the central claims of constructivism.
It is argued that constructivist theories are misleading or contradict known findings. [9][10][11][12][4] Matthews
(1993) attempts to sketch the influence of constructivism in current mathematics and science
education, aiming to indicate how pervasive Aristotle's empiricist epistemology is within it and what
problems constructivism faces on that account.[13]
In the neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development it is maintained that learning at any age
depends upon the processing and representational resources available at this particular age. That is,
it is maintained that if the requirements of the concept to be understood exceeds the available
processing efficiency and working memory resources then the concept is by definition not learnable.
This attitude toward learning impedes the learning from understanding essential theoretical concepts
or, in other words, reasoning.[14]Therefore, no matter how active a child is during learning, to learn the
child must operate in a learning environment that meets the developmental and individual learning
constraints that are characteristic for the child's age and this child's possible deviations from her
age's norm. If this condition is not met, construction goes astray.[15][16]
Several educators have also questioned the effectiveness of this approach toward instructional
design, especially as it applies to the development of instruction for novices. [4](Mayer, 2004;
Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark, 2006) While some constructivists argue that "learning by doing"
enhances learning, critics of this instructional strategy argue that little empirical evidence exists to
support this statement given novice learners (Mayer, 2004; Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark, 2006 [4]).
Sweller and his colleagues argue that novices do not possess the underlying mental models, or
"schemas" necessary for "learning by doing" (e.g. Sweller, 1988). Indeed, Mayer (2004) reviewed the
literature and found that fifty years of empirical data do not support using the constructivist teaching

technique of pure discovery; in those situations requiring discovery, he argues for the use of guided
discovery instead.
Mayer (2004) argues that not all teaching techniques based on constructivism are efficient or
effective for all learners, suggesting many educators misapply constructivism to use teaching
techniques that require learners to be behaviorally active. He describes this inappropriate use of
constructivism as the "constructivist teaching fallacy". "I refer to this interpretation as the
constructivist teaching fallacy because it equates active learning with active teaching." (Mayer, 2004,
p. 15). Instead Mayer proposes learners should be "cognitively active" during learning and that
instructors use "guided practice."
In contrast, Kirschner et al. (2006)[4] describe constructivist teaching methods as "unguided methods
of instruction." They suggest more structured learning activities for learners with little to no prior
knowledge. Slezak states that constructivism "is an example of fashionable but thoroughly
problematic doctrines that can have little benefit for practical pedagogy or teacher education."
Constructivist Foundations 6(1): 102111 and similar views have been stated by Meyer,[17] Boden,
Quale and others.
Kirschner et al. group a number of learning theories together (Discovery, Problem-Based,
Experiential, and Inquiry-Based learning)and stated that highly scaffolded constructivist methods like
problem-based learning and inquiry learning are ineffective.[4] Kirschner et al. described several
research studies that were favorable to problem-based learning given learners were provided some
level of guidance and support.[4]

A rebuttal to the criticisms of Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark [edit]

While there are critics of the Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark[4] article, Sweller and his associates have
written in their articles about:
1. instructional designs for producing procedural learning (learning as behavior change)
(Sweller, 1988);
2. their grouping of seemingly disparate learning theories (Kirschner et al., 2006)[4] and;
3. a continuum of guidance beginning with worked examples that may be followed by practice,
or transitioned to practice (Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler, and Sweller, 2003; Renkl, Atkinson,
Maier, and Staley, 2002)
Kirschner et al. (2006) describe worked examples as an instructional design solution for procedural
learning. Clark, Nguyen, and Sweller (2006) describe this as a very effective, empirically validated
method of teaching learners procedural skill acquisition. Evidence for learning by studying workedexamples, is known as the worked-example effect and has been found to be useful in many domains
[e.g. music, chess, athletics (Atkinson, Derry, Renkl, & Wortham, 2000);[18] concept mapping (Hilbert
& Renkl, 2007);[19] geometry (Tarmizi and Sweller, 1988);[20] physics, mathematics, or programming
(Gerjets, Scheiter, and Catrambone, 2004).[21]
Kirschner et al. (2006)[4] describe why they group a series of seemingly disparate learning theories
(Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based learning). The reasoning for this
grouping is because each learning theory promotes the same constructivist teaching technique
"learning by doing." While they argue "learning by doing" is useful for more knowledgeable
learners, they argue this teaching technique is not useful for novices. Mayer states that it promotes
behavioral activity too early in the learning process, when learners should be cognitively active
(Mayer, 2004).[22]
In addition, Sweller and his associates describe a continuum of guidance, starting with worked
examples to slowly fade guidance. This continuum of faded guidance has been tested empirically to

produce a series of learning effects: the worked-example effect (Sweller and Cooper, 1985),[23] the
guidance fading effect (Renkl, Atkinson, Maier, and Staley, 2002), [24] and the expertise-reversal effect
(Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler, and Sweller, 2003).[25]

Criticism of discovery-based teaching techniques [edit]

After a half century of advocacy associated with instruction using minimal guidance, there
appears no body of research supporting the technique. In so far as there is any evidence from
controlled studies, it almost uniformly supports direct, strong instructional guidance rather
constructivist-based minimal guidance during the instruction of novice to intermediate
learners. Even for students with considerable prior knowledge, strong guidance while
learning is most often found to be equally effective as unguided approaches. Not only is
unguided instruction normally less effective; there is also evidence that it may have negative
results when student acquire misconceptions or incomplete or disorganized knowledge

Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of
Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching by
Kirschner, Sweller, Clark
[26]

Mayer (2004)[22] argues against discovery-based teaching techniques and provides an extensive
review to support this argument. Mayer's arguments are against pure discovery, and are not
specifically aimed at constructivism: "Nothing in this article should be construed as arguing against
the view of learning as knowledge construction or against using hands-on inquiry or group
discussion that promotes the process of knowledge construction in learners. The main conclusion I
draw from the three research literatures I have reviewed is that it would be a mistake to interpret the
current constructivist view of learning as a rationale for reviving pure discovery as a method of
instruction."[22]
Mayer's concern is how one applies discovery-based teaching techniques. He provides empirical
research as evidence that discovery-based teaching techniques are inadequate. Here he cites this
literature and makes his point For example, a recent replication is research showing that students
learn to become better at solving mathematics problems when they study worked-out examples
rather than when they solely engage in hands-on problem solving (Sweller, 1999). Todays
proponents of discovery methods, who claim to draw their support from constructivist philosophy, are
making inroads into educational practice. Yet a dispassionate review of the relevant research
literature shows that discovery-based practice is not as effective as guided discovery. (Mayer, 2004,
p. 18)
Mayers point is that people often misuse constructivism to promote pure discovery-based teaching
techniques. He proposes that the instructional design recommendations of constructivism are too
often aimed at discovery-based practice (Mayer, 2004). Sweller (1988) found evidence that practice
by novices during early schema acquisition, distracts these learners with unnecessary search-based
activity, when the learner's attention should be focused on understanding (acquiring schemas).
The study by Kirschner et al. from which the quote at the beginning of this section was taken has
been widely cited and is important for showing the limits of minimally-guided instruction. [27] HmeloSilver et al. responded,[28] pointing out that Kirschner et al. conflated constructivist teaching
techniques such as inquiry learning with "discovery learning". (See the preceding two sections of this
article.) This would agree with Mayer's viewpoint that even though constructivism as a theory and
teaching techniques incorporating guidance are likely valid applications of this theory, nevertheless a
tradition of misunderstanding has led to some question "pure discovery" techniques.

The math wars and discovery-based teaching techniques[edit]

Main article: Math Wars

The math wars controversy in the United States is an example of the type of heated debate that
sometimes follows the implementation of constructivist-inspired curricula in schools. In the 1990s,
mathematics textbooks based on new standards largely informed by constructivism were developed
and promoted with government support. Although constructivist theory does not require eliminating
instruction entirely, some textbooks seemed to recommend this extreme. Some parents and
mathematicians protested the design of textbooks that omitted or de-emphasized instruction of
standard mathematical methods. Supporters responded that the methods were to be eventually
discovered under direction by the teacher, but since this was missing or unclear, many insisted the
textbooks were designed to deliberately eliminate instruction of standard methods. In one commonly
adopted text, the standard formula for the area of a circle is to be derived in the classroom, but not
actually printed in the student textbook as is explained by the developers of CMP: "The student role
of formulating, representing, clarifying, communicating, and reflecting on ideas leads to an increase
in learning. If the format of the texts included many worked examples, the student role would then
become merely reproducing these examples with small modifications."[29]
Similarly, this approach has been applied to reading with whole language and inquiry-based science
that emphasizes the importance of devising rather than just performing hands-on experiments as
early as the elementary grades (traditionally done by research scientists), rather than studying facts.
In other areas of curriculum such as social studies and writing are relying more on "higher order
thinking skills" rather than memorization of dates, grammar or spelling rules or reciting correct
answers. Advocates of this approach counter that the constructivism does not require going to
extremes, that in fact teachable moments should regularly infuse the experience with the more
traditional teaching. The primary differentiation from the traditional approach being that the
engagement of the students in their learning makes them more receptive to learning things at an
appropriate time, rather than on a preset schedule.

Importance of structure in constructivist learning environments [edit]

During the 1990s, several theorists began to study the cognitive load of novices (those with little or
no prior knowledge of the subject matter) during problem solving. Cognitive load theory was applied
in several contexts (Paas, 1992; Moreno & Mayer, 1999; Mousavi, Low, & Sweller, 1995; Chandler
and Sweller, 1992; Sweller & Cooper, 1985; Cooper & Sweller, 1987). Based on the results of their
research, these authors do not support the idea of allowing novices to interact with ill-structured
learning environments. Ill-structured learning environments rely on the learner to discover problem
solutions (Jonassen, 1997). Jonassen (1997) also suggested that novices be taught with "wellstructured" learning environments.
Jonassen (1997) also proposed well-designed, well-structured learning environments provide
scaffolding for problem-solving. Finally both Sweller and Jonassen support problem-solving
scenarios for more advanced learners (Jonassen, 1997; luga, Ayres, Chandler, and Sweller, 2003).
Sweller and his associates even suggest well-structured learning environments, like those provided
by worked examples, are not effective for those with more experiencethis was later described as
the "expertise reversal effect" (Kalyuga et al., 2003). Cognitive load theorists suggest worked
examples initially, with a gradual introduction of problem solving scenarios; this is described as the
"guidance fading effect" (Renkl, Atkinson, Maier, and Staley, 2002; Sweller, 2003). Each of these
ideas provides more evidence for Anderson's ACT-R framework (Clark & Elen, 2006). [30] This ACTR framework suggests learning can begin with studying examples.
Finally Mayer states: "Thus, the contribution of psychology is to help move educational reform efforts
from the fuzzy and unproductive world of educational ideologywhich sometimes hides under the
banner of various versions of constructivismto the sharp and productive world of theory-based
research on how people learn." (Mayer, 2004, p. 18).

Confusion between constructivist and maturationist views[edit]

Many people confuse constructivist with maturationist views. The constructivist (or cognitivedevelopmental) stream "is based on the idea that the dialectic or interactionistprocess of
development and learning through the student's active construction should be facilitated and
promoted by adults" (DeVries et al., 2002). Whereas, "The romantic maturationist stream is based
on the idea that the student's naturally occurring development should be allowed to flower without
adult interventions in a permissive environment" (DeVries et al., 2002). In other words, adults play an
active role in guiding learning in constructivism, while they are expected to allow children to guide
themselves in maturationism.

Social constructivism[edit]
In recent decades, constructivist theorists have extended the traditional focus on individual learning
to address collaborative and social dimensions of learning. It is possible to see social
constructivism as a bringing together of aspects of the work of Piaget with that
of Bruner and Vygotsky (Wood 1998: 39). The term Communal constructivism was developed by
Leask and Younie (2001) through their research on the European School Net project which
demonstrated the value of peer to peer learning i.e. communal construction of new knowledge rather
than social construction of knowledge as described by Vygotsky where there is a learner to teacher
scaffolding relationship. Bryn Holmes in 2001 applied this to student learning as described in an
early paper, "in this model, students will not simply pass through a course like water through
a sieve but instead leave their own imprint in the learning process." [31]

Discovery learning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discovery learning is a technique of inquiry-based learning and is considered

a constructivist based approach to education. It is supported by the work of learning theorists and
psychologists Jean Piaget, Jerome Bruner, and Seymour Papert. Although this form of instruction
has great popularity, there is some debate in the literature concerning its efficacy (Mayer, 2004).
Jerome Bruner is often credited with originating discovery learning in the 1960s, but his ideas are
very similar to those of earlier writers (e.g. John Dewey). Bruner argues that "Practice in discovering
for oneself teaches one to acquire information in a way that makes that information more readily
viable in problem solving" (Bruner, 1961, p. 26). This philosophy later became the discovery learning
movement of the 1960s. The mantra of this philosophical movement suggests that we should 'learn
by doing'. In 1991, The Grauer School, a private secondary school in Encinitas, California, was
founded with the motto, "Learn by Discovery", and integrated a series of world-wide expeditions into
their program for high school graduation. (See Expeditionary Learning.)
The label of discovery learning can cover a variety of instructional techniques. According to a metaanalytic review conducted by Alfieri, Brooks, Aldrich, and Tenenbaum (2011), a discovery learning
task can range from implicit pattern detection, to the elicitation of explanations and working through
manuals to conducting simulations. Discovery learning can occur whenever the student is not
provided with an exact answer but rather the materials in order to find the answer themselves.
Discovery learning takes place in problem solving situations where the learner draws on his own
experience and prior knowledge and is a method of instruction through which students interact with
their environment by exploring and manipulating objects, wrestling with questions and controversies,
or performing experiments.
Contents
[hide]

1 Discovery learning in special needs education

2 Criticism of pure discovery learning

3 The effects of Discovery Learning on the Cognitive Load

4 Enhanced Discovery Learning

5 See also

6 References

7 External links

Discovery learning in special needs education[edit]

With the push for special needs students to take part in the general education curriculum, prominent
researchers in this field doubt if general education classes rooted in discovery based learning can
provide an adequate learning environment for special needs students. Kauffman has related his
concerns over the use of discovery based learning as opposed to direct instruction. Kauffman
comments, to be highly successful in learning the facts and skills they need, these facts and skills
are taught directly rather than indirectly. That is the teacher is in control of instruction, not the
student, and information is given to students (2002).
This view is exceptionally strong when focusing on students with math disabilities and math
instruction. Fuchs et al. (2008) comment,
Typically developing students profit from the general education mathematics program, which relies,
at least in part, on a constructivist, inductive instructional style. Students who accrue serious
mathematics deficits, however, fail to profit from those programs in a way that produces
understanding of the structure, meaning, and operational requirements of mathematics Effective
intervention for students with a math disability requires an explicit, didactic form of instruction
Fuchs et al. go on to note that explicit or direct instruction should be followed up with instruction that
anticipates misunderstanding and counters it with precise explanations.
However, few studies focus on the long-term results for direct instruction. Long-term studies may find
that direct instruction is not superior to other instructional methods. For instance, a study found that
in a group of fourth graders that were instructed for 10 weeks and measured for 17 weeks direct
instruction did not lead to any stronger results in the long term than did practice alone (Dean & Kuhn,
2006). Other researchers note that there is promising work being done in the field to incorporate
constructivism and cooperative grouping so that curriculum and pedagogy can meet the needs of
diverse learners in an inclusion setting (Brantlinger, 1997). However, it is questionable how
successful these developed strategies are for student outcomes both initially and in the long term.

Criticism of pure discovery learning[edit]

A debate in the instructional community now questions the effectiveness of this model of instruction
(Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). The debate dates back to the 1950s when researchers first
began to compare the results of discovery learning to other forms of instruction (Alfieri, Brooks,
Aldrich, & Tenenbaum, 2011).
In support of the fundamental concept of discovery learning, Bruner (1961) suggested that students
are more likely to remember concepts if they discover them on their own as opposed to those that
are taught directly. This is the basis of discovery learning.

In pure discovery learning, the learner is required to discover new content through conducting
investigations or carrying out procedures while receiving little, if any, assistance. "For example, a
science teacher might provide students with a brief demonstration of how perceptions of color
change depending on the intensity of the light source and then ask them to design their own
experiment to further examine this relationship" (Marzano, 2011, p. 86). In this example the student
is left to discover the content on his/her own. Because students are left to self-discovery of topics,
researchers worry that learning taking place may have errors, misconceptions or be confusing or
frustrating to the learner (Alfieri et al., 2011).
While his article is cited as the fundamental framework for discovery learning, Bruner also cautioned
that such discovery could not be made prior to or without at least some base of knowledge in the
topic (Alfieri et al., 2011). Today's research, like that of Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) reports
that there is little empirical evidence to support pure discovery learning. Specifically, Kirschner et al.
suggest that fifty years of empirical data do not support those using these unguided methods of
instruction. The meta-analyses conducted by Alfieri and colleagues reconfirmed such warnings.
Mayer (2004) argues that unassisted discovery learning tasks do not help learners discover
problem-solving rules, conservation strategies, or programming concepts. He does acknowledge,
however that while under some circumstances constructivist-based approaches may be beneficial,
pure discovery learning lacks structure in nature and hence will not be beneficial for the learner.
Mayer also points out that interest in discovery learning has waxed and waned since the 1960s. He
argues that in each case the empirical literature has shown that the use of pure discovery methods
is not suggested, yet time and time again researchers have renamed their instructional methods only
to be discredited again, to rename their movement again.
Additionally, several groups of educators have found evidence that pure discovery learning is less
effective as an instructional strategy for novices, than more direct forms of instruction (e.g. Tuovinen
& Sweller, 1999). Mayer asked the question "Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure
Discovery Learning?" While discovery for oneself may be an engaging form of learning, it may also
be frustrating.
The main idea behind these critiques is that learners need guidance (Kirschner et al., 2006), but
later as they gain confidence and become competent then they may learn through discovery.

The effects of Discovery Learning on the Cognitive Load[edit]

Research has been conducted over years (Mayer, 2001; Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 1999, 2004; Winn,
2003) to prove the unfavorable effects of Discovery Learning, specifically with beginning learners.
"Cognitive load theory suggests that the free exploration of a highly complex environment may
generate a heavy working memory load that is detrimental to learning" (Kirschner, Sweller, Clark,
2006). Beginning learners do not have the necessary skills to integrate the new information with
information they have learned in the past. Sweller reported that a better alternative to Discovery
Learning was Guided Instruction. Guided Instruction produced more immediate recall of facts than
unguided approaches along with longer term transfer and problem-solving skills (Kirschner, Sweller,
Clark, 2006).

Enhanced Discovery Learning[edit]

Robert J. Marzano (2011) describes enhanced discovery learning as a process that involves
preparing the learner for the discovery learning task by providing the necessary knowledge needed
to successfully complete said task. In this approach, the teacher not only provides the necessary
knowledge required to complete the task, but also provides assistance during the task. This
preparation of the learner and assistance may require some direct instruction. "For example, before
asking students to consider how best to stretch the hamstring muscle in cold weather, the teacher

might present a series of lessons that clarify basic facts about muscles and their reaction to changes
in temperature" (Marzano, 2011, p. 87).
Another aspect of enhanced discovery learning is allowing the learner to generate ideas about a
topic along the way and then having students explain their thinking (Marzano, 2011). A teacher who
asks the students to generate their own strategy for solving a problem may be provided with
examples in how to solve similar problems ahead of the discovery learning task. "A student might
come up to the front of the room to work through the first problem, sharing his or her thinking out
loud. The teacher might question students and help them formulate their thinking into general
guidelines for estimation, such as "start by estimating the sum of the highest place-value numbers."
As others come to the front of the room to work their way through problems out loud, students can
generate and test more rules" (Marzano, 2011, p. 87).

