How Learning Works E-Book

Susan A. Ambrose

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Bildung
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2010

Seitenzahl: 398

Beschreibung

Praise for How Learning Works "How Learning Works is the perfect title for this excellent book. Drawing upon new research in psychology, education, and cognitive science, the authors have demystified a complex topic into clear explanations of seven powerful learning principles. Full of great ideas and practical suggestions, all based on solid research evidence, this book is essential reading for instructors at all levels who wish to improve their students' learning." --Barbara Gross Davis, assistant vice chancellor for educational development, University of California, Berkeley, and author, Tools for Teaching "This book is a must-read for every instructor, new or experienced. Although I have been teaching for almost thirty years, as I read this book I found myself resonating with many of its ideas, and I discovered new ways of thinking about teaching." --Eugenia T. Paulus, professor of chemistry, North Hennepin Community College, and 2008 U.S. Community Colleges Professor of the Year from The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education "Thank you Carnegie Mellon for making accessible what has previously been inaccessible to those of us who are not learning scientists. Your focus on the essence of learning combined with concrete examples of the daily challenges of teaching and clear tactical strategies for faculty to consider is a welcome work. I will recommend this book to all my colleagues." --Catherine M. Casserly, senior partner, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching "As you read about each of the seven basic learning principles in this book, you will find advice that is grounded in learning theory, based on research evidence, relevant to college teaching, and easy to understand. The authors have extensive knowledge and experience in applying the science of learning to college teaching, and they graciously share it with you in this organized and readable book." --From the Foreword by Richard E. Mayer, professor of psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara; coauthor, e-Learning and the Science of Instruction; and author, Multimedia Learning

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Cover

Title page

Copyright page

Series page

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND EXHIBITS

Dedication

FOREWORD: APPLYING THE SCIENCE OF LEARNING TO COLLEGE TEACHING

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Introduction: Bridging Learning Research and Teaching Practice

WHAT IS LEARNING?

OUR PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING

WHAT MAKES THESE PRINCIPLES POWERFUL?

INTENDED AUDIENCES

HOW TO READ THIS BOOK

CHAPTER 1 How Does Students’ Prior Knowledge Affect Their Learning?

WHAT IS GOING ON IN THESE STORIES?

WHAT PRINCIPLE OF LEARNING IS AT WORK HERE?

WHAT DOES THE RESEARCH TELL US ABOUT PRIOR KNOWLEDGE?

WHAT STRATEGIES DOES THE RESEARCH SUGGEST?

SUMMARY

CHAPTER 2 How Does the Way Students Organize Knowledge Affect Their Learning?

WHAT IS GOING ON IN THESE TWO STORIES?

WHAT PRINCIPLE OF LEARNING IS AT WORK HERE?

WHAT DOES THE RESEARCH TELL US ABOUT KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION?

WHAT STRATEGIES DOES THE RESEARCH SUGGEST?

SUMMARY

CHAPTER 3 What Factors Motivate Students to Learn?

WHAT IS GOING ON IN THESE STORIES?

WHAT PRINCIPLE OF LEARNING IS AT WORK HERE?

WHAT DOES THE RESEARCH TELL US ABOUT MOTIVATION?

WHAT STRATEGIES DOES THE RESEARCH SUGGEST?

SUMMARY

CHAPTER 4 How Do Students Develop Mastery?

WHAT IS GOING ON IN THESE STORIES?

WHAT PRINCIPLE OF LEARNING IS AT WORK HERE?

WHAT DOES THE RESEARCH TELL US ABOUT MASTERY?

WHAT STRATEGIES DOES THE RESEARCH SUGGEST?

SUMMARY

CHAPTER 5 What Kinds of Practice and Feedback Enhance Learning?

WHAT IS GOING ON IN THESE STORIES?

WHAT PRINCIPLE OF LEARNING IS AT WORK HERE?

WHAT DOES THE RESEARCH TELL US ABOUT PRACTICE?