Experiential learning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shimer College students learning to cook by cooking, 1942.

Experiential learning is the process of learning through experience, and is more specifically defined
as "learning through reflection on doing".[1] Experiential learning is distinct
from rote or didactic learning, in which the learner plays a comparatively passive role. [2] It is related to
but not synonymous with other forms of active learning such as action learning, adventure
learning, free choice learning,cooperative learning, and service learning.[3]
Experiential learning is often used synonymously with the term "experiential education", but while
experiential education is a broaderphilosophy of education, experiential learning considers the
individual learning process.[4] As such, compared to experiential education, experiential learning is
concerned with more concrete issues related to the learner and the learning context.
The general concept of learning through experience is ancient. Around 350 BCE, Aristotle wrote in
the Nichomachean Ethics "for the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing
them".[5] But as an articulated educational approach, experiential learning is of much more recent
vintage. Beginning in the 1970s, David A. Kolb helped to develop the modern theory of experiential
learning, drawing heavily on the work of John Dewey, Kurt Lewin, and Jean Piaget.[6]
Contents
[hide]

1 Kolb experiential learning model

1.1 Elements of experiential learning

2 Implementation

3 Experiential learning in schools

4 Experiential learning in business education

5 Comparisons

6 See also

6.1 People

6.2 See also

7 References

Kolb experiential learning model[edit]

Experiential learning focuses on the learning process for the individual. One example of experiential
learning is going to the zoo and learning through observation and interaction with the zoo
environment, as opposed to reading about animals from a book. Thus, one makes discoveries and
experiments with knowledge firsthand, instead of hearing or reading about others' experiences.
Likewise, in business school, internship, and job-shadowing, opportunities in a students field of
interest can provide valuable experiential learning which contributes significantly to the students
overall understanding of the real-time environment. [7]
A third example of experiential learning involves learning how to ride a bike, [8] a process which can
illustrate the four-step experiential learning model (ELM) as set forth by Kolb [9]and outlined in Figure
1 below. Following this example, in the "concrete experience" stage, the learner physically
experiences the bike in the "here-and-now".[10] This experience forms "the basis for observation and
reflection" and the learner has the opportunity to consider what is working or failing (reflective
observation), and to think about ways to improve on the next attempt made at riding (abstract
conceptualization). Every new attempt to ride is informed by a cyclical pattern of previous
experience, thought and reflection (active experimentation). [10]
Figure 1 David Kolbs Experiential Learning Model (ELM) [11]

Concrete Experience

Active Experimentation

Reflective Observation

Abstract Conceptualization

Elements of experiential learning[edit]

Experiential learning can exist without a teacher and relates solely to the meaning-making process
of the individual's direct experience. However, though the gaining of knowledge is an inherent
process that occurs naturally, a genuine learning experience requires certain elements. [3] According
to Kolb, knowledge is continuously gained through both personal and environmental experiences.
[12]
Kolb states that in order to gain genuine knowledge from an experience, the learner must have
four abilities:

The learner must be willing to be actively involved in the experience;

The learner must be able to reflect on the experience;

The learner must possess and use analytical skills to conceptualize the experience; and

The learner must possess decision making and problem solving skills in order to use the new
ideas gained from the experience.

Implementation[edit]
Experiential learning requires self-initiative, an "intention to learn" and an "active phase of learning".
[13]
Kolb's cycle of experiential learning can be used as a framework for considering the different
stages involved.[14] Jennifer A. Moon has elaborated on this cycle to argue that experiential learning is
most effective when it involves: 1) a "reflective learning phase" 2) a phase of learning resulting from
the actions inherent to experiential learning, and 3) "a further phase of learning from feedback".
[13]
This process of learning can result in "changes in judgment, feeling or skills" for the
individual[15] and can provide direction for the "making of judgments as a guide to choice and action".
[16]

Most educators understand the important role experience plays in the learning process. The role of
emotion and feelings in learning from experience has been recognised as an important part of
experiential learning.[13] While those factors may improve the likelihood of experiential learning
occurring, it can occur without them. Rather, what is vital in experiential learning is that the individual
is encouraged to directly involve themselves in the experience, and then to reflect on their
experiences using analytic skills, in order that they gain a better understanding of the new
knowledge and retain the information for a longer time.
Reflection is a crucial part of the experiential learning process, and like experiential learning itself, it
can be facilitated or independent. Dewey wrote that "successive portions of reflective thought grow
out of one another and support one another", creating a scaffold for further learning, and allowing for
further experiences and reflection.[17] This reinforces the fact that experiential learning and reflective
learning are iterative processes, and the learning builds and develops with further reflection and
experience. Facilitation of experiential learning and reflection is challenging, but "a skilled facilitator,
asking the right questions and guiding reflective conversation before, during, and after an
experience, can help open a gateway to powerful new thinking and learning". [18] Jacobson and
Ruddy, building on Kolb's four-stage Experiential Learning Model[10] and Pfeiffer and Jones's five
stage Experiential Learning Cycle,[19] took these theoretical frameworks and created a simple,
practical questioning model for facilitators to use in promoting critical reflection in experiential
learning. Their "5 Questions" model is as follows:[18]

Did you notice...?

Why did that happen?

Does that happen in life?

Why does that happen?

How can you use that?

These questions are posed by the facilitator after an experience, and gradually lead the group
towards a critical reflection on their experience, and an understanding of how they can apply the
learning to their own life.[18] Although the questions are simple, they allow a relatively inexperienced
facilitator to apply the theories of Kolb, Pfeiffer, and Jones, and deepen the learning of the group.
While it is the learner's experience that is most important to the learning process, it is also important
not to forget the wealth of experience a good facilitator also brings to the situation. However, while a
facilitator, or "teacher", may improve the likelihood of experiential learning occurring, a facilitator is
not essential to experiential learning. Rather, the mechanism of experiential learning is the learner's
reflection on experiences using analytic skills. This can occur without the presence of a facilitator,
meaning that experiential learning is not defined by the presence of a facilitator. Yet, by considering
experiential learning in developing course or program content, it provides an opportunity to develop
a framework for adapting varying teaching/learning techniques into the classroom. [20]

Experiential learning in schools[edit]

Think Global School is a four-year traveling high school that holds classes in a new country
each term. Students engage in experiential learning through activities such as workshops,
cultural exchanges, museum tours, and nature expeditions.

The Dawson School in Boulder, Colorado, devotes two weeks of each school year to
experiential learning, with students visiting surrounding states to engage in community service,
visit museums and scientific institutions, and engage in activities such as mountain
biking, backpacking, and canoeing.

In the ELENA-Project www.elena-project.eu, the follow-up project of animals live, the

experiential learning with living animals will be developed. Together with project partners from
Romania, Hungary and Georgia the Bavarian Academy of Nature Conservation and Landscape
Management in Germany brings living animals in the lessons of European schools. Aim is to
brief children for the context of the biological diversity and to support them to develop
ecologically oriented values.[21]

Experiential learning in business education[edit]

As higher education continues to adapt to new expectations from students, experiential learning in
business and accounting programs has become more important. For example, Clark & White (2010)
point out that "a quality university business education program must include an experiential learning
component".[22] With reference to this study, employers note that graduating students need to build
skills in professionalism which can be taught via experiential learning. Students also value this
learning as much as industry.
Learning styles also impact business education in the classroom. Kolb transposes four learning
styles, Diverger, Assimilator, Accommodator and Converger, atop the Experiential Learning Model,
using the four experiential learning stages to carve out "four quadrants", one for each learning style.
An individuals dominant learning style can be identified by taking Kolbs Learning Style Inventory
(LSI). Robert Loo (2002) undertook a meta-analysis of 8 studies which revealed that Kolbs learning
styles were not equally distributed among business majors in the sample. [23] More specifically, results
indicated that there appears to be a high proportion of assimilators and a lower proportion of
accommodators than expected for business majors. Not surprisingly, within the accounting subsample there was a higher proportion of convergers and a lower proportion of accommodates.
Similarly, in the finance sub-sample, a higher proportion of assimilators and lower proportion of
divergers was apparent. Within the marketing sub-sample there was an equal distribution of styles.
This would provide some evidence to suggest that while it is useful for educators to be aware of

common learning styles within business and accounting programs, they should be encouraging
students to use all four learning styles appropriately and students should use a wide range of
learning methods.[23]
Professional education applications, also known as management training or organizational
development, apply experiential learning techniques in training employees at all levels within the
business and professional environment. Interactive, role-play based customer service training is
often used in large retail chains. [24]Training board games simulating business and professional
situations such as the Beer Distribution Game used to teach supply chain management, and
the Friday Night at the ER game used to teach systems thinking, are used in business training
efforts.[25]

Comparisons[edit]
Experiential learning is most easily compared with academic learning, the process of acquiring
information through the study of a subject without the necessity for direct experience. While the
dimensions of experiential learning are analysis, initiative, and immersion, the dimensions of
academic learning are constructive learning and reproductive learning.[26] Though both methods aim
at instilling new knowledge in the learner, academic learning does so through more abstract,
classroom-based techniques, whereas experiential learning actively involves the learner in a
concrete experience.

Learning styles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Learning style)

Learning styles refer to a range of competing and contested theories that aim to account for
differences in individuals' learning.[1] These theories propose that all people can be classified
according to their 'style' of learning, although the various theories present differing views on how the
styles should be defined and categorised.[1]:8 A common concept is that individuals differ in how they
learn.[2]:266
The idea of individualized learning styles originated in the 1970s, and has greatly
influenced education despite the criticism that the idea has received from some researchers.[3]:107
108
Proponents recommend that teachers assess the learning styles of their students and adapt their
classroom methods to best fit each student's learning style. [4] Although there is ample evidence that
individuals express preferences for how they prefer to receive information, [3]:108 few studies have
found any validity in using learning styles in education. [2]:267 Critics say there is no evidence that
identifying an individual student's learning style produces better outcomes. [5]:33 There is evidence of
empirical and pedagogical problems related to forcing learning tasks to "correspond to differences in
a one-to-one fashion".[6] Well-designed studies contradict the widespread "meshing hypothesis" that
a student will learn best if taught in a method deemed appropriate for the student's learning style. [3]
There are substantial criticisms of learning-styles approaches from scientists who have reviewed
extensive bodies of research.[1][3] A 2015 peer reviewed article concluded: "Learning styles theories
have not panned out, and it is our responsibility to ensure that students know that." [2]:269 Researchbased criticisms of learning styles can be found in Criticism below.
Contents
[hide]

1 Overview of learning styles models

o

1.1 David Kolb's model

1.2 Peter Honey and Alan Mumford's model

1.3 Learning modalities

1.4 Neil Fleming's VAK/VARK model

1.5 Anthony Gregorc's model

1.6 Cognitive approaches to learning styles

1.7 NASSP learning style model

2 Assessment methods
o

2.1 Learning Style Inventory

2.2 NASSP Learning Style Profile

2.3 Other methods

3 Learning styles in the classroom

4 Criticism
o

4.1 Critique made by Coffield et al.

4.2 Critique of Kolb's model

4.3 Other critiques

4.4 2009 APS critique

5 See also

6 References

7 Further reading

Overview of learning styles models[edit]

There are many different learning styles models; one literature review identified 71 different models.
[1]:166168
Only a few models are described below.

David Kolb's model[edit]

David A. Kolb's model is based on his experiential learning model, as explained in his
book Experiential Learning.[7] Kolb's model outlines two related approaches toward grasping
experience: Concrete Experience and Abstract Conceptualization, as well as two related approaches
toward transforming experience: Reflective Observation and Active Experimentation.[7]:145 According
to Kolb's model, the ideal learning process engages all four of these modes in response to
situational demands; they form a learning cycle from experience to observation to conceptualization
to experimentation and back to experience. In order for learning to be effective, all four of these
approaches must be incorporated. As individuals attempt to use all four approaches, however, they
may tend to develop strengths in one experience-grasping approach and one experiencetransforming approach, leading them to prefer one of the following four learning styles: [8][7]:127
1. Accommodator = Concrete Experience + Active Experiment: strong in "hands-on" practical
doing (e.g., physical therapists)
2. Converger = Abstract Conceptualization + Active Experiment: strong in practical "hands-on"
application of theories (e.g., engineers)
3. Diverger = Concrete Experience + Reflective Observation: strong in imaginative ability and
discussion (e.g., social workers)
4. Assimilator = Abstract Conceptualization + Reflective Observation: strong in inductive
reasoning and creation of theories (e.g., philosophers)
Kolb's model gave rise to the Learning Style Inventory, an assessment method used to determine an
individual's learning style. According to this model, an individual may exhibit a preference for one of
the four stylesAccommodating, Converging, Diverging and Assimilatingdepending on their
approach to learning in Kolb's experiential learning model.[7]
Although Kolb's model is widely accepted with substantial empirical support and has been revised
over the years, a 2013 study suggests that the Learning Style Inventory still "possesses serious
weaknesses".[9]:44

Peter Honey and Alan Mumford's model[edit]

Peter Honey and Alan Mumford adapted Kolb's experiential learning model. First, they renamed the
stages in the learning cycle to accord with managerial experiences: having an
experience, reviewing the experience, concluding from the experience, and planning the next steps.
[10]:121122
Second, they aligned these stages to four learning styles named:[10]:122124
1. Activist
2. Reflector
3. Theorist
4. Pragmatist
These four learning styles are assumed to be acquired preferences that are adaptable, either at will
or through changed circumstances, rather than being fixed personality characteristics. Honey and
Mumford's Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ)[11] is a self-development tool and differs from Kolb's
Learning Style Inventory by inviting managers to complete a checklist of work-related behaviours
without directly asking managers how they learn. Having completed the self-assessment, managers
are encouraged to focus on strengthening underutilised styles in order to become better equipped to
learn from a wide range of everyday experiences.

A MORI survey commissioned by The Campaign for Learning in 1999 found the Honey and Mumford
LSQ to be the most widely used system for assessing preferred learning styles in the local
government sector in the UK.[citation needed]

Learning modalities[edit]
Walter Burke Barbe and colleagues proposed three learning modalities (often identified by
the acronym VAK):[12]
1. Visualising modality
2. Auditory modality
3. Kinesthetic modality
Descriptions of learning modalities

Visual

Kinesthetic

Auditory

Picture

Gestures

Listening

Shape

Body movements

Rhythms

Sculpture

Object manipulation

Tone

Paintings

Positioning

Chants

Barbe and colleagues reported that learning modality strengths can occur independently or in
combination (although the most frequent modality strengths, according to their research, are visual
or mixed), they can change over time, and they become integrated with age. [13] They also pointed out
that learning modality strengths are different frompreferences; a person's self-reported modality
preference may not correspond to their empirically measured modality strength. [13]:378 This disconnect
between strengths and preferences was confirmed by a subsequent study.[14] Nevertheless, some
scholars have criticized the VAK model.[15][16] Psychologist Scott Lilienfeld and colleagues have argued
that much use of the VAK model is nothing more than pseudoscience or a psychological urban
legend.[17]

Neil Fleming's VAK/VARK model[edit]

Neil Fleming's VARK model[18] expanded upon earlier notions of sensory modalities such as the VAK
model of Barbe and colleagues[12] and the representational systems(VAKOG) in neuro-linguistic
programming.[19] The four sensory modalities in Fleming's model are:[20]
1. Visual learning
2. Auditory learning

3. Read/write learning
4. Kinesthetic learning
Fleming claimed that visual learners have a preference for seeing (visual aids that represent ideas
using methods other than words, such as graphs, charts, diagrams, symbols, etc.). Auditory
learners best learn through listening (lectures, discussions, tapes, etc.). Tactile/kinesthetic
learners prefer to learn via experiencemoving, touching, and doing (active exploration of the world,
science projects, experiments, etc.). Students can use the model to identify their preferred learning
style and, it is claimed, maximize their learning by focusing on the mode that benefits them the most.
Fleming's model also posits two types of multimodality.[20]

Anthony Gregorc's model[edit]

Anthony Gregorc and Kathleen Butler organized a model describing different learning styles rooted
in the way individuals acquire and process information differently.[21] This model posits that an
individual's perceptual abilities are the foundation of his or her specific learning strengths, or learning
styles.[22]
In this model, there are two perceptual qualities: concrete and abstract, and two ordering
abilities: random and sequential.[22] Concrete perceptions involve registering information through the
five senses, while abstract perceptions involve the understanding of ideas, qualities, and concepts
which cannot be seen. In regard to the two ordering abilities, sequential ordering involves the
organization of information in a linear, logical way, and random ordering involves the organization of
information in chunks and in no specific order.[22] The model posits that both of the perceptual
qualities and both of the ordering abilities are present in each individual, but some qualities and
ordering abilities are more dominant within certain individuals.[22]
There are four combinations of perceptual qualities and ordering abilities based on
dominance: concrete sequential, abstract random, abstract sequential, and concrete random. The
model posits that individuals with different combinations learn in different waysthey have different
strengths, different things make sense to them, different things are difficult for them, and they ask
different questions throughout the learning process.[22]
The validity of Gregorc's model has been questioned by Thomas Reio and Albert Wiswell following
experimental trials.[23] Gregorc argues that his critics have "scientifically-limited views" and that they
wrongly repudiate the "mystical elements" of "the spirit" that can only be discerned by a "subtle
human instrument".[24]

Cognitive approaches to learning styles[edit]

Anthony Grasha and Sheryl Riechmann, in 1974, formulated the Grasha-Reichmann Learning Style
Scale.[25] It was developed to analyze the attitudes of students and how they approach learning. The
test was originally designed to provide teachers with insight on how to approach instructional plans
for college students.[26] Grasha's background was incognitive processes and coping techniques.
Unlike some models of cognitive styles which are relatively nonjudgmental, Grasha and Riechmann
distinguish between adaptive and maladaptive styles. The names of Grasha and Riechmann's
learning styles are:

avoidant

participative

competitive

collaborative

dependent

independent

Aiming to explain why aptitude tests, school grades, and classroom performance often fail to identify
real ability, Robert Sternberg listed various cognitive dimensions in his bookThinking Styles.
[27]
Several other models are also often used when researching cognitive styles; some of these
models are described in books that Sternberg co-edited, such asPerspectives on Thinking,
Learning, and Cognitive Styles.[28][29][30]

NASSP learning style model[edit]

In the 1980s, the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) formed a task force
to study learning styles.[31] The task force defined three broad categories of stylecognitive,
affective, and physiologicaland 31 variables, including the perceptual strengths and preferences
from the VAK model of Barbe and colleagues,[13] but also many other variables such as need for
structure, types of motivation, time of day preferences, and so on. [31]:141143 They defined a learning
style as "a gestaltnot an amalgam of related characteristics but greater than any of its parts. It is a
composite of internal and external operations based in neurobiology, personality, and human
development and reflected in learner behavior."[31]:141

Cognitive styles are preferred ways of perception, organization and retention.

Affective styles represent the motivational dimensions of the learning personality; each
learner has a personal motivational approach.

Physiological styles are bodily states or predispositions, including sex-related differences,

health and nutrition, and reaction to physical surroundings, such as preferences for levels of
light, sound, and temperature.[31]:141

According to the NASSP task force, styles are hypothetical constructs that help to explain the
learning (and teaching) process. They posited that one can recognize the learning style of an
individual student by observing his or her behavior.[31]:138 Learning has taken place only when one
observes a relatively stable change in learner behavior resulting from what has been experienced.

Assessment methods[edit]
Learning Style Inventory[edit]
The Learning Style Inventory (LSI) is connected with David A. Kolb's model and is used to determine
a student's learning style.[8] Previous versions of the LSI have been criticized for problems with
validity, reliability, and other issues.[32][33][9] Version 4 of the Learning Style Inventory replaces the four
learning styles of previous versions with nine new learning styles: initiating, experiencing, imagining,
reflecting, analyzing, thinking, deciding, acting, and balancing. [34] The LSI is intended to help
employees or students "understand how their learning style impacts upon problem solving,
teamwork, handling conflict, communication and career choice; develop more learning flexibility; find
out why teams work wellor badlytogether; strengthen their overall learning." [34]
A completely different Learning Styles Inventory is associated with a binary division of learning
styles, developed by Richard Felder and Linda Silverman.[35] In Felder and Silverman's model,
learning styles are a balance between pairs of extremes such as: Active/Reflective, Sensing/Intuitive,

Verbal/Visual, and Sequential/Global. Students receive four scores describing these balances. [36] Like
the LSI mentioned above, this inventory provides overviews and synopses for teachers.

NASSP Learning Style Profile[edit]

The NASSP Learning Style Profile (LSP) is a second-generation instrument for the diagnosis of
student cognitive styles, perceptual responses, and study and instructional preferences. [37] The LSP
is a diagnostic tool intended as the basis for comprehensive style assessment with students in the
sixth to twelfth grades. It was developed by theNational Association of Secondary School
Principals research department in conjunction with a national task force of learning style experts.
The Profile was developed in four phases with initial work undertaken at the University of
Vermont (cognitive elements), Ohio State University (affective elements), and St. John's
University(physiological/environmental elements). Rigid validation and normative studies were
conducted using factor analytic methods to ensure strong construct validity and subscale
independence.
The LSP contains 24 scales representing four higher order factors: cognitive styles, perceptual
responses, study preferences and instructional preferences (the affective and physiological
elements). The LSP scales are: analytic skill, spatial skill, discrimination skill, categorizing skill,
sequential processing skill, simultaneous processing skill, memory skill, perceptual response: visual,
perceptual response: auditory, perceptual response: emotive, persistence orientation, verbal risk
orientation, verbal-spatial preference, manipulative preference, study time preference: early morning,
study time preference: late morning, study time preference: afternoon, study time preference:
evening, grouping preference, posture preference, mobility preference, sound preference, lighting
preference, temperature preference.[37]

Other methods[edit]
Other methods (usually questionnaires) used to identify learning styles include Neil Fleming's VARK
Questionnaire,[18] Jackson's Learning Styles Profiler,[1]:5659 and the neuro-linguistic programming-based
iWAM Questionnaire.[38]:111 Many other tests have gathered popularity and various levels of credibility
among students and teachers.

Learning styles in the classroom[edit]

Various researchers have attempted to hypothesize ways in which learning style theory can be used
in the classroom. Two such scholars are Rita Dunn and Kenneth Dunn, who build upon a learning
modalities approach.[39][1]:2035
Although learning styles will inevitably differ among students in the classroom, Dunn and Dunn say
that teachers should try to make changes in their classroom that will be beneficial to every learning
style. Some of these changes include room redesign, the development of small-group techniques,
and the development of "contract activity packages". [39] Redesigning the classroom involves locating
dividers that can be used to arrange the room creatively (such as having different learning stations
and instructional areas), clearing the floor area, and incorporating student thoughts and ideas into
the design of the classroom.[39]
Dunn and Dunn's "contract activity packages" are educational plans that use: a clear statement of
the learning need; multisensory resources (auditory, visual, tactile, kinesthetic); activities through
which the newly mastered information can be used creatively; the sharing of creative projects within
small groups; at least three small-group techniques; a pre-test, a self-test, and a post-test. [39]
Another scholar who believes that learning styles should have an effect on the classroom is Marilee
Sprenger in Differentiation through Learning Styles and Memory.[40] She bases her work on three
premises:
1. Teachers can be learners, and learners teachers. We are all both.

2. Everyone can learn under the right circumstances.

3. Learning is fun! Make it appealing.[40][page needed]
Sprenger details how to teach in visual, auditory, or tactile/kinesthetic ways. Methods for visual
learners include ensuring that students can see words written, using pictures, and
drawing timelines for events.[40][page needed] Methods for auditory learners include repeating words aloud,
small-group discussion, debates, listening to books on tape, oral reports, and oral interpretation. [40]
[page needed]
Methods for tactile/kinesthetic learners include hands-on activities (experiments, etc.),
projects, frequent breaks to allow movement, visual aids, role play, and field trips. [40][page needed] By using
a variety of teaching methods from each of these categories, teachers cater to different learning
styles at once, and improve learning by challenging students to learn in different ways.
James W. Keefe and John M. Jenkins have incorporated learning style assessment as a basic
component in their "personalized instruction" model of schooling. [41] Six basic elements constitute the
culture and context of personalized instruction. The cultural componentsteacher role, student
learning characteristics, and collegial relationshipsestablish the foundation of personalization and
ensure that the school prizes a caring and collaborative environment. The contextual factors
interactivity, flexible scheduling, and authentic assessmentestablish the structure of
personalization.[41][page needed]
According to Keefe and Jenkins, cognitive and learning style analysis have a special role in the
process of personalizing instruction. The assessment of student learning style, more than any other
element except the teacher role, establishes the foundation for a personalized approach to
schooling: for student advisement and placement, for appropriate retraining of student cognitive
skills, for adaptive instructional strategy, and for the authentic evaluation of learning. [41][page needed] Some
learners respond best in instructional environments based on an analysis of their perceptual and
environmental style preferences: most individualized and personalized teaching methods reflect this
point of view. Other learners, however, need help to function successfully in any learning
environment. If a youngster cannot cope under conventional instruction, enhancing his cognitive
skills may make successful achievement possible.[41][page needed]
Many of the student learning problems that learning style diagnosis attempts to solve relate directly
to elements of the human information processing system. Processes such as attention, perception
and memory, and operations such as integration and retrieval of information are internal to the
system. Any hope for improving student learning necessarily involves an understanding and
application of information processing theory. Learning style assessment can provide a window to
understanding and managing this process.[41][page needed]
At least one study evaluating teaching styles and learning styles, however, has found that congruent
groups have no significant differences in achievement from incongruent groups. [42] Furthermore,
learning style in this study varied by demography, specifically by age, suggesting a change in
learning style as one gets older and acquires more experience. While significant age differences did
occur, as well as no experimental manipulation of classroom assignment, the findings do call into
question the aim of congruent teachinglearning styles in the classroom. [1]:122

Mastery learning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mastery Learning (or as it was initially called, learning for mastery) is an instructional strategy and
educational philosophy, first formally proposed by Benjamin S. Bloom in 1968. Mastery Learning
maintains that students must achieve a level of mastery (i.e. 90% on a knowledge test) in
prerequisite knowledge before moving forward to learn subsequent information. If a student does not
achieve mastery on the test, they are given additional support in learning and reviewing the
information, then tested again. This cycle will continue until the learner accomplishes mastery, and
may move on to the next stage.
Mastery learning methods suggest that the focus of instruction should be the time required for
different students to learn the same material and achieve the same level of mastery. This is very
much in contrast with classic models of teaching, which focus more on differences in students' ability
and where all students are given approximately the same amount of time to learn and the same set
of instructions.
In Mastery learning, there is a shift in responsibilities, so that student's failure is more due to the
instruction and not necessarily lack of ability on his part. Therefore, in a mastery learning
environment, the challenge becomes providing enough time and employing instructional strategies
so that all students can achieve the same level of learning.[1][2]
Contents
[hide]

1 Definition
o

1.1 Motivation

1.2 Related terms

2 History

3 Learning For Mastery (LFM)

3.1 Variables of LFM

3.1.1 Aptitude

3.1.2 Quality of instruction

3.1.3 Ability to understand instruction

3.1.4 Perseverance

3.1.5 Time allowed for learning

3.2 LFM strategy

3.2.1 Preconditions

3.2.2 Operating procedures

3.2.2.1 Formative evaluation

3.2.2.2 Alternative learning resources

3.2.3 Outcomes

3.2.3.1 Cognitive outcomes

3.2.3.2 Affective outcomes

4 Personalized System of Instruction (PSI)

4.1 Five elements of PSI

5 Assessment

6 Criticism
o

6.1 Time-achievement equality dilemma

6.2 Methodology errors in research

6.2.1 Experimental vs. control groups

6.2.2 Measurement tools

6.2.3 Study duration

6.3 General concerns and opinions

7 Mastery learning today

8 See also

9 References

Definition[edit]
Mastery learning is a set of group-based, individualized, teaching and learning strategies based on
the premise that students will achieve a high level of understanding in a given domain if they are
given enough time.[3]

Motivation[edit]
The motivation for Mastery Learning comes from trying to reduce achievement gaps for students in
average school classrooms. During the 1960s John B. Carroll and Benjamin S. Bloom pointed out
that, if students are normally distributed with respect to aptitude for a subject and if they are provided

uniform instruction (in terms of quality and learning time), then achievement level at completion of
the subject is also expected to be normally distributed. This can be illustrated as shown below:

Mastery Learning approaches propose that, if each learner were to receive optimal quality of
instruction and as much learning time as they require, then a majority of students could be expected
to attain mastery. This situation would be represented as follows:

In many situations educators preemptively use the normal curve for grading students. Bloom was
critical of this usage, condemning it because it creates expectation by the teachers that some
students will naturally be successful while others will not. Bloom defended that, if educators are
effective, the distribution of achievement could and should be very different from the normal curve.
Bloom proposed Mastery Learning as a way to address this. He believed that by using his approach,
the majority of students (more than 90 percent) would achieve successful and rewarding learning.
[4]
As an added advantage, Mastery Learning was also thought to create more positive interest and
attitude towards the subject learned if compared with usual classroom methods. [5]

Related terms[edit]
Individualized instruction has some elements in common with mastery learning, although it
dispenses with group activities in favor of allowing more capable or more motivated students to
progress ahead of others while maximizing teacher interaction with those students who need the
most assistance.
Bloom's 2 Sigma Problem is an educational phenomenon observed where the average student
tutored one-to-one (using mastery learning techniques) performed two standard deviations better
than students who learn via conventional instructional methods.
More recently, the idea of "Flipped Mastery" gained some popularity. The term was coined by Jon
Bergmann and Aaron Sams, both chemistry teachers. They suggest an implementation model for
Mastery Learning that is mixed with flipped classroom. The idea is to use technology to time-shift the
individual instruction and eliminate whole-class lectures. The students watch online lectures and
move through the content at their own pace. In this way technology frees up the teachers to
individualize the learning for each student.[6]

History[edit]
The idea of learning for mastery is not new. In the 1920s there were at least two attempts to produce
mastery in students' learning: the Winnetka Plan, by Carleton Washburneand associates, and
another approach by Henry C. Morrison, at the University of Chicago Laboratory School. Both these
projects provided school situations where mastery of particular learning tasks - rather than time
spent - was the central theme. While these ideas were popular for a while, they faded due primarily
to the lack of technologies that could sustain a successful implementation. [5]
The idea of mastery learning resurfaced in the late 1950s and early 1960s as a corollary
of programmed instruction, a technology invented by B.F. Skinner to improve teaching.[5]Underlying
programmed instruction was the idea that the learning of any behavior, no matter how complex,
rested upon the learning of a sequence of less-complex component behaviors. [7]
Around that same time, John B. Carroll was working on his "Model of School Learning". This was a
conceptual paradigm which outlined the major factors influencing student success in school learning,
indicating also how these factor interacted.[8] Carroll's model stemmed from his previous work with
foreign language learning. He found that a student's aptitude for a language predicted not only the
level to which he learned in a given time, but also the amount of time he required to learn to a given
level. Carroll then suggests that aptitudes are actually a way to measure the amount of time required
to learn a task up to a certain level (under ideal instructional conditions). So Carroll's model is
actually suggesting that, if each student was allowed the time they needed to learn to some level,
then he could be expected to attain that level.[5]
Later in the 1960s Benjamin Bloom and his graduate students were researching individual
differences in school learning. They observed that teachers displayed very little variation in their
instructional practices and yet, there was a lot of variation in student's achievements. Bloom used
Carroll's conceptual model to create his own working model of Mastery Learning. Bloom realized
that, if aptitudes were predictive of the rate at which a student can learn (and not necessarily the
level to which), it should be possible to fix the degree of learning expected to some mastery level
and then systematically manipulate the variables in Carroll's model such that all or almost all
students attained that level.
Also in the 1960s, Fred S. Keller was collaborating with colleagues developing his own instructional
methods of Mastery Learning. Keller's strategies were based on the ideas ofreinforcement as seen
in operant conditioning theories. Keller formally introduced his teaching method, Personalized
System of Instruction (PSI) - sometimes referred to as Keller Plan), in his 1967 paper, "Engineering
personalized instruction in the classroom".[9]
From the late 1960s to the early 1980s, there was a surge of research on both Keller's and Bloom's
instruction methods.[10] Most of these studies showed that mastery learning has a positive effect on
achievement, for all subjects and at all levels. Also, mastery learning brings positive affective
outcomes for both students and teachers. These studies also showed that there are many variables
that are either affected by mastery learning or that influence it somehow: student entry variables,
curriculum, type of test, pacing, level of mastery, and time.[11]
Despite those mostly positive research results, interest in mastery learning strategies decreased
throughout the 1980s, as reflected in publication activity in professional journals and presentations at
conferences. Many explanations were put forward to justify this decline, like alleged recalcitrance of
the educational establishment to change,[12] or the ineffective implementations of mastery learning
methods,[13] or the extra time demanded in setting up and maintaining a mastery learning course [12] or
even concerns that behavioristic-based models for teaching would conflict with the generally
humanistic-oriented teachers and the surrounding culture.[14]
Mastery learning strategies are best represented by Bloom's Learning For Mastery
(LFM) and Keller's Personalized System of Instruction (PSI). Bloom's approach was focused
in the schoolroom, whereas Keller developed his system for higher education. Both have been

applied in many different contexts and have been found to be very powerful methods for increasing
student performance in a wide range of activities. Despite sharing some commonalities in terms of
goals, they are built on different psychological principles.

Learning For Mastery (LFM)[edit]

Variables of LFM[edit]
Bloom, when first proposing his mastery learning strategy in 1968, was convinced that most students
can attain a high level of learning capability if the following conditions are available:

instruction is approached sensitively and systematically

students are helped when and where they have learning difficulties

students are given sufficient time to achieve mastery

there is some clear criterion of what constitutes mastery.[15]

Many variables will influence achievement levels and learning outcomes:

Aptitude[edit]
Aptitude, measured by standard aptitude tests, in this context is interpreted as "the amount of time
required by the learner to attain mastery of a learning task".[16] Several studies show that majority of
students can achieve mastery in a learning task, but the time that they need to spend on is different.
[17][18]
Bloom argues that there are 1 to 5 percent of students who have special talent for learning a
subject (especially music and foreign languages) and there are also around five percent of students
who have special disability for learning a subject. For other 90% of students, aptitude is merely an
indicator of the rate of learning.[19] Additionally, Bloom argues that attitude for a learning task is not
constant and can be changed by environmental conditions or learning experience at school or home.
[20][21]

Quality of instruction[edit]
The quality of instruction is defined as the degree to which the presentation, explanation, and
ordering of elements of the task to be learned approach the optimum for a given learner.[16] Bloom
insists that the quality of instruction has to be evaluated according too its effect on individual
students rather than on random groups of students. Bloom shows that while in traditional
classrooms, the relationship between students aptitude test for mathematics and their final grade in
algebra is very high, this relationship is almost zero for students who are receiving tutorial instruction
in the home. He argues that a good tutor tries to find the quality of learning best fit to the given
students, thus majority of students would be able to master a subject if they have access to a good
tutor.[15]
Ability to understand instruction[edit]
According to Bloom the ability to understand instruction is defined as the nature of the task that a
learner is to learn and the procedure that the learner is to follow. Verbal ability and reading
comprehension are two language abilities that are highly related to student achievements. Since the
ability to understand instruction varies significantly among students, Bloom recommends that
teachers modify their instruction, provide help, and teaching aids to fit the needs of different
students. Some of the teaching aids that could be provided according to the ability of the learner are:

Alternative Textbooks

Group Studies and Peer Tutoring

Workbooks

Programmed Instruction Units

Audiovisual Methods

Academic Games

Laboratory experiences

Simple demonstrations

Puzzles[15]

Perseverance[edit]
perseverance in this context is defined as the time the learner is willing to spend in learning.
According to Bloom, a student who demonstrate low level of perseverance in one learning task might
have a very high level of perseverance in a different learning task. He suggests that perseverance of
students could be enhanced by increasing the frequency of reward and providing evidence of
success in learning. He recommends that teachers use frequent feedback accompanied by specific
help to improve the quality of instruction, thus reduce the perseverance required for learning. [15]
Time allowed for learning[edit]
According to the International Study of Education in 12 countries, if the top 5% of students are
omitted, the ratio of the time needed for slower and faster learners of a subject such as mathematics
is 6 to 1 while there is zero or slightly negative relationship between the final grades and the amount
of time spent on homework.[22] Thus, the amount of time spent on homework is not a good indicator
of mastery in a subject. Bloom postulates that the time required for a learner to achieve mastery in a
specific subject is affected by various factors such as:

the student's aptitude for that subject,

The student's verbal ability,

the quality of instruction, and

the quality of the help provided.[15]

LFM strategy[edit]
LMF curricula generally consists of discrete topics which all students begin together. After beginning
a unit, students will be given a meaningful and formative assessment so that the teacher can
conclude whether or not an objective has been mastered. At this step, instruction goes in one of two
directions. If a student has mastered an objective, he or she will begin on a path of enrichment
activities that correspond to and build upon the original objective. Students who do not satisfactorily
complete a topic are given additional instruction until they succeed. If a student does not
demonstrate that he or she has mastered the objective, then a series of correctives will be
employed. These correctives can include varying activities, individualized instruction, and additional

time to complete assignments.[23] These students will receive constructive feedback on their work and
will be encouraged to revise and revisit their assignment until the objective is mastered.
Preconditions[edit]
There are some preconditions for the process of mastery learning. First, the objectives and content
of instruction have to be specified and clarified to both the students and the teacher. Another
precondition is that the summative evaluation criteria should be developed and both the teacher and
the learner should be clear about the achievement criteria. Bloom suggest that the using absolute
standards rather than competitive criteria, help students to collaborate and facilitates mastery.[15]
Operating procedures[edit]
The operating procedures are the methods used to provide detailed feedback and instructional help
to facilitate the process of mastery in learning. The main operation procedures are:

Formative Evaluation, and

Alternative Learning Resources[15]

Formative evaluation[edit]
Formative Evaluation in the context if mastery learning is a diagnostic progress tests to determine
whether or not the student has mastered the subject unit. [24] Each unit is usually is a learning
outcome that could be taught in a week or two of learning activity. The formative tests are
administered at the learning units. Bloom insists that the diagnostic process has to be followed by a
prescription and the result of formative assessment is better to express in not-grade format since the
use of grades on repeated progress evaluations prepare students for accepting a level of learning
less than mastery.[15]
Alternative learning resources[edit]
The progress tests should be followed by detailed feedback and specific suggestions so that the
students could work on their difficulties. Some of the alternative learning resources are:

Small groups of students (two or three) meet and work together

Tutorial help

Reviewing the instructional material

Reading alternative textbooks

Using workbook or programmed texts

Using selected audiovisual materials[15]

Outcomes[edit]
The outcomes of mastery learning could be summarized into two groups: 1- Cognitive Outcomes 2Affective Outcomes[15]
Cognitive outcomes[edit]
The cognitive outcomes of mastery learning are mainly related to increase in student excellence in a
subject. According to one study, applying the strategies of mastery learning in a class resulted in the

increase of students with the grade of A from 20 percent to 80 percent (about two standard deviation,
and using the formative evaluation records as a base for quality control helped the teacher to
improve the strategies and increase the percent of students with a grade of A to 90% in the following
year.[25]
Affective outcomes[edit]
Affective outcomes of mastery are mainly related to the sense of self-efficacy and confidence in the
learners. Bloom argues that when the society (through education system) recognizes a learner's
mastery, profound changes happen in his or her view of self and the outer world. The learner would
start believing that he or she is able to adequately cope with problems, would have higher motivation
for learning the subject in a higher level of expertise, and would have a better mental state due to
less feeling of frustration. Finally. it is argued that in a modern society that lifelong learning is a
necessity, mastery learning can develop a lifelong interest and motivation in learning. [15]

Personalized System of Instruction (PSI)[edit]

Personalized System of Instruction, also known as the Keller Plan was developed in the mid 1960s
by Fred Keller and colleagues. It was developed based on the idea ofreinforcement in teaching
processes.
Keller gives the following description to a group of psychology students enrolled in his course
developed using mastery learning theory: "This is a course through which you may move, from start
to finish, at your own pace. You will not be held back by other students or forced to go ahead until
you are ready. At best, you may meet all the course requirements in less than one semester; at
worst, you may not complete the job within that time. How fast you go is up to you" (Keller, 1968, pg
80-81).[26]

Five elements of PSI[edit]

There are five main elements in PSI as described in Keller's paper from 1967:
1. "The go-at-your-own-pace feature, which permits a student to move through the course at a
speed commensurate with his ability and other demands upon his time.
2. The unit-perfection requirement for advance, which lets the student go ahead to new
material only after demonstrating mastery of that which preceded.
3. The use of lectures and demonstrations as vehicles of motivation, rather than sources of
critical information.
4. The related stress upon the written word in teacher-student communication.
5. The use of proctors, which permits repeated testing, immediate scoring, almost unavoidable
tutoring, and a marked enhancement of the personal-social aspect of the educational
process".[9]

Assessment[edit]
In a mastery learning environment, the teacher directs a variety of group-based instructional
techniques, with frequent and specific feedback by using diagnostic, formative tests, as well as
regularly correcting mistakes students make along their learning path. Assessment in the mastery
learning classroom is not used as a measure of accountability but rather as a source of evidence to
guide future instruction. A teacher using the mastery approach will use the evidence generated from

his or her assessment to modify activities to best serve each student. Teachers evaluate students
with criterion-referenced tests rather than norm-referenced tests. In this sense, students are not
competing against each other, but rather competing against themselves in order to achieve a
personal best.

Intelligence quotient
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Iq)

"IQ" redirects here. For other uses, see IQ (disambiguation).

Intelligence quotient
Diagnostics

An example of one kind of IQ test item, modeled after items in

the Raven's Progressive Matrices test

ICD-10-PCS

Z01.8

ICD-9-CM

94.01

An intelligence quotient (IQ) is a score derived from one of several standardized tests designed to
assess human intelligence. The abbreviation "IQ" was coined by the psychologist William Stern for
the German term Intelligenz-quotient, his term for a scoring method for intelligence tests he
advocated in a 1912 book.[1] When current IQ tests are developed, the median raw score of the

norming sample is defined as IQ 100 and scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are
defined as 15 IQ points greater or less,[2] although this was not always so historically. By this
definition, approximately two-thirds of the population scores between IQ 85 and IQ 115, and about 5
percent of the population scores above 125.[3][4]
IQ scores have been shown to be associated with such factors as morbidity and mortality,[5]
[6]

parental social status,[7] and, to a substantial degree, biological parental IQ. While the heritability of

IQ has been investigated for nearly a century, there is still debate about the significance of
heritability estimates[8][9] and the mechanisms of inheritance.[10]
IQ scores are used for educational placement, assessment of intellectual disability, and evaluating
job applicants. In research contexts they have been studied as predictors of job performance,
and income. They are also used to study distributions of psychometric intelligence in populations
and the correlations between it and other variables. Raw scores on IQ tests for many populations
have been rising at an average rate that scales to three IQ points per decade since the early 20th
century, a phenomenon called the Flynn effect. Investigation of different patterns of increases in
subtest scores can also inform current research on human intelligence.
Contents
[hide]

1 History
o

1.1 Precursors to IQ testing

1.2 General factor (g)

1.3 United States military selection in World War I

1.4 CattellHornCarroll theory

1.5 Other theories

2 Current tests

3 Reliability and validity

4 Flynn effect

5 Age

6 Genetics and environment

o

6.1 Heritability

6.2 Shared family environment

6.3 Non-shared family environment and environment outside the family

6.4 Individual genes

6.5 Gene-environment interaction

7 Interventions

8 Music
o

8.1 Music lessons

9 Brain anatomy

10 Health

11 Social correlations
o

11.1 School performance

11.2 Job performance

11.3 Income

11.4 Crime

11.5 Real-life accomplishments

12 Group differences
o

12.1 Sex

12.2 Race and ethnicity

13 Public policy

14 Criticism and views

o

14.1 Relation with intelligence

14.2 Criticism of g

14.3 Test bias

14.4 Outdated methodology

14.5 "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns"

14.6 Dynamic assessment

15 Classification

16 High IQ societies

17 References

18 Bibliography

19 External links

History[edit]
See also: History of the race and intelligence controversy

Precursors to IQ testing[edit]
Historically, even before IQ tests were invented, there were attempts to classify people
into intelligence categories by observing their behavior in daily life.[11][12] Those other forms of
behavioral observation are still important for validating classifications based primarily on IQ test
scores. Both intelligence classification by observation of behavior outside the testing room and
classification by IQ testing depend on the definition of "intelligence" used in a particular case and on
the reliability and error of estimation in the classification procedure.
The English statistician Francis Galton made the first attempt at creating a standardized test for
rating a person's intelligence. A pioneer of psychometrics and the application of statistical methods to
the study of human diversity and the study of inheritance of human traits, he believed that
intelligence was largely a product of heredity (by which he did not mean genes, although he did
develop several pre-Mendelian theories of particulate inheritance).[13][14][15] He hypothesized that there
should exist a correlation between intelligence and other observable traits such as reflexes, muscle
grip, and head size.[16] He set up the first mental testing centre in the world in 1882 and he published
"Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development" in 1883, in which he set out his theories. After
gathering data on a variety of physical variables, he was unable to show any such correlation, and
he eventually abandoned this research.[17][18]

French psychologist Alfred Binetwas one of the key developers of what later became known as theStanford
Binet test.

French psychologist Alfred Binet, together with Victor Henri and Thodore Simon had more success
in 1905, when they published the Binet-Simon test, which focused on verbal abilities. It was intended
to identify mental retardation in school children, [19] but in specific contradistinction to claims made by
psychiatrists that these children were "sick" (not "slow") and should therefore be removed from
school and cared-for in asylums.[20] The score on the Binet-Simon scale would reveal the child's
mental age. For example, a six-year-old child who passed all the tasks usually passed by six-yearoldsbut nothing beyondwould have a mental age that matched his chronological age, 6.0.
(Fancher, 1985). Binet thought that intelligence was multifaceted, but came under the control of
practical judgement.
In Binet's view, there were limitations with the scale and he stressed what he saw as the remarkable
diversity of intelligence and the subsequent need to study it using qualitative, as opposed to
quantitative, measures (White, 2000). American psychologist Henry H. Goddardpublished a
translation of it in 1910. American psychologist Lewis Terman at Stanford University revised the
Binet-Simon scale, which resulted in the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (1916). It became the
most popular test in the United States for decades.[19][21][22][23]

General factor (g)[edit]

Main article: g factor
The many different kinds of IQ tests include a wide variety of item content. Some test items are
visual, while many are verbal. Test items vary from being based on abstract-reasoning problems to
concentrating on arithmetic, vocabulary, or general knowledge.
The British psychologist Charles Spearman in 1904 made the first formal factor
analysis of correlations between the tests. He observed that children's school grades across
seemingly unrelated school subjects were positively correlated, and reasoned that these correlations

reflected the influence of an underlying general mental ability that entered into performance on all
kinds of mental tests. He suggested that all mental performance could be conceptualized in terms of
a single general ability factor and a large number of narrow task-specific ability factors. Spearman
named it g for "general factor" and labeled the specific factors or abilities for specific tasks s. In any
collection of test items that make up an IQ test, the score that best measures g is the composite
score that has the highest correlations with all the item scores. Typically, the "g-loaded" composite
score of an IQ test battery appears to involve a common strength in abstract reasoning across the
test's item content. Therefore, Spearman and others have regarded g as closely related to the
essence of human intelligence.
Spearman's argument proposing a general factor of human intelligence is still accepted in principle
by many psychometricians. Today's factor models of intelligence typically represent cognitive abilities
as a three-level hierarchy, where there are a large number of narrow factors at the bottom of the
hierarchy, a handful of broad, more general factors at the intermediate level, and at the apex a single
factor, referred to as the g factor, which represents the variance common to all cognitive tasks.
However, this view is not universally accepted; other factor analyses of the data, with different
results, are possible. Some psychometricians regard g as a statistical artifact.

United States military selection in World War I[edit]

During World War I, a way was needed to evaluate and assign Army recruits to appropriate tasks.
This led to the rapid development of several mental tests. The testing generated controversy and
much public debate in the United States. Nonverbal or "performance" tests were developed for those
who could not speak English or were suspected of malingering. [19] After the war, positive publicity
promoted by army psychologists helped to make psychology a respected field. [24] Subsequently, there
was an increase in jobs and funding in psychology in the United States. [25] Group intelligence tests
were developed and became widely used in schools and industry.[26]
L.L. Thurstone argued for a model of intelligence that included seven unrelated factors (verbal
comprehension, word fluency, number facility, spatial visualization, associative memory, perceptual
speed, reasoning, and induction). While not widely used, Thurstone's model influenced later
theories.[19]
David Wechsler produced the first version of his test in 1939. It gradually became more popular and
overtook the Stanford-Binet in the 1960s. It has been revised several times, as is common for IQ
tests, to incorporate new research. One explanation is that psychologists and educators wanted
more information than the single score from the Binet. Wechsler's ten or more subtests provided this.
Another is that Stanford-Binet test reflected mostly verbal abilities, while the Wechsler test also
reflected nonverbal abilities. The Stanford-Binet has also been revised several times and is now
similar to the Wechsler in several aspects, but the Wechsler continues to be the most popular test in
the United States.[19]

CattellHornCarroll theory[edit]
Main article: CattellHornCarroll theory

Psychologist Raymond Cattell defined fluid and crystallized intelligenceand authored the Cattell Culture Fair
III IQ test.

Raymond Cattell (1941) proposed two types of cognitive abilities in a revision of Spearman's concept
of general intelligence. Fluid intelligence (Gf) was hypothesized as the ability to solve novel
problems by using reasoning, and crystallized intelligence (Gc) was hypothesized as a knowledgebased ability that was very dependent on education and experience. In addition, fluid intelligence
was hypothesized to decline with age, while crystallized intelligence was largely resistant to the
effects of aging. The theory was almost forgotten, but was revived by his student John L. Horn(1966)
who later argued Gf and Gc were only two among several factors, and who eventually identified nine
or ten broad abilities. The theory continued to be called Gf-Gc theory.[19]
John B. Carroll (1993), after a comprehensive reanalysis of earlier data, proposed the three stratum
theory, which is a hierarchical model with three levels. The bottom stratum consists of narrow
abilities that are highly specialized (e.g., induction, spelling ability). The second stratum consists of
broad abilities. Carroll identified eight second-stratum abilities. Carroll accepted Spearman's concept
of general intelligence, for the most part, as a representation of the uppermost, third stratum. [27][28]
In 1999, a merging of the Gf-Gc theory of Cattell and Horn with Carroll's Three-Stratum theory has
led to the CattellHornCarroll theory (CHC Theory). It has greatly influenced many of the current
broad IQ tests.[19]
In CHC theory, a hierarchy of factors is used; g is at the top. Under it are ten broad abilities that in
turn are subdivided into seventy narrow abilities. The broad abilities are: [19]

Fluid intelligence (Gf) includes the broad ability to reason, form concepts, and solve
problems using unfamiliar information or novel procedures.

Crystallized intelligence (Gc) includes the breadth and depth of a person's acquired
knowledge, the ability to communicate one's knowledge, and the ability to reason using
previously learned experiences or procedures.

Quantitative reasoning (Gq) is the ability to comprehend quantitative concepts and

relationships and to manipulate numerical symbols.

Reading and writing ability (Grw) includes basic reading and writing skills.

Short-term memory (Gsm) is the ability to apprehend and hold information in immediate
awareness, and then use it within a few seconds.

Long-term storage and retrieval (Glr) is the ability to store information and fluently retrieve it
later in the process of thinking.

Visual processing (Gv) is the ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize, and think with visual
patterns, including the ability to store and recall visual representations.

Auditory processing (Ga) is the ability to analyze, synthesize, and discriminate auditory
stimuli, including the ability to process and discriminate speech sounds that may be presented
under distorted conditions.

Processing speed (Gs) is the ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks, particularly when
measured under pressure to maintain focused attention.

Decision/reaction time/speed (Gt) reflects the immediacy with which an individual can react
to stimuli or a task (typically measured in seconds or fractions of seconds; it is not to be
confused with Gs, which typically is measured in intervals of 23 minutes). See Mental
chronometry.

Modern tests do not necessarily measure all of these broad abilities. For example, Gq and Grw may
be seen as measures of school achievement and not IQ. [19] Gt may be difficult to measure without
special equipment. g was earlier often subdivided into only Gf and Gc, which were thought to
correspond to the nonverbal or performance subtests and verbal subtests in earlier versions of the
popular Wechsler IQ test. More recent research has shown the situation to be more complex.
[19]

Modern comprehensive IQ tests don't stop at reporting a single IQ score. Although they still give

an overall score, they now also give scores for many of these more restricted abilities, identifying
particular strengths and weaknesses of an individual.[19]

Other theories[edit]

J.P. Guilford's Structure of Intellect (1967) model used three dimensions which when combined
yielded a total of 120 types of intelligence. It was popular in the 1970s and early 1980s, but faded
owing to both practical problems and theoretical criticisms.[19]
Alexander Luria's earlier work on neuropsychological processes led to the PASS theory (1997). It
argued that only looking at one general factor was inadequate for researchers and clinicians who
worked with learning disabilities, attention disorders, intellectual disability, and interventions for such
disabilities. The PASS model covers four kinds of processes (planning process, attention/arousal
process, simultaneous processing, and successive processing). The planning processes involve
decision making, problem solving, and performing activities and requires goal setting and selfmonitoring. The attention/arousal process involves selectively attending to a particular stimulus,
ignoring distractions, and maintaining vigilance. Simultaneous processing involves the integration of
stimuli into a group and requires the observation of relationships. Successive processing involves
the integration of stimuli into serial order. The planning and attention/arousal components comes
from structures located in the frontal lobe, and the simultaneous and successive processes come
from structures located in the posterior region of the cortex. [29][30][31] It has influenced some recent IQ
tests, and been seen as a complement to the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory described above. [19]

Current tests[edit]

Normalized IQ distribution with mean 100 and standard deviation 15.

There are a variety of individually administered IQ tests in use in the English-speaking world. [32][33] The
most commonly used individual IQ test series is the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale for adults and
the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children for school-age test-takers. Other commonly used
individual IQ tests (some of which do not label their standard scores as "IQ" scores) include the
current versions of the Stanford-Binet, Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities, the Kaufman
Assessment Battery for Children, the Cognitive Assessment System, and the Differential Ability
Scales.
IQ scales are ordinally scaled.[34][35][36][37][38] While one standard deviation is 15 points, and two SDs are
30 points, and so on, this does not imply that mental ability is linearly related to IQ, such that IQ 50
means half the cognitive ability of IQ 100. In particular, IQ points are not percentage points.

Reliability and validity[edit]

Psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability.[39][7] A high reliability
implies thatalthough test-takers may have varying scores when taking the same test on differing
occasions, and they may have varying scores when taking different IQ tests at the same agethe
scores generally agree with one another and across time. Like all statistical quantities, any particular
estimate of IQ has an associated standard error that measures uncertainty about the estimate. For
modern tests, the standard error of measurement is about three points. Clinical psychologists
generally regard IQ scores as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes.[19][40][41]

IQ scores can differ to some degree for the same person on different IQ tests,
so a person does not always belong to the same IQ score range each time the
person is tested. (IQ score table data and pupil pseudonyms adapted from
description of KABC-II norming study cited in Kaufman 2009. )
[42][43]

Pupil

KABC-II

WISC-III

WJ-III

Asher

90

95

111

Brianna

125

110

105

Colin

100

93

101

Danica

116

127

118

Elpha

93

105

93

Fritz

106

105

105

Georgi

95

100

90

Hector

112

113

103

Imelda

104

96

97

Jose

101

99

86

Keoku

81

78

75

Leo

116

124

102

Flynn effect[edit]
Main article: Flynn effect
Since the early 20th century, raw scores on IQ tests have increased in most parts of the world. [44][45]
[46]

When a new version of an IQ test is normed, the standard scoring is set so performance at the

population median results in a score of IQ 100. The phenomenon of rising raw score performance
means if test-takers are scored by a constant standard scoring rule, IQ test scores have been rising
at an average rate of around three IQ points per decade. This phenomenon was named the Flynn
effect in the book The Bell Curveafter James R. Flynn, the author who did the most to bring this
phenomenon to the attention of psychologists.[47][48]
Researchers have been exploring the issue of whether the Flynn effect is equally strong on
performance of all kinds of IQ test items, whether the effect may have ended in some developed
nations, whether there are social subgroup differences in the effect, and what possible causes of the
effect might be.[49] A 1998 textbook, IQ and Human Intelligence, by N. J. Mackintosh, noted that
before Flynn published his major papers, many psychologists mistakenly believed that there were
dysgenic trends gradually reducing the level of intelligence in the general population. They also
believed that no environmental factor could possibly have a strong effect on IQ. Mackintosh noted
that Flynn's observations have prompted much new research in psychology and "demolish some
long-cherished beliefs, and raise a number of other interesting issues along the way." [45]

Age[edit]
IQ can change to some degree over the course of childhood.[50] However, in one longitudinal study,
the mean IQ scores of tests at ages 17 and 18 were correlated at r=0.86 with the mean scores of
tests at ages five, six, and seven and at r=0.96 with the mean scores of tests at ages 11, 12, and 13.
[7]

For decades practitioners' handbooks and textbooks on IQ testing have reported IQ declines with
age after the beginning of adulthood. However, later researchers pointed out this phenomenon is
related to the Flynn effect and is in part a cohort effect rather than a true aging effect. A variety of
studies of IQ and aging have been conducted since the norming of the first Wechsler Intelligence
Scale drew attention to IQ differences in different age groups of adults. Current consensus is
that fluid intelligence generally declines with age after early adulthood, while crystallized
intelligence remains intact. Both cohort effects (the birth year of the test-takers) and practice effects
(test-takers taking the same form of IQ test more than once) must be controlled to gain accurate
data. It is unclear whether any lifestyle intervention can preserve fluid intelligence into older ages. [51]
The exact peak age of fluid intelligence or crystallized intelligence remains elusive. Cross-sectional
studies usually show that especially fluid intelligence peaks at a relatively young age (often in the
early adulthood) while longitudinal data mostly show that intelligence is stable until the mid
adulthood or later. Subsequently, intelligence seems to decline slowly.[52]

Genetics and environment[edit]

Environmental and genetic factors play a role in determining IQ. Their relative importance has been
the subject of much research and debate.