WHAT DOES THE RESEARCH TELL US ABOUT FEEDBACK?

WHAT STRATEGIES DOES THE RESEARCH SUGGEST?

SUMMARY

CHAPTER 6 Why Do Student Development and Course Climate Matter for Student Learning?

WHAT IS GOING ON IN THESE TWO STORIES?

WHAT PRINCIPLE OF LEARNING IS AT WORK HERE?

WHAT DOES THE RESEARCH TELL US ABOUT STUDENT DEVELOPMENT?

WHAT DOES THE RESEARCH TELL US ABOUT COURSE CLIMATE?

WHAT STRATEGIES DOES THE RESEARCH SUGGEST?

SUMMARY

CHAPTER 7 How Do Students Become Self-Directed Learners?

WHAT IS GOING ON IN THESE STORIES?

WHAT PRINCIPLE OF LEARNING IS AT WORK HERE?

WHAT DOES THE RESEARCH ABOUT METACOGNITION TELL US?

WHAT STRATEGIES DOES THE RESEARCH SUGGEST?

SUMMARY

Conclusion: Applying the Seven Principles to Ourselves

APPENDIX A: What Is Student Self-Assessment and How Can We Use It?

APPENDIX B: What Are Concept Maps and How Can We Use Them?

APPENDIX C: What Are Rubrics and How Can We Use Them?

APPENDIX D: What Are Learning Objectives and How Can We Use Them?

APPENDIX E: What Are Ground Rules and How Can We Use Them?

APPENDIX F: What Are Exam Wrappers and How Can We Use Them?

APPENDIX G: What Are Checklists and How Can We Use Them?

APPENDIX H: What Is Reader Response/Peer Review and How Can We Use It?

REFERENCES

Index

Copyright © 2010 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.

Published by Jossey-Bass

A Wiley Imprint

989 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1741—www.josseybass.com

The book is based on the seven “Theory and Research-based Principles of Learning,” which are used with permission of Carnegie Mellon University’s Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence.

Figures created by Judy Brooks.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400, fax [phone], or on the Web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, 201-748-6011, fax [phone], or online at www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

Readers should be aware that Internet Web sites offered as citations and/or sources for further information may have changed or disappeared between the time this was written and when it is read.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

Jossey-Bass books and products are available through most bookstores. To contact Jossey-Bass directly call our Customer Care Department within the U.S. at 800-956-7739, outside the U.S. at 317-572-3986, or fax [phone].

Jossey-Bass also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

How learning works : seven research-based principles for smart teaching / Susan A. Ambrose . . . [et al.] ; foreword by Richard E. Mayer. – 1st ed.

p. cm. – (The Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-470-48410-4 (cloth)

ISBN 978-0-470-61760-1 (epub)

ISBN 978-0-470-61671-0 (mobi)

 1. Effective teaching–Case studies. 2. Educational innovations–Case studies. 3. School improvement programs–Case studies. 4. Learning, Psychology of–Case studies. I. Ambrose, Susan A. II. Title: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching.

LB1025.3.H68 2010

371.102–dc22

2010003939

THE JOSSEY-BASS HIGHER AND ADULT EDUCATION SERIES

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND EXHIBITS

Figures

Figure 1.1. Qualities of Prior Knowledge That Help or Hinder Learning

Figure 2.1. Differences in How Experts and Novices Organize Knowledge

Figure 2.2. Examples of Knowledge Organizations

Figure 3.1. Impact of Value and Expectancy on Learning and Performance

Figure 3.2. Interactive Effects of Environment, Efficacy, and Value on Motivation

Figure 4.1. Elements of Mastery

Figure 4.2. Stages in the Development of Mastery

Figure 5.1. Cycle of Practice and Feedback

Figure 5.2. Unequal Effects of Practice on Performance

Figure 6.1. Interactive Effect of Student Development and Course Climate on Learning