Heritability[edit]
See also: Heritability of IQ and Environment and intelligence
Heritability is defined as the proportion of variance in a trait which is attributable to genotype within a
defined population in a specific environment. A number of points must be considered when
interpreting heritability.[53] Heritability measures the proportion of 'variation' in a trait that can be
attributed to genes, and not the proportion of a trait caused by genes. The value of heritability can
change if the impact of environment (or of genes) in the population is substantially altered. A high
heritability of a trait does not mean environmental effects, such as learning, are not involved. Since
heritability increases during childhood and adolescence, one should be cautious drawing
conclusions regarding the role of genetics and environment from studies where the participants are
not followed until they are adults.
Twin studies have found the heritability of IQ in adult twins to be 0.7 to 0.8 and in child twins 0.45 in
the Western world.[7][54][55] It may seem reasonable to expect genetic influences on traits like IQ to
become less important as one gains experiences with age. However, the opposite occurs.
Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as
0.8 in adulthood.[56] One proposed explanation is that people with different genes tend to reinforce the
effects of those genes, for example by seeking out different environments. [7] Debate is ongoing about
whether these heritability estimates are too high, owing to inadequate consideration of various
factorssuch as the environment being relatively more important in families with low socioeconomic
status, or the effect of the maternal (fetal) environment.
Research shows that molecular genetics of psychology and social science requires approaches that
go beyond the examination of candidate genes.[57]

Shared family environment[edit]

Family members have aspects of environments in common (for example, characteristics of the
home). This shared family environment accounts for 0.250.35 of the variation in IQ in childhood. By
late adolescence, it is quite low (zero in some studies). The effect for several other psychological
traits is similar. These studies have not looked at the effects of extreme environments, such as in
abusive families.[7][58][59][60]

Non-shared family environment and environment outside the family[edit]

Although parents treat their children differently, such differential treatment explains only a small
amount of nonshared environmental influence. One suggestion is that children react differently to the
same environment because of different genes. More likely influences may be the impact of peers
and other experiences outside the family.[7][59]

Individual genes[edit]

A very large proportion of the over 17,000 human genes are thought to have an effect on the
development and functionality of the brain.[61] While a number of individual genes have been reported
to be associated with IQ, none have a strong effect. Deary and colleagues (2009) reported that no
finding of a strong gene effect on IQ has been replicated.[62] Most reported associations of genes with
intelligence are false positive results.[57] Recent findings of gene associations with normally
varying intelligence differences in adults continue to show weak effects for any one gene; [63] likewise
in children.[64]

Gene-environment interaction[edit]
David Rowe reported an interaction of genetic effects with socioeconomic status, such that the
heritability was high in high-SES families, but much lower in low-SES families. [65]This has been
replicated in infants,[66] children [67] and adolescents [68] in the US, though not outside the US, for
instance a reverse result was reported in the UK.[69]
Dickens and Flynn (2001) have argued that genes for high IQ initiate environment-shaping feedback,
as genetic effects cause bright children to seek out more stimulating environments that further
increase IQ. In their model, environment effects decay over time (the model could be adapted to
include possible factors, like nutrition in early childhood, that may cause permanent effects). The
Flynn effect can be explained by a generally more stimulating environment for all people. The
authors suggest that programs aiming to increase IQ would be most likely to produce long-term IQ
gains if they caused children to persist in seeking out cognitively demanding experiences. [70][71]

Interventions[edit]
In general, educational interventions, as those described below, have shown short-term effects on
IQ, but long-term follow-up is often missing. For example, in the US very large intervention programs
such as the Head Start Program have not produced lasting gains in IQ scores. More intensive, but
much smaller projects such as the Abecedarian Projecthave reported lasting effects, often on
socioeconomic status variables, rather than IQ.[7]
Recent studies have shown that training in using one's working memory may increase IQ. A study on
young adults published in April 2008 by a team from the Universities of Michigan and Bern supports
the possibility of the transfer of fluid intelligence from specifically designed working memory training.
[72]

Further research will be needed to determine nature, extent and duration of the proposed transfer.

Among other questions, it remains to be seen whether the results extend to other kinds of fluid
intelligence tests than the matrix test used in the study, and if so, whether, after training, fluid
intelligence measures retain their correlation with educational and occupational achievement or if the
value of fluid intelligence for predicting performance on other tasks changes. It is also unclear
whether the training is durable of extended periods of time. [73]

Music[edit]

Musical training in childhood has been found to correlate with higher than average IQ. [74][75] Multiple
attempted replications (e.g.[76]) have shown that this is at best a short-term effect (lasting no longer
than 10 to 15 minutes), and is not related to IQ-increase.[77]

Music lessons[edit]
In 2004, Schellenberg devised an experiment to test his hypothesis that music lessons can enhance
the IQ of children. He had 144 samples of 6 year old children which were put into 4 groups;
keyboard lessons, vocal lessons, drama lessons or no lessons at all, for 36 weeks. The samples' IQ
was measured both before and after the lessons had taken place using the Wechsler Intelligence
Scale for ChildrenThird Edition, Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement and Parent Rating Scale
of the Behavioral Assessment System for Children. All four groups had increases in IQ, most likely
resulted by the entrance of grade school. The notable difference with the two music groups
compared to the two controlled groups was a slightly higher increase in IQ. The children in the
control groups on average had an increase in IQ of 4.3 points, while the increase in IQ of the music
groups was 7.0 points. Though the increases in IQ were not dramatic, one can still conclude that
musical lessons do have a positive effect for children, if taken at a young age. It is hypothesized that
improvements in IQ occur after musical lessons because the music lessons encourage multiple
experiences which generates progression in a wide range of abilities for the children. Testing this
hypothesis however, has proven difficult.[78]

Brain anatomy[edit]
Main article: Neuroscience and intelligence
Several neurophysiological factors have been correlated with intelligence in humans, including the
ratio of brain weight to body weight and the size, shape and activity level of different parts of the
brain. Specific features that may affect IQ include the size and shape of the frontal lobes, the amount
of blood and chemical activity in the frontal lobes, the total amount of gray matter in the brain, the
overall thickness of the cortex and the glucose metabolic rate.[79]

Health[edit]
Main articles: Impact of health on intelligence and Cognitive epidemiology
Health is important in understanding differences in IQ test scores and other measures of cognitive
ability. Several factors can lead to significant cognitive impairment, particularly if they occur during
pregnancy and childhood when the brain is growing and the bloodbrain barrier is less effective.
Such impairment may sometimes be permanent, sometimes be partially or wholly compensated for
by later growth.[citation needed] A cohort study confers the relationship between familial inbreeding and
modest cognitive impairments among children, providing the evidence for inbreeding depression on
intellectual behaviors on comparing with environmental and socioeconomic variables.[80]

Since about 2010 researchers such as Eppig, Hassel and MacKenzie have found a very close and
consistent link between IQ scores and infectious diseases, especially in the infant and preschool
populations and the mothers of these children.[81] They have postulated that fighting infectious
diseases strains the child's metabolism and prevents full brain development. Hassel postulated that
it is by far the most important factor in determining population IQ. However they also found that
subsequent factors such as good nutrition, regular quality schooling can offset early negative effects
to some extent.
Developed nations have implemented several health policies regarding nutrients and toxins known
to influence cognitive function. These include laws requiring fortification of certain food products and
laws establishing safe levels of pollutants (e.g. lead, mercury, and organochlorides). Improvements
in nutrition, and in public policy in general, have been implicated in worldwide IQ increases. [citation needed]
Cognitive epidemiology is a field of research that examines the associations between intelligence
test scores and health. Researchers in the field argue that intelligence measured at an early age is
an important predictor of later health and mortality differences.

Social correlations[edit]
School performance[edit]
The American Psychological Association's report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" states that
wherever it has been studied, children with high scores on tests of intelligence tend to learn more of
what is taught in school than their lower-scoring peers. The correlation between IQ scores and
grades is about .50. This means that the explained variance is 25%. Achieving good grades depends
on many factors other than IQ, such as "persistence, interest in school, and willingness to study"
(p. 81).[7]
It has been found that the correlation of IQ scores with school performance depends on the IQ
measurement used. For undergraduate students, the Verbal IQ as measured by WAIS-R has been
found to correlate significantly (0.53) with the GPA of the last 60 hours. In contrast, Performance IQ
correlation with the same GPA was only 0.22 in the same study.[82]
Some measures of educational aptitude correlate highly with IQ tests for instance, Frey and
Detterman (2004) reported a correlation of 0.82 between g (general intelligence factor)
and SAT scores;[83] another research found a correlation of 0.81 between g and GCSE scores, with
the explained variance ranging "from 58.6% in Mathematics and 48% in English to 18.1% in Art and
Design".[84]

Job performance[edit]
According to Schmidt and Hunter, "for hiring employees without previous experience in the job the
most valid predictor of future performance is general mental ability." [85] The validity of IQ as a
predictor of job performance is above zero for all work studied to date, but varies with the type of job

and across different studies, ranging from 0.2 to 0.6. [86]The correlations were higher when the
unreliability of measurement methods was controlled for.[7] While IQ is more strongly correlated with
reasoning and less so with motor function,[87] IQ-test scores predict performance ratings in all
occupations.[85] That said, for highly qualified activities (research, management) low IQ scores are
more likely to be a barrier to adequate performance, whereas for minimally-skilled activities, athletic
strength (manual strength, speed, stamina, and coordination) are more likely to influence
performance.[85] It is largely through the quicker acquisition of job-relevant knowledge that higher IQ
mediates job performance.
In establishing a causal direction to the link between IQ and work performance, longitudinal studies
by Watkins and others suggest that IQ exerts a causal influence on future academic achievement,
whereas academic achievement does not substantially influence future IQ scores. [88] Treena Eileen
Rohde and Lee Anne Thompson write that general cognitive ability, but not specific ability scores,
predict academic achievement, with the exception that processing speed and spatial ability predict
performance on the SAT math beyond the effect of general cognitive ability.[89]
The US military has minimum enlistment standards at about the IQ 85 level. There have been two
experiments with lowering this to 80 but in both cases these men could not master soldiering well
enough to justify their costs.[90]

Income[edit]
While it has been suggested that "in economic terms it appears that the IQ score measures
something with decreasing marginal value. It is important to have enough of it, but having lots and
lots does not buy you that much.",[91][92] large scale longitudinal studies indicate an increase in IQ
translates into an increase in performance at all levels of IQ: i.e., that ability and job performance
are monotonically linked at all IQ levels.[93] Charles Murray, coauthor of The Bell Curve, found that IQ
has a substantial effect on income independently of family background. [94]
The link from IQ to wealth is much less strong than that from IQ to job performance. Some studies
indicate that IQ is unrelated to net worth.[95][96]
The American Psychological Association's 1995 report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated
that IQ scores accounted for (explained variance) about a quarter of the social status variance and
one-sixth of the income variance. Statistical controls for parental SES eliminate about a quarter of
this predictive power. Psychometric intelligence appears as only one of a great many factors that
influence social outcomes.[7]
Some studies claim that IQ only accounts for (explains) a sixth of the variation in income because
many studies are based on young adults, many of whom have not yet reached their peak earning
capacity, or even their education. On pg 568 of The g Factor, Arthur Jensen claims that although the
correlation between IQ and income averages a moderate 0.4 (one sixth or 16% of the variance), the
relationship increases with age, and peaks at middle age when people have reached their maximum

career potential. In the book, A Question of Intelligence, Daniel Seligman cites an IQ income
correlation of 0.5 (25% of the variance).
A 2002 study[97] further examined the impact of non-IQ factors on income and concluded that an
individual's location, inherited wealth, race, and schooling are more important as factors in
determining income than IQ.

Crime[edit]
The American Psychological Association's 1995 report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated
that the correlation between IQ and crime was 0.2. It was 0.19 between IQ scores and number of
juvenile offenses in a large Danish sample; with social class controlled, the correlation dropped to
0.17. A correlation of 0.20 means that the explained variance is 4%. It is important to realize that
the causal links between psychometric ability and social outcomes may be indirect. Children with
poor scholastic performance may feel alienated. Consequently, they may be more likely to engage in
delinquent behavior, compared to other children who do well.[7]
In his book The g Factor (1998), Arthur Jensen cited data which showed that, regardless of race,
people with IQs between 70 and 90 have higher crime rates than people with IQs below or above
this range, with the peak range being between 80 and 90.
The 2009 Handbook of Crime Correlates stated that reviews have found that around eight IQ points,
or 0.5 SD, separate criminals from the general population, especially for persistent serious
offenders. It has been suggested that this simply reflects that "only dumb ones get caught" but there
is similarly a negative relation between IQ and self-reported offending. That children with conduct
disorder have lower IQ than their peers "strongly argues" for the theory.[98]
A study of the relationship between US county-level IQ and US county-level crime rates found that
higher average IQs were associated with lower levels of property crime, burglary, larceny rate, motor
vehicle theft, violent crime, robbery, and aggravated assault. These results were not "confounded by
a measure of concentrated disadvantage that captures the effects of race, poverty, and other social
disadvantages of the county."[99][100]
The American Psychological Association's 1995 report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated
that the correlations for most "negative outcome" variables are typically smaller than 0.20, which
means that the explained variance is less than 4%.[7]
Tambs et al.[101][better source needed] found that occupational status, educational attainment, and IQ are
individually heritable; and further found that "genetic variance influencing educational attainment ...
contributed approximately one-fourth of the genetic variance for occupational status and nearly half
the genetic variance for IQ." In a sample of U.S. siblings, Rowe et al.[102] report that the inequality in
education and income was predominantly due to genes, with shared environmental factors playing a
subordinate role.

Real-life accomplishments[edit]
Average adult combined IQs associated with real-life accomplishments by various tests [103]
[104]

Accomplishment

MDs, JDs, and PhDs

IQ

125

Test/study

Year

WAIS-R

1987

KAIT

2000

K-BIT

1992

112
College graduates

115

WAIS-R

KAIT
104
K-BIT

13 years of college
105
110

Clerical and sales workers

High school graduates, skilled workers (e.g., electricians,

WAIS-R

100
105

100

KAIT

cabinetmakers)
WAIS-R

13 years of high school (completed 911 years of school)

97

K-BIT

94

KAIT

90

K-BIT

95

WAIS-R

Semi-skilled workers (e.g. truck drivers, factory workers)

9095

Elementary school graduates (completed eighth grade)

90

Elementary school dropouts (completed 07 years of school)

8085

Have 50/50 chance of reaching high school

75

Average IQ of various occupational groups:[105]

Accomplishment

IQ

Professional and technical

112

Managers and administrators

104

Clerical workers, sales workers, skilled workers, craftsmen, and foremen 101

Test/study Year

Semi-skilled workers (operatives, service workers, including private

92

household)

Unskilled workers

87

Type of work that can be accomplished:[103]

Accomplishment

IQ

Adults can harvest vegetables, repair furniture

60

Adults can do domestic work

50

Test/study

Year

There is considerable variation within and overlap among these categories. People with high IQs are
found at all levels of education and occupational categories. The biggest difference occurs for low
IQs with only an occasional college graduate or professional scoring below 90. [19]

Group differences[edit]
Among the most controversial issues related to the study of intelligence is the observation that
intelligence measures such as IQ scores vary between ethnic and racial groups and sexes. While
there is little scholarly debate about the existence of some of these differences, their causes remain
highly controversial both within academia and in the public sphere.

Sex[edit]
Main article: Sex and psychology
Most IQ tests are constructed so that there are no overall score differences between females and
males.[106][107] Popular IQ batteries such as the WAIS and the WISC-R are also constructed in order to
eliminate sex differences.[108] In a paper presented at the International Society for Intelligence
Research in 2002, it was pointed out that because test constructors and the Educational Testing
Service (which developed the SAT) often eliminate items showing marked sex differences in order to
reduce the perception of bias, the "true sex" difference is masked. Items like the MRT and RT tests
that show a male advantage in IQ are often removed. [109]

Race and ethnicity[edit]

Main article: Race and intelligence

The 1996 Task Force investigation on Intelligence sponsored by the American Psychological
Association concluded that there are significant variations in IQ across races. [7] The problem of
determining the causes underlying this variation relates to the question of the contributions of "nature
and nurture" to IQ. Psychologists such as Alan S. Kaufman[110]and Nathan Brody[111] and statisticians
such as Bernie Devlin[112] argue that there are insufficient data to conclude that this is because of
genetic influences. A review article published in 2012 by leading scholars on human intelligence
concluded, after reviewing the prior research literature, that group differences in IQ are best
understood as environmental in origin.[113]
In considering disparities between test results of different ethnic groups, it is crucial to investigate the
effects of Stereotype Threat (a situational predicament in which a person feels at risk of confirming
negative stereotypes about the group(s) s/he identifies with), [114] as well as culture and acculturation.
[115]

Public policy[edit]
Main article: Intelligence and public policy
In the United States, certain public policies and laws regarding military service,[116] [117] education,
public benefits,[118] capital punishment,[119] and employment incorporate an individual's IQ into their
decisions. However, in the case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. in 1971, for the purpose of minimizing
employment practices that disparately impacted racial minorities, the U.S. Supreme Court banned
the use of IQ tests in employment, except when linked to job performance via a job analysis.
Internationally, certain public policies, such as improving nutrition and prohibiting neurotoxins, have
as one of their goals raising, or preventing a decline in, intelligence.
A diagnosis of intellectual disability is in part based on the results of IQ testing. Borderline intellectual
functioning is a categorization where a person has below average cognitive ability (an IQ of 7185),
but the deficit is not as severe as intellectual disability (70 or below).
In the United Kingdom, the eleven plus exam which incorporated an intelligence test has been used
from 1945 to decide, at eleven years of age, which type of school a child should go to. They have
been much less used since the widespread introduction of comprehensive schools.

Criticism and views[edit]

Metacognition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Metacognition is "cognition about cognition", or "knowing about knowing". It comes from the root
word "meta", meaning beyond.[1] It can take many forms; it includes knowledge about when and how
to use particular strategies for learning or for problem solving.[1] There are generally two components
of metacognition: knowledge about cognition, and regulation of cognition. [2]
Metamemory, defined as knowing about memory and mnemonic strategies, is an especially
important form of metacognition.[3] Differences in metacognitive processing across cultures have not
been widely studied, but could provide better outcomes in cross-cultural learning between teachers
and students.[4]
Some evolutionary psychologists hypothesize that metacognition is used as a survival tool, which
would make metacognition the same across cultures.[4] Writings on metacognition can be traced back
at least as far as Per Pschs; and the Parva Naturalia of the Greek philosopher Aristotle.[5]
Contents
[hide]

1 Definitions

2 Components

3 Relation to sapience

4 Metacognitive strategies

5 Metastrategic knowledge

6 Metacognition and action

7 Mental illness and metacognition

o

7.1 Sparks of interest

7.2 Implications

8 Works of art as metacognitive artifacts

9 Mind wandering and metacognition

10 See also

11 References

12 Further reading

13 External links

Definitions[edit]

This higher-level cognition was given the label metacognition by American developmental
psychologist John Flavell (1979).
The term metacognition literally means cognition about cognition, or more informally, thinking about
thinking. Flavell defined metacognition as knowledge about cognition and control of cognition. For
example, I am engaging in metacognition if I notice that I am having more trouble learning A than B;
[or] if it strikes me that I should double check C before accepting it as fact. J. H. Flavell (1976,
p. 232). Andreas Demetriou, in his theory, one of the neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive
development, used the term hypercognition to refer to self-monitoring, self-representation, and selfregulation processes, which are regarded as integral components of the human mind. [6] Moreover,
with his colleagues, he showed that these processes participate in general intelligence, together with
processing efficiency and reasoning, which have traditionally been considered to compose fluid
intelligence.[7]
Metacognition also thinks about one's own thinking process such as study skills, memory
capabilities, and the ability to monitor learning. This concept needs to be explicitly taught along with
content instruction. Metacognitive knowledge is about our own cognitive processes and our
understanding of how to regulate those processes to maximize learning.
Some types of metacognitive knowledge would include:

Person knowledge (declarative knowledge) which is understanding one's own capabilities

Task knowledge (procedural knowledge) which is how one perceives the difficulty of a task
which is the content, length, and the type of assignment

Strategic knowledge (conditional knowledge) which is one's own capability for using
strategies to learn information. Young children are not particularly good at this; it is not until
upper elementary where students start to develop the understanding of strategies that will be
effective.

Different fields define metacognition very differently. Metacognition variously refers to the study of
memory-monitoring and self-regulation, meta-reasoning,consciousness/awareness and autoconsciousness/self-awareness. In practice these capacities are used to regulate one's own
cognition, to maximize one's potential to think,learn and to the evaluation of proper ethical/moral
rules.
In the domain of experimental psychology, an influential distinction in metacognition (proposed by T.
O. Nelson & L. Narens) is between Monitoringmaking judgments about the strength of one's
memoriesand Controlusing those judgments to guide behavior (in particular, to guide study
choices). Dunlosky, Serra, and Baker (2007) covered this distinction in a review of metamemory
research that focused on how findings from this domain can be applied to other areas of applied
research.
In the domain of cognitive neuroscience, metacognitive monitoring and control has been viewed as a
function of the prefrontal cortex, which receives (monitors) sensory signals from other cortical
regions and through feedback loops implements control (see chapters by Schwartz & Bacon and
Shimamura, in Dunlosky & Bjork, 2008).[3]
Metacognition is studied in the domain of artificial intelligence and modelling.[8] Therefore, it is the
domain of interest of emergent systemics.
It has been used, albeit off the original definition, to describe one's own knowledge that we will die.
Writers in the 1990s involved with the grunge music scene often used the term to describe selfawareness of mortality.[citation needed]

Components[edit]
Metacognition is classified into three components:[9]
1. Metacognitive knowledge (also called metacognitive awareness) is what individuals know
about themselves and others as cognitive processors.
2. Metacognitive regulation is the regulation of cognition and learning experiences through a
set of activities that help people control their learning.
3. Metacognitive experiences are those experiences that have something to do with the
current, on-going cognitive endeavor.
Metacognition refers to a level of thinking that involves active control over the process of thinking
that is used in learning situations. Planning the way to approach a learning task, monitoring
comprehension, and evaluating the progress towards the completion of a task: these are skills that
are metacognitive in their nature.
Metacognition includes at least three different types of metacognitive awareness when considering
metacognitive knowledge:[10]
1. Declarative knowledge: refers to knowledge about oneself as a learner and about what
factors can influence one's performance.[2] Declarative knowledge can also be referred to as
"world knowledge".[11]
2. Procedural knowledge: refers to knowledge about doing things. This type of knowledge is
displayed as heuristics and strategies.[2] A high degree of procedural knowledge can allow
individuals to perform tasks more automatically. This is achieved through a large variety of
strategies that can be accessed more efficiently.[12]
3. Conditional knowledge: refers to knowing when and why to use declarative and procedural
knowledge.[13] It allows students to allocate their resources when using strategies. This in
turn allows the strategies to become more effective.[14]
Similar to metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive regulation or "regulation of cognition" contains
three skills that are essential.[2][15]
1. Planning: refers to the appropriate selection of strategies and the correct allocation of
resources that affect task performance.
2. Monitoring: refers to one's awareness of comprehension and task performance
3. Evaluating: refers to appraising the final product of a task and the efficiency at which the
task was performed. This can include re-evaluating strategies that were used.
Similarly, maintaining motivation to see a task to completion is also a metacognitive skill. The ability
to become aware of distracting stimuli both internal and external and sustain effort over time also
involves metacognitive or executive functions. The theory that metacognition has a critical role to
play in successful learning means it is important that it be demonstrated by both students and
teachers.
Students who demonstrate a wide range of metacognitive skills perform better on exams and
complete work more efficiently. They are self-regulated learners who utilize the "right tool for the job"
and modify learning strategies and skills based on their awareness of effectiveness. Individuals with

a high level of metacognitive knowledge and skill identify blocks to learning as early as possible and
change "tools" or strategies to ensure goal attainment. Swanson (1990) found that metacognitive
knowledge can compensate for IQ and lack of prior knowledge when comparing fifth and sixth grade
students' problem solving. Students with a high-metacognition were reported to have used fewer
strategies, but solved problems more effectively than low-metacognition students, regardless of IQ
or prior knowledge.[16]
Metacognologists are aware of their own strengths and weaknesses, the nature of the task at hand,
and available "tools" or skills. A broader repertoire of "tools" also assists in goal attainment. When
"tools" are general, generic, and context independent, they are more likely to be useful in different
types of learning situations.
Another distinction in metacognition is executive management and strategic knowledge. Executive
management processes involve planning, monitoring, evaluating and revising one's own thinking
processes and products. Strategic knowledge involves knowing what (factual or declarative
knowledge), knowing when and why (conditional or contextual knowledge) and
knowing how (procedural or methodological knowledge). Both executive management and strategic
knowledge metacognition are needed to self-regulate one's own thinking and learning. [17]
Finally, there is no distinction between domain-general and domain-specific metacognitive skills. This
means that metacognitive skills are domain-general in nature and there are no specific skills for
certain subject areas. The metacognitive skills that are used to review an essay are the same as
those that are used to verify an answer to a math question. [18]
Metacognitive experience is responsible for creating an identity that matters to an individual. The
creation of the identity with meta-cognitive experience is linked to the identity-based motivation (IBM)
model. The identity-based motivation model implies that "identities matter because they provide a
basis for meaning making and for action."[19] A person decides also if the identity matters in two ways
with meta-cognitive experience. First, a current or possible identity is either "part of the self and so
worth pursuing"[20] or the individual thinks that the identity is part of their self, yet it is conflicting with
more important identities and the individual will decide if the identity is or is not worth pursuing.
Second, it also helps an individual decide if an identity should be pursued or abandoned.
Usually, abandoning identity has been linked to meta-cognitive difficulty. Based on the identity-based
motivation model there are naive theories describing difficulty as a way to continue to pursue an
identity. The incremental theory of ability states that if "effort matters then difficulty is likely to be
interpreted as meaning that more effort is needed."[21]Here is an example: a woman who loves to play
clarinet has come upon a hard piece of music. She knows that how much effort she puts into
learning this piece is beneficial. The piece had difficulty so she knew the effort was needed. The
identity the woman wants to pursue is to be a good clarinet player; having a metacognitive
experience difficulty pushed her to learn the difficult piece to continue to identify with her identity. The
entity theory of ability represents the opposite. This theory states that if "effort does not matter then
difficulty is likely to be interpreted as meaning that ability is lacking so effort should be
suspended."[21] Based on the example of the woman playing the clarinet, if she did not want to
identify herself as a good clarinet player, she would not have put in any effort to learn the difficult
piece which is an example of using metacognitive experience difficulty to abandon an identity.[22]

Relation to sapience[edit]
Metacognologists believe that the ability to consciously think about thinking is unique
to sapient species and indeed is one of the definitions of sapience.[citation needed] There is evidence
that rhesus monkeys and apes can make accurate judgments about the strengths of their memories
of fact and monitor their own uncertainty,[23] while attempts to demonstrate metacognition in birds
have been inconclusive.[24] A 2007 study has provided some evidence for metacognition in rats,[25][26]
[27]
but further analysis suggested that they may have been following simple operant
conditioning principles,[28] or a behavioral economic model.[29]

Metacognitive strategies[edit]
Metacognitive-like processes are especially ubiquitous when it comes to the discussion of selfregulated learning. Being engaged in metacognition is a salient feature of good self-regulated
learners.[citation needed] Reinforcing collective discussion of metacognition is a salient feature of self-critical
and self-regulating social groups.[citation needed] The activities of strategy selection and application include
those concerned with an ongoing attempt to plan, check, monitor, select, revise, evaluate, etc.
Metacognition is 'stable' in that learners' initial decisions derive from the pertinent facts about their
cognition through years of learning experience. Simultaneously, it is also 'situated' in the sense that it
depends on learners' familiarity with the task, motivation, emotion, and so forth. Individuals need to
regulate their thoughts about the strategy they are using and adjust it based on the situation to which
the strategy is being applied. At a professional level, this has led to emphasis on the development
of reflective practice, particularly in the education and health-care professions.
Recently, the notion has been applied to the study of second language learners in the field
of TESOL and applied linguistics in general (e.g., Wenden, 1987; Zhang, 2001, 2010). This new
development has been much related to Flavell (1979), where the notion of metacognition is
elaborated within a tripartite theoretical framework. Learner metacognition is defined and
investigated by examining their person knowledge, task knowledge and strategy knowledge.
Wenden (1991) has proposed and used this framework and Zhang (2001) has adopted this
approach and investigated second language learners' metacognition or metacognitive knowledge. In
addition to exploring the relationships between learner metacognition and performance, researchers
are also interested in the effects of metacognitively-oriented strategic instruction on reading
comprehension (e.g., Garner, 1994, in first language contexts, and Chamot, 2005; Zhang, 2010).
The efforts are aimed at developing learner autonomy, interdependence and self-regulation.
Metacognition helps people to perform many cognitive tasks more effectively.[1] Strategies for
promoting metacognition include self-questioning (e.g. "What do I already know about this topic?
How have I solved problems like this before?"), thinking aloud while performing a task, and making
graphic representations (e.g. concept maps, flow charts, semantic webs) of one's thoughts and
knowledge. Carr, 2002, argues that the physical act of writing plays a large part in the development
of metacognitive skills.[30]
Strategy Evaluation matrices (SEM) can help to improve the knowledge of cognition component of
metacogntion. The SEM works by identifying the declarative (Column 1), procedural (Column 2) and
conditional (Column 3 and 4) knowledge about specific strategies. The SEM can help individuals
identify the strength and weaknesses about certain strategies as well as introduce them to new
strategies that they can add to their repertoire.[31]
A regulation checklist (RC) is a useful strategy for improving the regulation of cognition aspect of
one's metacognition. RCs help individuals to implement a sequence of thoughts that allow them to
go over their own metacogntion.[31] King (1991) found that fifth-grade students who used a regulation
checklist outperformed control students when looking at a variety of questions including written
problem solving, asking strategic questions, and elaborating information. [32]
Metacognitive strategies training can consist of coaching the students in thinking skills that will allow
them to monitor their own learning. Examples of strategies that can be taught to students are word
analysis skills, active reading strategies, listening skills, organizational skills and creating mnemonic
devices.[33]

Metastrategic knowledge[edit]
"Metastrategic knowledge" (MSK) is a sub-component of metacognition that is defined as general
knowledge about higher order thinking strategies. MSK had been defined as "general knowledge

about the cognitive procedures that are being manipulated". The knowledge involved in MSK
consists of "making generalizations and drawing rules regarding a thinking strategy" and of "naming"
the thinking strategy.[34]
The important conscious act of a metastrategic strategy is the "conscious" awareness that one is
performing a form of higher order thinking. MSK is an awareness of the type of thinking strategies
being used in specific instances and it consists of the following abilities: making generalizations and
drawing rules regarding a thinking strategy, naming the thinking strategy, explaining when, why and
how such a thinking strategy should be used, when it should not be used, what are the
disadvantages of not using appropriate strategies, and what task characteristics call for the use of
the strategy.[35]
MSK deals with the broader picture of the conceptual problem. It creates rules to describe and
understand the physical world around the people who utilize these processes called higher-order
thinking. This is the capability of the individual to take apart complex problems in order to understand
the components in problem. These are the building blocks to understanding the "big picture" (of the
main problem) through reflection and problem solving.[36]
Characteristics of Theory of Mind: Understanding the mind and the "mental world":
1. False beliefs: understanding that a belief is only one of many and can be false.
2. Appearancereality distinctions: something may look one way but may be something else.
3. Visual perspective taking: the views of physical objects differ based on perspective.
4. Introspection: children's awareness and understanding of their own thoughts.

Metacognition and action[edit]

Both social and cognitive dimensions of sporting expertise can be adequately explained from a
metacognitive perspective according to recent research. The potential of metacognitive inferences
and domain-general skills including psychological skills training are integral to the genesis of expert
performance. Moreover, the contribution of both mental imagery (e.g., mental practice) and
attentional strategies (e.g., routines) to our understanding of expertise and metacognition is
noteworthy.[37] The potential of metacognition to illuminate our understanding of action was first
highlighted by Aidan Moran who discussed the role of meta-attention in 1996 [38] A recent research
initiative, a research seminar series called META funded by the BPS, is exploring the role of the
related constructs of meta-motivation, meta-emotion, and thinking and action (metacognition).

Mental illness and metacognition[edit]

Sparks of interest[edit]
In the context of mental health, metacognition can be loosely defined as the process that "reinforces
one's subjective sense of being a self and allows for becoming aware that some of one's thoughts
and feelings are symptoms of an illness.[39]" The interest in metacognition emerged from a concern
for an individual's ability to understand their own mental status compared to others as well as the
ability to cope with the source of their distress.[40] These insights into an individual's mental health
status can have a profound effect on the over-all prognosis and recovery. Metacognition brings many
unique insights into the normal daily functioning of a human being. It also demonstrates that a lack of
these insights compromises 'normal' functioning. This leads to less healthy functioning. In
the Autism spectrum, there is a profound inability to feel empathy towards the minds of other human
beings.[41] In people who identify as alcoholics, there is a belief that the need to control cognitions is

an independent predictor of alcohol use over anxiety. Alcohol may be used as a coping strategy for
controlling unwanted thoughts and emotions formed by negative perceptions. [42] This is sometimes
referred to as self medication.

Implications[edit]
Well's and Matthew's[43] theory proposes that when faced with an undesired choice, an individual can
operate in two distinct modes: 'object' and 'Metacognitive.' Object mode interprets perceived stimuli
as truth, where Metacognitive mode understands thoughts as cues that have to be weighted and
evaluated. They are not as easily trusted. There are targeted interventions unique of each patient,
that gives rise to the belief that assistance in increasing metacognition in people diagnosed with
schizophrenia is possible through tailored psychotherapy. With a customized therapy in place clients
then have the potential to develop greater ability to engage in complex self-reflection. [44] This can
ultimately be pivotal in the patient's recovery process. In the Obsessive Compulsive
Disorder spectrum, cognitive formulations have greater attention to intrusive thoughts related to the
disorder. "Cognitive Self-Consciousness" are the tendencies to focus attention on thought. Patients
with OCD exemplify varying degrees of these 'intrusive thoughts.' Patients also suffering
from Generalized Anxiety Disorder also show negative thought process in their cognition.[45]
With any metacognition strategy, the main consensus is to believe that they are good. But in all
actuality some may be very harmful. Cognitive-Attentional Syndrome (CAS) characterizes a
Metacognitive model of emotion disorder. ((CAS is consistent with the constant with the attention
strategy of excessively focusing on the source of a threat.)) This ultimately develops through the
client's own beliefs. Metacognitive therapy attempts to correct this change in the CAS. One of the
techniques in this model is called Attention Training (ATT).[46] It was designed to diminish the worry
and anxiety by a sense of control and cognitive awareness. Also ATT trains clients to detect threats,
test how controllable reality appears to be.[47]

Works of art as metacognitive artifacts[edit]

The concept of metacognition has also been applied to reader-response criticism. Narrative works of
art, including novels, movies and musical compositions, can be characterized as
metacognitive artifacts which are designed by the artist to anticipate and regulate the beliefs and
cognitive processes of the recipient,[48] for instance, how and in which order events and their causes
and identities are revealed to the reader of a detective story. As Menakhem Perry has pointed out,
mere order has profound effects on the aesthetical meaning of a text.[49] Narrative works of art
contain a representation of their own ideal reception process. They are something of a tool with
which the creators of the work wish to attain certain aesthetical and even moral effects. [50]

Mind wandering and metacognition[edit]

There is an intimate, dynamic interplay between mind wandering and metacognition. Metacognition
serves to correct the wandering mind, suppressing spontaneous thoughts and bringing attention
back to more "worthwhile" tasks.[51][52]

See also[edit]

Theory of multiple intelligences

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Multiple intelligences)

The theory of multiple intelligences is a theory of intelligence that differentiates it into specific
(primarily sensory) "modalities", rather than seeing intelligence as dominated by a single general
ability. This model was proposed by Howard Gardner in his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory
of Multiple Intelligences. Gardner articulated eight criteria for a behavior to be considered an
intelligence.[1] These were that the intelligences showed: potential for brain isolation by brain
damage, place in evolutionary history, presence of core operations, susceptibility to encoding
(symbolic expression), a distinct developmental progression, the existence of savants, prodigies and
other exceptional people, and support from experimental psychology and psychometric findings.
Gardner chose eight abilities that he held to meet these criteria: [2] musicalrhythmic, visual
spatial, verballinguistic, logicalmathematical, bodilykinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and
naturalistic. He later suggested that existential and moral intelligence may also be worthy of
inclusion.[3] Although the distinction between intelligences has been set out in great detail, Gardner
opposes the idea of labeling learners to a specific intelligence. Each individual possesses a unique
blend of all the intelligences. Gardner firmly maintains that his theory of multiple intelligences should
"empower learners", not restrict them to one modality of learning.[4]
Gardner argues intelligence is categorized into three primary or overarching categories, those of
which are formulated by the abilities. According to Gardner, intelligence is :[5]
1. The ability to create an effective product or offer a service that is valued in a culture,
2. a set of skills that make it possible for a person to solve problems in life,
3. the potential for finding or creating solutions for problems, which involves gathering new
knowledge.
Many of Gardner's "intelligences" correlate with the g factor, supporting the idea of a single dominant
type of intelligence. According to a 2006 study, each of the domains proposed by Gardner involved a
blend of g, cognitive abilities other than g, and, in some cases, non-cognitive abilities or personality
characteristics.[6] Empirical support for non-gintelligences is lacking or very poor. Despite this lack of
evidence, the ideas of multiple non-g intelligences are attractive to many due to the suggestion that
everyone can be smart in some way. Cognitive neuroscience research does not support the theory
of multiple intelligences.[7]
Contents
[hide]

1 Intelligence modalities
o

1.1 Musicalrhythmic and harmonic

1.2 Visualspatial

1.3 Verballinguistic

1.4 Logicalmathematical

1.5 Bodilykinesthetic

1.6 Interpersonal

1.7 Intrapersonal

1.8 Naturalistic

1.9 Existential

2 Critical reception
o

2.1 Definition of intelligence

2.2 Neo-Piagetian criticism

2.3 IQ tests

2.4 Lack of empirical evidence

3 Use in education

4 See also

5 References

6 External links

7 Further reading

Intelligence modalities[edit]
Musicalrhythmic and harmonic[edit]
Main article: Musicality
This area has to do with sensitivity to sounds, rhythms, tones, and music. People with a high musical
intelligence normally have good pitch and may even have absolute pitch, and are able to sing, play
musical instruments, and compose music. They have sensitivity to rhythm, pitch, meter, tone,
melody or timbre.[8][9]

Visualspatial[edit]
Main article: Spatial intelligence (psychology)
This area deals with spatial judgment and the ability to visualize with the mind's eye. Spatial ability is
one of the three factors beneath g in the hierarchical model of intelligence.[9]

Verballinguistic[edit]
Main article: Linguistic intelligence
People with high verbal-linguistic intelligence display a facility with words and languages. They are
typically good at reading, writing, telling stories and memorizing words along with dates. [9] Verbal
ability is one of the most g-loaded abilities.[10] This type of intelligence is measured with the Verbal IQ
in WAIS-III.

Logicalmathematical[edit]
Further information: Reason

This area has to do with logic, abstractions, reasoning, numbers and critical thinking.[9] This also has
to do with having the capacity to understand the underlying principles of some kind of causal system.
[8]
Logical reasoning is closely linked to fluid intelligence and to general intelligence (g factor).[11]

Bodilykinesthetic[edit]
Further information: Gross motor skill and Fine motor skill
The core elements of the bodily-kinesthetic intelligence are control of one's bodily motions and the
capacity to handle objects skillfully.[9] Gardner elaborates to say that this also includes a sense of
timing, a clear sense of the goal of a physical action, along with the ability to train responses.
People who have high bodily-kinesthetic intelligence should be generally good at physical activities
such as sports, dance, acting, and making things.
Gardner believes that careers that suit those with high bodily-kinesthetic intelligence
include: athletes, dancers, musicians, actors, builders, police officers, and soldiers. Although these
careers can be duplicated through virtual simulation, they will not produce the actual physical
learning that is needed in this intelligence.[12]

Interpersonal[edit]
Main article: Social skills
This area has to do with interaction with others.[9] In theory, individuals who have high interpersonal
intelligence are characterized by their sensitivity to others' moods, feelings, temperaments and
motivations, and their ability to cooperate in order to work as part of a group. According to Gardner
in How Are Kids Smart: Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom, "Inter- and Intra- personal
intelligence is often misunderstood with being extroverted or liking other people..." [13] Those with high
interpersonal intelligence communicate effectively and empathize easily with others, and may be
either leaders or followers. They often enjoy discussion and debate. Gardner has equated this
withemotional intelligence of Goldman."[14]
Gardner believes that careers that suit those with high interpersonal intelligence include sales
persons, politicians, managers, teachers, lecturers, counselors and social workers.[15]

Intrapersonal[edit]
Further information: Introspection
This area has to do with introspective and self-reflective capacities. This refers to having a deep
understanding of the self; what one's strengths or weaknesses are, what makes one unique, being
able to predict one's own reactions or emotions.

Naturalistic[edit]
Not part of Gardner's original 7, naturalistic intelligence was proposed by him in 1995. " If I were to
rewrite Frames of Mind today, I would probably add an eighth intelligence - the intelligence of the
naturalist. It seems to me that the individual who is able readily to recognize flora and fauna, to make
other consequential distinctions in the natural world, and to use this ability productively (in hunting, in
farming, in biological science) is exercising an important intelligence and one that is not adequately
encompassed in the current list." Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on multiple intelligences: Myths
and messages. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 200-209. This area has to do with nurturing and relating
information to one's natural surroundings.[9] Examples include classifying natural forms such as
animal and plant species and rocks and mountain types. This ability was clearly of value in our
evolutionary past as hunters, gatherers, and farmers; it continues to be central in such roles
as botanist or chef.[8] This sort of ecological receptiveness is deeply rooted in a "sensitive, ethical,
and holistic understanding" of the world and its complexitiesincluding the role of humanity within the
greater ecosphere.[16]

Existential[edit]

Main article: Spiritual intelligence

Some proponents of multiple intelligence theory proposed spiritual or religious intelligence as a
possible additional type. Gardner did not want to commit to a spiritual intelligence, but suggested
that an "existential" intelligence may be a useful construct, also proposed after the original 7 in his
1999 book.[5] The hypothesis of an existential intelligence has been further explored by educational
researchers.[17]

Critical reception[edit]
Gardner argues that there is a wide range of cognitive abilities, but that there are only very weak
correlations among them. For example, the theory postulates that a child who learns to multiply
easily is not necessarily more intelligent than a child who has more difficulty on this task. The child
who takes more time to master multiplication may best learn to multiply through a different approach,
may excel in a field outside mathematics, or may be looking at and understanding the multiplication
process at a fundamentally deeper level.
Intelligence tests and psychometrics have generally found high correlations between different
aspects of intelligence, rather than the low correlations which Gardner's theory predicts, supporting
the prevailing theory of general intelligence rather than multiple intelligences (MI).[18] The theory has
been widely criticized by mainstream psychology for its lack of empirical evidence, and its
dependence on subjective judgement.[19]

Definition of intelligence[edit]
One major criticism of the theory is that it is ad hoc: that Gardner is not expanding the definition of
the word "intelligence", but rather denies the existence of intelligence as traditionally understood,
and instead uses the word "intelligence" where other people have traditionally used words like
"ability" and "aptitude". This practice has been criticized byRobert J. Sternberg,[20][21] Eysenck,[22] and
Scarr.[23] White (2006) points out that Gardner's selection and application of criteria for his
"intelligences" is subjective and arbitrary, and that a different researcher would likely have come up
with different criteria.[24]
Defenders of MI theory argue that the traditional definition of intelligence is too narrow, and thus a
broader definition more accurately reflects the differing ways in which humans think and learn. [25]
Some criticisms arise from the fact that Gardner has not provided a test of his multiple intelligences.
He originally defined it as the ability to solve problems that have value in at least one culture, or as
something that a student is interested in. He then added a disclaimer that he has no fixed definition,
and his classification is more of an artistic judgment than fact:
Ultimately, it would certainly be desirable to have an algorithm for the selection of an intelligence,
such that any trained researcher could determine whether a candidate's intelligence met the
appropriate criteria. At present, however, it must be admitted that the selection (or rejection) of a
candidate's intelligence is reminiscent more of an artistic judgment than of a scientific assessment.[26]
Generally, linguistic and logical-mathematical abilities are called intelligences, but artistic, musical,
athletic, etc. abilities are not. Gardner argues this causes the former to be needlessly aggrandized.
Certain critics balk at this widening of the definition, saying that it ignores "the connotation of
intelligence ... [which] has always connoted the kind of thinking skills that makes one successful in
school."[27]
Gardner writes "I balk at the unwarranted assumption that certain human abilities can be arbitrarily
singled out as intelligence while others cannot."[28] Critics hold that given this statement, any interest
or ability can be redefined as "intelligence". Thus, studying intelligence becomes difficult, because it
diffuses into the broader concept of ability or talent. Gardner's addition of the naturalistic intelligence
and conceptions of the existential and moral intelligences are seen as fruits of this diffusion.

Defenders of the MI theory would argue that this is simply a recognition of the broad scope of
inherent mental abilities, and that such an exhaustive scope by nature defies a one-dimensional
classification such as an IQ value.
The theory and definitions have been critiqued by Perry D. Klein as being so unclear as to
be tautologous and thus unfalsifiable. Having a high musical ability means being good at music while
at the same time being good at music is explained by having a high musical ability.[29]

Neo-Piagetian criticism[edit]
Andreas Demetriou suggests that theories which overemphasize the autonomy of the domains are
as simplistic as the theories that overemphasize the role of general intelligence and ignore the
domains. He agrees with Gardner that there are indeed domains of intelligence that are relevantly
autonomous of each other.[30] Some of the domains, such as verbal, spatial, mathematical, and social
intelligence are identified by most lines of research in psychology. In Demetriou's theory, one of
the neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development, Gardner is criticized for underestimating the
effects exerted on the various domains of intelligences by the various subprocesses that define
overall processing efficiency, such as speed of processing, executive functions, working memory,
and meta-cognitive processes underlying self-awareness and self-regulation. All of these processes
are integral components of general intelligence that regulate the functioning and development of
different domains of intelligence.[31]
The domains are to a large extent expressions of the condition of the general processes, and may
vary because of their constitutional differences but also differences in individual preferences and
inclinations. Their functioning both channels and influences the operation of the general processes. [32]
[33]
Thus, one cannot satisfactorily specify the intelligence of an individual or design effective
intervention programs unless both the general processes and the domains of interest are evaluated.
[34][35]

IQ tests[edit]
Gardner argues that IQ tests only measure linguistic and logical-mathematical abilities. He argues
the importance of assessing in an "intelligence-fair" manner. While traditional paper-and-pen
examinations favour linguistic and logical skills, there is a need for intelligence-fair measures that
value the distinct modalities of thinking and learning that uniquely define each intelligence. [9]
Psychologist Alan S. Kaufman points out that IQ tests have measured spatial abilities for 70 years.
[36]
Modern IQ tests are greatly influenced by the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theorywhich incorporates a
general intelligence but also many more narrow abilities. While IQ tests do give an overall IQ score,
they now also give scores for many more narrow abilities.[36]

Lack of empirical evidence[edit]

According to a 2006 study many of Gardner's "intelligences" correlate with the g factor, supporting
the idea of a single dominant type of intelligence. According to the study, each of the domains
proposed by Gardner involved a blend of g, of cognitive abilities other than g, and, in some cases, of
non-cognitive abilities or of personality characteristics. [6]
Linda Gottfredson (2006) has argued that thousands of studies support the importance
of intelligence quotient (IQ) in predicting school and job performance, and numerous other life
outcomes. In contrast, empirical support for non-g intelligences is lacking or very poor. She argued
that despite this the ideas of multiple non-g intelligences are very attractive to many due to the
suggestion that everyone can be smart in some way.[7]
A critical review of MI theory argues that there is little empirical evidence to support it:
To date there have been no published studies that offer evidence of the validity of the multiple
intelligences. In 1994 Sternberg reported finding no empirical studies. In 2000 Allix reported finding
no empirical validating studies, and at that time Gardner and Connell conceded that there was "little

hard evidence for MI theory" (2000, p. 292). In 2004 Sternberg and Grigerenko stated that there
were no validating studies for multiple intelligences, and in 2004 Gardner asserted that he would be
"delighted were such evidence to accrue",[37] and admitted that "MI theory has few enthusiasts among
psychometricians or others of a traditional psychological background" because they require
"psychometric or experimental evidence that allows one to prove the existence of the several
intelligences."[37][38]
The same review presents evidence to demonstrate that cognitive neuroscience research does not
support the theory of multiple intelligences:
... the human brain is unlikely to function via Gardner's multiple intelligences. Taken together the
evidence for the intercorrelations of subskills of IQ measures, the evidence for a shared set of genes
associated with mathematics, reading, and g, and the evidence for shared and overlapping "what is
it?" and "where is it?" neural processing pathways, and shared neural pathways for language, music,
motor skills, and emotions suggest that it is unlikely that each of Gardner's intelligences could
operate "via a different set of neural mechanisms" (1999, p. 99). Equally important, the evidence for
the "what is it?" and "where is it?" processing pathways, for Kahneman's two decision-making
systems, and for adapted cognition modules suggests that these cognitive brain specializations have
evolved to address very specific problems in our environment. Because Gardner claimed that the
intelligences are innate potentialities related to a general content area, MI theory lacks a rationale for
the phylogenetic emergence of the intelligences.[38]
The theory of multiple intelligences has often been conflated with learning styles. Gardner has
denied that multiple intelligences are learning styles and agrees that the idea of learning styles is
incoherent and lacking in empirical evidence.[39] The theory of multiple intelligences is often cited as
an example of pseudoscience because it lacks empirical evidence or falsifiability.[40][41]

Use in education[edit]
Gardner defines an intelligence as "biopsychological potential to process information that can be
activated in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products that are of value in a
culture."[42] According to Gardner, there are more ways to do this than just through logical and
linguistic intelligence. Gardner believes that the purpose of schooling "should be to develop
intelligences and to help people reach vocational and avocational goals that are appropriate to their
particular spectrum of intelligences. People who are helped to do so, [he] believe[s], feel more
engaged and competent and therefore more inclined to serve society in a constructive way." [a]
Gardner contends that IQ tests focus mostly on logical and linguistic intelligence. Upon doing well on
these tests, the chances of attending a prestigious college or university increase, which in turn
creates contributing members of society.[43] While many students function well in this environment,
there are those who do not. Gardner's theory argues that students will be better served by a broader
vision of education, wherein teachers use different methodologies, exercises and activities to reach
all students, not just those who excel at linguistic and logical intelligence. It challenges educators to
find "ways that will work for this student learning this topic". [44]
James Traub's article in The New Republic notes that Gardner's system has not been accepted by
most academics in intelligence or teaching.[45] Gardner states that "while Multiple Intelligences theory
is consistent with much empirical evidence, it has not been subjected to strong experimental tests ...
Within the area of education, the applications of the theory are currently being examined in many
projects. Our hunches will have to be revised many times in light of actual classroom experience." [46]
Jerome Bruner agreed with Gardner that the intelligences were "useful fictions," and went on to state
that "his approach is so far beyond the data-crunching of mental testers that it deserves to be
cheered."[47]
George Miller, a prominent cognitive psychologist, wrote in The New York Times Book Review that
Gardner's argument consisted of "hunch and opinion" and Charles Murray and Richard J. Herrnstein

in The Bell Curve (1994) called Gardner's theory "uniquely devoid of psychometric or other
quantitative evidence."[48]
Thomas Armstrong argues that Waldorf education engages all of Gardner's original seven
intelligences.[b] In spite of its lack of general acceptance in the psychological community, Gardner's
theory has been adopted by many schools, where it is often used to underpin discussion
about learning styles,[49] and hundreds of books have been written about its applications in education.
[50]
Gardner himself has said he is "uneasy" with the way his theory has been used in education. [51]

Self-efficacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Self-efficacy is the extent or strength of one's belief in one's own ability to complete tasks and
reach goals.[1] Psychologists have studied self-efficacy from several perspectives, noting various
paths in the development of self-efficacy; the dynamics of self-efficacy, and lack thereof, in many
different settings; interactions between self-efficacy and self-concept; and habits of attribution that
contribute to, or detract from, self-efficacy.
This can be seen as the ability to persist and a person's ability to succeed with a task. As an
example, self-efficacy directly relates to how long someone will stick to a workout regimen or a diet.
High and low self-efficacy determine whether or not someone will choose to take on a challenging
task or "write it off" as impossible.
Self-efficacy affects every area of human endeavor. By determining the beliefs a person holds
regarding his or her power to affect situations, it strongly influences both the power a person actually
has to face challenges competently and the choices a person is most likely to make. These effects
are particularly apparent, and compelling, with regard to behaviors affecting health. [2]
Judge et al. (2002) argued the concepts of locus of control, neuroticism, generalized self-efficacy
(which differs from Bandura's theory of self-efficacy) and self-esteem measured the same, single
factor and demonstrated them to be related concepts.[3]
Contents
[hide]

1 Theoretical approaches
o

1.1 Social cognitive theory

1.2 Social learning theory

1.3 Self-concept theory

1.4 Attribution theory

2 How it affects human function

o

2.1 Factors affecting self-efficacy

3 Genetic and environmental determinants

4 Theoretical models of behavior

o

4.1 Prosociality and moral disengagement

4.2 Over-efficaciousness in learning

4.3 Health behavior change

5 Possible applications

6 Subclassifications

7 Clarifications and distinctions

8 See also

9 References

10 Further reading

Theoretical approaches[edit]
Social cognitive theory[edit]
Main article: Social cognitive theory
Psychologist Albert Bandura has defined self-efficacy as one's belief in one's ability to succeed in
specific situations. One's sense of self-efficacy can play a major role in how one approaches goals,
tasks, and challenges.[4] The theory of self-efficacy lies at the center of Banduras social cognitive
theory, which emphasizes the role of observational learningand social experience in
the development of personality. The main concept in social cognitive theory is that an individuals
actions and reactions, including social behaviors and cognitive processes, in almost every situation
are influenced by the actions that individual has observed in others. Because self-efficacy is
developed from external experiences and self-perception and is influential in determining the
outcome of many events, it is an important aspect of social cognitive theory. Self-efficacy represents
the personal perception of external social factors. [5][6][7][8] According to Bandura's theory, people with
high self-efficacythat is, those who believe they can perform wellare more likely to view difficult
tasks as something to be mastered rather than something to be avoided.

Social learning theory[edit]

Main article: Social learning theory
Social learning theory describes the acquisition of skills that are developed exclusively or primarily
within a social group. Social learning depends on how individuals either succeed or fail at dynamic
interactions within groups, and promotes the development of individual emotional and practical skills
as well as accurate perception of self and acceptance of others. According to this theory, people
learn from one another through observation, imitation, and modeling. Self-efficacy reflects an
individuals understanding of what skills he/she can offer in a group setting. [9]

Self-concept theory[edit]
Main article: Self-concept
Self-concept theory seeks to explain how people perceive and interpret their own existence from
clues they receive from external sources, focusing on how these impressions are organized and how

they are active throughout life. Successes and failures are closely related to the ways in which
people have learned to view themselves and their relationships with others. This theory describes
self-concept as learned (i.e., not present at birth); organized (in the way it is applied to the self); and
dynamic (i.e., ever-changing, and not fixed at a certain age). [10]

Attribution theory[edit]
Main article: Attribution (psychology)
Attribution theory focuses on how people attribute events and how those beliefs interact with selfperception. Attribution theory defines three major elements of cause:

Locus is the location of the perceived cause. If the locus is internal (dispositional), feelings of
self-esteem and self-efficacy will be enhanced by success and diminished by failure.

Stability describes whether the cause is perceived as static or dynamic over time. It is closely
related to expectations and goals, in that when people attribute their failures to stable factors
such as the difficulty of a task, they will expect to fail in that task in the future.

Controllability describes whether a person feels actively in control of the cause. Failing at a
task one thinks one cannot control can lead to feelings of humiliation, shame, and/or anger [11]

How it affects human function[edit]

Choices regarding behavior
People generally avoid tasks where self-efficacy is low, but undertake tasks where selfefficacy is high. When self-efficacy is significantly beyond actual ability, it leads to an
overestimation of the ability to complete tasks. On the other hand, when self-efficacy is
significantly lower than actual ability, it discourages growth and skill development. Research
shows that the optimum level of self-efficacy is slightly above ability; in this situation, people
are most encouraged to tackle challenging tasks and gain experience. [12]
Motivation
High self-efficacy can affect motivation in both positive and negative ways. In general, people
with high self-efficacy are more likely to make efforts to complete a task, and to persist
longer in those efforts, than those with low self-efficacy.[13] The stronger the self-efficacy or
mastery expectations, the more active the efforts.[14] However, those with low self-efficacy
sometimes experience incentive to learn more about an unfamiliar subject, where someone
with a high self-efficacy may not prepare as well for a task.
Thought patterns & responses
Self-efficacy has several effects on thought patterns and responses:

Low self-efficacy can lead people to believe tasks to be harder than they actually
are.[15] This often results in poor task planning, as well as increased stress.

People become erratic and unpredictable when engaging in a task in which they
have low self-efficacy.

People with high self-efficacy tend to take a wider view of a task in order to
determine the best plan.

Obstacles often stimulate people with high self-efficacy to greater efforts, where
someone with low self-efficacy will tend toward discouragement and giving up.

A person with high self-efficacy will attribute failure to external factors, where a
person with low self-efficacy will blame low ability. For example, someone with high
self-efficacy in regards to mathematics may attribute a poor test grade to a harderthan-usual test, illness, lack of effort, or insufficient preparation. A person with a low
self-efficacy will attribute the result to poor mathematical ability. See Attribution
Theory.
Health Behaviors
Choices affecting health, such as smoking, physical exercise, dieting, condom use, dental
hygiene, seat belt use, and breast self-examination, are dependent on self-efficacy.[16] Selfefficacy beliefs are cognitions that determine whether health behavior change will be
initiated, how much effort will be expended, and how long it will be sustained in the face of
obstacles and failures. Self-efficacy influences how high people set their health goals (e.g., "I
intend to reduce my smoking," or "I intend to quit smoking altogether"). A number of studies
on the adoption of health practices have measured self-efficacy to assess its potential to
initiate behavior change.[17]
Academic Productivity
Research on Australian science students showed that those with high self-efficacy showed
better academic performance than those with low self-efficacy. Confident individuals typically
took control over their own learning experiences, were more likely to participate in class, and
preferred hands-on learning experiences. Those with low self-efficacy typically shied away
from academic interactions.[18]
The Destiny Idea
Further information: Locus of control
Bandura showed that difference in self-efficacy correlates to fundamentally
different world views.[19][20] People with high self-efficacy generally believe that
they are in control of their own lives, that their own actions and decisions shape
their lives, while people with low self-efficacy may see their lives as outside their
control.

Factors affecting self-efficacy[edit]

Bandura identifies four factors affecting self-efficacy.
1. Experience, or "Enactive Attainment"
The experience of mastery is the most important factor determining a person's self-efficacy.
Success raises self-efficacy, while failure lowers it.
"Children cannot be fooled by empty praise and condescending encouragement.
They may have to accept artificial bolstering of their self-esteem in lieu of something
better, but what I call their accruing ego identity gains real strength only from
wholehearted and consistent recognition of real accomplishment, that is,
achievement that has meaning in their culture." (Erik Erikson)
2. Modeling, or "Vicarious Experience"
Modeling is experienced as, "If they can do it, I can do it as well." When we see someone
succeeding, our own self-efficacy increases; where we see people failing, our self-efficacy
decreases. This process is most effectual when we see ourselves as similar to the model.
Although not as influential as direct experience, modeling is particularly useful for people
who are particularly unsure of themselves.
3. Social Persuasion
Social persuasion generally manifests as direct encouragement or discouragement from
another person. Discouragement is generally more effective at decreasing a person's selfefficacy than encouragement is at increasing it.
4. Physiological Factors

In stressful situations, people commonly exhibit signs of distress: shakes, aches and pains,
fatigue, fear, nausea, etc. Perceptions of these responses in oneself can markedly alter selfefficacy. Getting 'butterflies in the stomach' before public speaking will be interpreted by
someone with low self-efficacy as a sign of inability, thus decreasing self-efficacy further,
where high self-efficacy would lead to interpreting such physiological signs as normal and
unrelated to ability. It is one's belief in the implications of physiological response that alters
self-efficacy, rather than the physiological response itself.

Genetic and environmental

determinants[edit]
In a Norwegian twin study, the heritability of self-efficacy in
adolescents was estimated at 75 percent. The remaining
variance, 25 percent, was due to environmental influences
not shared between family members. The shared family
environment did not contribute to individual differences in
self-efficacy.[21]

Theoretical models of behavior[edit]

A theoretical model of the effect of self-efficacy
on transgressive behavior was developed and verified in
research with school children.[22]

Prosociality and moral disengagement[edit]

Prosocial behavior (such as helping others, sharing, and
being kind and cooperative) and moral
disengagement (manifesting in behaviors such as making
excuses for bad behavior, avoiding responsibility for
consequences, and blaming the victim) are negatively
correlated.[23] Academic, social, and self-regulatory selfefficacy encourages prosocial behavior, and thus helps
prevent moral disengagement. [24]

Over-efficaciousness in learning[edit]
In certain circumstances, lower self-efficacy can be helpful.
One study examined foreign language students' beliefs
about learning, goal attainment, and motivation to continue
with language study. It was concluded that overefficaciousness negatively affected student motivation, so
that students who believed they were "good at languages"
had less motivation to study.[25]

Health behavior change[edit]

Social-cognitive models of health behavior change cast
self-efficacy as predictor, mediator, or moderator. As a
predictor, self-efficacy is supposed to facilitate the forming
of behavioral intentions, the development of action plans,
and the initiation of action. As mediator, self-efficacy can
help prevent relapse to unhealthy behavior.[26] As a
moderator, self-efficacy can support the translation of

intentions into action.[27] See Health Action Process

Approach.

Possible applications[edit]
Parents' sense of academic efficacy for their child is linked
to their children's scholastic achievement. If the parents
have higher perceived academic capabilities and
aspirations for their child, the child itself will share those
same beliefs. This promotes academic self-efficacy for the
child, and in turn, leads to scholastic achievement. It also
leads toprosocial behavior, and reduces vulnerability to
feelings of futility and depression.[28] There is a relationship
between low self-efficacy and depression.[29]
Self-efficacy theory has been applied to the career area to
examine why women are underrepresented in maledominated STEM fields such as mathematics, engineering,
and science. It was found that gender differences in selfefficacy expectancies importantly influence the careerrelated behaviors and career choices of young women. [30]
In a study, the majority of a group of students questioned
felt they had a difficulty with listening in class situations.
Instructors then helped strengthen their listening skills by
making them aware about how the use of different
strategies could produce better outcomes. This way, their
levels of self-efficacy were improved as they continued to
figure out what strategies worked for them.[31]
At the National Kaohsiung First University of Science and
Technology in Taiwan, researchers investigated the
correlations between general Internet self-efficacy (GISE),
Web-specific self-efficacy (WSE), and e-service usage.
Researchers concluded that GISE directly affects the WSE
of a consumer, which in turn shows a strong correlation
with e-service usage. These findings are significant for
future consumer targeting and marketing.[32]
Furthermore, self-efficacy has been included as one of the
four factors of core self-evaluation, one's fundamental
appraisal of oneself, along with locus of
control, neuroticism, and self-esteem.[33] Core selfevaluation has shown to predict job satisfaction and job
performance.[33][34][35][36][37]

Subclassifications[edit]
While self-efficacy is sometimes measured as a whole, as
with the General Self-Efficacy Scale,[38] it is also measured
in particular functional situations.
Social self-efficacy has been variably defined and
measured. According to Smith and Betz, social self-efficacy
is "an individuals confidence in her/his ability to engage in

the social interactional tasks necessary to initiate and

maintain interpersonal relationships." They measured
social self-efficacy using an instrument of their own devise
called the Scale of Perceived Social Self-Efficacy, which
measured six domains: (1) making friends, (2) pursuing
romantic relationships, (3) social assertiveness, (4)
performance in public situations, (5) groups or parties, and
(6) giving or receiving help.[39]
Matsushima and Shiomi measured self-efficacy by focusing
on self-confidence about social skill in personal
relationship, trust in friends, and trust by friends.[40]
Both groups of researchers suggest that social self-efficacy
is strongly correlated with shyness and social anxiety.
Academic self-efficacy refers to the belief that one can
successfully engage in and complete course-specific
academic tasks, such as accomplishing course aims,
satisfactorily completing assignments, achieving a passing
grade, and meeting the requirements to continue to pursue
one's major course of study.[41] Various empirical inquiries
have been aimed at measuring academic self-efficacy.[42][43]
[44]

Other areas of self-efficacy that have been identified for

study include teacher self-efficacy[45] and technological selfefficacy.

Clarifications and distinctions[edit]

Self-efficacy versus efficacy
Unlike efficacy, which is the power to produce an effectin essence, competencethe term
self-efficacy is used, by convention, to refer to the belief (accurate or not) that one has the
power to produce that effect by completing a given task or activity related to that
competency. Self-efficacy is the belief in one's efficacy.
Self-efficacy versus self-esteem
Self-efficacy is the perception of one's own ability to reach a goal; self-esteem is the sense of
self-worth. For example, a person who is a terrible rock climber would probably have poor
self-efficacy with regard to rock climbing, but this will not affect self-esteem if the person
doesnt rely on rock climbing to determine self-worth.[46] On the other hand, one might have
enormous confidence with regard to rock climbing, yet set such a high standard, and base
enough of self-worth on rock-climbing skill, that self-esteem is low.[47] Someone who has high
self-efficacy in general but is poor at rock climbing might have misplaced confidence, or
believe that improvement is possible.
Self-efficacy versus confidence
According to Albert Bandura, "the construct of self-efficacy differs from the colloquial term
'confidence.' Confidence is a nonspecific term that refers to strength of belief but does not
necessarily specify what the certainty is about. I can be supremely confident that I will fail at
an endeavor. Perceived self-efficacy refers to belief in one's agentive capabilities, that one
can produce given levels of attainment. A self-efficacy belief, therefore, includes both an
affirmation of a capability level and the strength of that belief. Confidence is a catchword
rather than a construct embedded in a theoretical system."[48]
Self-efficacy versus self-concept

Self-efficacy comprises beliefs of personal capability to perform specific actions. Self-concept

is measured more generally and includes the evaluation of such competence and the
feelings of self-worth associated with the behaviors in question. [49]

Social cognition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Psychology

Outline

History

Subfields
Basic types

Abnormal

Biological

Cognitive

Comparative

Cross-cultural

Cultural
Differential

Developmental

Evolutionary

Experimental

Mathematical

Neuropsychology

Personality

Positive
Quantitative

Social
Applied psychology

Applied behavior analysis

Clinical
Community

Consumer

Counseling

Educational

Environmental

Ergonomics

Forensic

Health
Humanistic

Industrial and organizational

Interpretive

Legal

Medical

Military

Music
Occupational health

Political

Religion

School

Sport

Traffic
Lists

Disciplines

Organizations

Psychologists

Psychotherapies

Publications

Research methods

Theories

Timeline

Topics
Psychology portal

Social cognition is the encoding, storage, retrieval, and processing, of information

about conspecifics (members of the same species). In the area of social psychology, social cognition

refers to a specific approach in which these processes are studied according to the methods
of cognitive psychology and information processing theory. According to this view, social cognition is
a level of analysis that aims to understand social psychological phenomena by investigating the
cognitive processes that underlie them.[1] The major concerns of the approach are the processes
involved in the perception, judgment, and memory of social stimuli; the effects of social and affective
factors on information processing; and the behavioral and interpersonal consequences of cognitive
processes. This level of analysis may be applied to any content area within social psychology,
including research on intrapersonal, interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup processes. However,
the term social cognition has also come to be more widely used across other areas
of psychology and cognitive neuroscience. In these areas, the term social cognition is most often
used to refer to various social abilities disrupted in autism,[2] schizophrenia [3] and other disorders.
[4]
In cognitive neuroscience the biological basis of social cognition is investigated.[5][6][7] Developmental
psychologists study the development of social cognition abilities.[8]
Contents
[hide]

1 Historical development

2 Social schemas

3 Cultural differences

4 Social cognitive neuroscience

5 See also

6 References

7 Further reading

Historical development[edit]
Social cognition came to prominence with the rise of cognitive psychology in the late 1960s and
early 1970s and is now the dominant model and approach in mainstream social psychology.
[9]
Common to social cognition theories is the idea that information is represented in the brain as
"cognitive elements" such as schemas, attributions, or stereotypes. A focus on how these cognitive
elements are processed is often employed. Social cognition therefore applies and extends many
themes, theories, and paradigms from cognitive psychology that can be identified
in reasoning (representativeness heuristic, base rate fallacy and confirmation
bias), attention (automaticity and priming) and memory (schemas, primacy and recency). It is likely
that social psychology has always had a more cognitive than general psychology approach, as it
traditionally discussed internal mental states such as beliefs and desires when mainstream
psychology was dominated by behaviorism.[10]
A notable theory of social cognition is social schema theory, although this is not the basis of all social
cognition studies (for example, see attribution theory).[10] It has been suggested that other disciplines
in social psychology such as social identity theory and social representations may be seeking to
explain largely the same phenomena as social cognition, and that these different disciplines might
be merged into a "coherent integrated whole".[11] A parallel paradigm has arisen in the study of action,
termed motor cognition,[12] which is concerned with understanding the representation of action and
the associated process.

Social schemas[edit]
Social schema theory builds on and uses terminology from schema theory in cognitive psychology,
which describes how ideas or "concepts" are represented in the brain and how they are categorized.
According to this view, when we see or think of a concept a mental representation or schema is
"activated" bringing to mind other information which is linked to the original concept by association.
This activation often happens unconsciously. As a result of activating such schemas, judgements are
formed which go beyond the information actually available, since many of the associations the
schema evokes extend outside the given information. This may influence social cognition and
behaviour regardless of whether these judgements are accurate or not. For example, if an individual
is introduced as a teacher, then a "teacher schema" may be activated. Subsequently, we might
associate this person with wisdom or authority, or past experiences of teachers that we remember
and consider important.
When a schema is more accessible this means that it can be more quickly activated and used in a
particular situation. Two cognitive processes that increase the accessibility of schemas
are salience and priming. Salience is the degree to which a particular social object stands out
relative to other social objects in a situation. The higher the salience of an object the more likely that
schemas for that object will be made accessible. For example, if there is one female in a group of
seven males, female gender schemas may be more accessible and influence the group's thinking
and behavior toward the female group member.[10] Priming refers to any experience immediately prior
to a situation that causes a schema to be more accessible. For example, watching a scary movie
late at night might increase the accessibility of frightening schemas, increasing the likelihood that a
person will perceive shadows and background noises as potential threats.
Social cognition researchers are interested in how new information is integrated into preestablished schemas, especially when that information contrasts with the existing schema. [13] For
example, a student may have a pre-established schema that all teachers are assertive and bossy.
After encountering a teacher who is timid and shy, a social cognition researcher might be interested
in how the student will integrate this new information with his/her existing teacher schema. Preestablished schemas tend to guide attention to new information, as people selectively attend to
information that is consistent with the schema and ignore information that is inconsistent. This is
referred to as aconfirmation bias. Sometimes inconsistent information is sub-categorized and stored
away as a special case, leaving the original schema intact without any alterations. This is referred to
as subtyping.
Social cognition researchers are also interested in studying the regulation of activated schemas. It is
believed that the situational activation of schemas is automatic, meaning that it is outside individual
conscious control. In many situations however, the schematic information that has been activated
may be in conflict with the social norms of the situation in which case an individual
is motivated to inhibit the influence of the schematic information on their thinking and social
behavior. Whether a person will successfully regulate the application of the activated schemas is
dependent on individual differences in self-regulatory ability and the presence of situational
impairments to executive control. High self-regulatory ability and the lack of situational impairments
on executive functioning increase the likelihood that individuals will successfully inhibit the influence
of automatically activated schemas on their thinking and social behavior. However, when people stop
suppressing the influence of the unwanted thoughts, a rebound effect can occur where the thought
becomes hyper-accessible.

Cultural differences[edit]
Social psychologists have become increasingly interested in the influence of culture on social
cognition.[14] Although people of all cultures use schemas to understand the world, the content of our
schemas has been found to differ for individuals based on their cultural upbringing. For example,

one study interviewed a Scottish settler and a Bantu herdsman from Swaziland and compared their
schemas about cattle.[15] Because cattle are essential to the lifestyle of the Bantu people, the Bantu
herdsmen's schemas for cattle were far more extensive than the schemas of the Scottish settler. The
Bantu herdsmen was able to distinguish his cattle from dozens of others, while the Scottish settler
was not.
Studies have found that culture influences social cognition in other ways too. In fact, cultural
influences have been found to shape some of the basic ways in which people automatically perceive
and think about their environment.[14] For example, a number of studies have found that people who
grow up in East Asian cultures such as China andJapan tend to develop holistic thinking styles,
whereas people brought up in Western cultures like Australia and the USA tend to develop analytic
thinking styles.[16][17] The typically Eastern holistic thinking style is a type of thinking in which people
focus on the overall context and the ways in which objects relate to each other.[16] For example, if an
Easterner was asked to judge how a classmate is feeling then he/she might scan everyone's face in
the class, and then use this information to judge how the individual is feeling. [18] On the other hand,
the typically Western analytic thinking style is a type of thinking style in which people focus on
individual objects and neglect to consider the surrounding context.[17] For example, if a Westerner
was asked to judge how a classmate is feeling then he/she might focus only on the classmate's face
in order to make the judgment.[18]
Nisbett (2003) suggested that cultural differences in social cognition may stem from the various
philosophical traditions of the East (i.e. Confucianism and Buddhism) versus the Greek philosophical
traditions (i.e. of Aristotle and Plato) of the West.[14] However, recent research indicates that
differences in social cognition may originate from physical differences in the environments of the two
cultures. One study found that scenes from Japanese cities were 'busier' than those in the USA as
they contain more objects which compete for attention. In this study, the Eastern holistic thinking
style (and focus on the overall context) was attributed to the busier nature of the Japanese physical
environment.[19]

Social cognitive neuroscience[edit]

Early interest in the relationship between brain function and social cognition includes the case
of Phineas Gage, whose behaviour was reported to have changed after an accident damaged one or
both of his frontal lobes. More recent neuropsychological studies have shown that brain
injuries disrupt social cognitive processes. For example, damage to the frontal lobes can affect
emotional responses to social stimuli [20][21][22] and performance on Theory of Mind tasks.[23][24] In
the temporal lobe, damage to the fusiform gyrus can lead to the inability to recognize faces.
People with psychological disorders such as autism,[2] psychosis,[3][25] mood disorder,[26] Williams
syndrome, antisocial personality disorder,[4] Fragile X and Turner's syndrome[27]show differences in
social behavior compared to their unaffected peers. Parents with posttraumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) show disturbances in at least one aspect of social cognition: namely, joint
attention with their young children only after a laboratory-induced relational stressor as compared to
healthy parents without PTSD.[28] However, whether social cognition is underpinned by domainspecific neural mechanisms is still an open issue.[29] There is now an expanding research field
examining how such conditions may bias cognitive processes involved in social interaction, or
conversely, how such biases may lead to the symptoms associated with the condition.
The development of social cognitive processes in infants and children has also been researched
extensively (see developmental psychology). For example, it has been suggested that some aspects
of psychological processes that promote social behavior (such as face recognition) may be innate.
Consistent with this, very young babies recognize and selectively respond to social stimuli such as
the voice, face and scent of their mother.[30]

See also[edit]