Figure 7.1. Cycle of Self-Directed Learning

Figure B.1. Sample Concept Map

Tables

Table D.1. Sample Verbs for Bloom’s Taxonomy

Exhibits

Exhibit A.1. Sample Self-Assessments

Exhibit C.1. Rubric for Class Participation

Exhibit C.2. Rubric for Oral Exams

Exhibit C.3. Rubric for Papers

Exhibit C.4. Senior Design Project Rubric

Exhibit D.1. Sample Learning Objectives

Exhibit E.1. Sample Ground Rules

Exhibit E.2. A Method for Helping Students Create Their Own Ground Rules

Exhibit F.1. Sample Exam Wrapper

Exhibit G.1. Sample Paper Checklist

Exhibit H.1. Sample Reader Response/Peer Review Instrument

To the faculty and graduate instructors of Carnegie Mellon, whose dedication to student learning continues to inspire us.

FOREWORD: APPLYING THE SCIENCE OF LEARNING TO COLLEGE TEACHING

In 1899, the famous American psychologist, William James published a little book called Talks to Teachers, in which he sought to explain how to apply psychology to education—that is, he sought to use what he called “the science of the mind’s workings” to generate practical advice for classroom teachers. At the time, the book was not much of a success, largely for two reasons: (a) there was a lack of research evidence on how learning works (that is, the science of learning), and (b) there was a lack of research-based principles concerning how to help people learn (that is, the science of instruction).

Much has happened in the learning sciences in the past 100 years, particularly in the last few decades. We finally have the makings of a research-based theory of how people learn that is educationally relevant (that is, the science of learning) and a set of evidence-based principles for how to help people learn that is grounded in cognitive theory (that is, the science of instruction). Indeed, these are exciting times if you are interested in fulfilling William James’s mission of applying the science of learning to education.

The book you are holding—How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching—is the latest advancement in the continuing task of applying the science of learning to education—particularly, college teaching. The authors are experts in helping college teachers understand how research in the science of learning can improve their teaching. If you are interested in what research in the science of learning and instruction has to say for you as a college teacher, then this book is for you.

The book is organized around seven learning principles—each a gem that is based on research evidence from the science of learning and the science of instruction. The principles concern the role of the student’s prior knowledge, motivation, and developmental level, as well as opportunities for the student to practice, receive feedback, and learn to become a self-directed learner. Each chapter focuses on one of the principles, such as “Students’ prior knowledge can help or hinder learning.” Each chapter begins with a concrete scenario in college teaching that exemplifies the principle being highlighted in the chapter, provides a clear statement and rationale for the principle, summarizes the underlying research and its implications, and offers specific advice on how to apply the principle.

Consider the following scenario: You are teaching a course in your field. Based on years of study and work, you are an expert in your field—but you are certainly not an expert in how to teach others about your field. In fact, you have almost no training in how to teach. Yet a fundamental part of your job involves college teaching. You have devised a teaching style that works for you, but you wonder whether there is any way to base what you are doing on scientific principles of learning and teaching. This description fits many college teachers.

The book you are holding is based on the idea that you wish to consider taking an evidence-based approach to college teaching—that is, you wish to inform your instructional decisions with research evidence and research-based theory. Why should you take an evidence-based approach? You could base your instructional choices on fads, ideology, opinions, expert advice, or habit—but these approaches may not be ideal if your goal is to be an effective teacher. Admittedly, advice from experts and your own personal experience can be useful aids to you in planning instruction, but they may be incomplete. In taking an evidence-based approach, you seek to add to your knowledge base by discovering what works and how it works. In short, it is helpful to understand what the science of learning has to offer you in your role as a college teacher.

Where should you look for help in improving your college teaching? Consider three common choices:

Sources that are too hard— You could try to digest research articles in the field of learning and instruction, but you might find them somewhat tedious and perhaps daunting. This approach is too hard because it focuses on scientific evidence without much focus on how to apply the evidence to teaching.

Sources that are too soft— You could read self-help guides that offer practical advice that is not necessarily based on research evidence or research-based theory. This approach is too soft because it focuses on practical advice without supporting evidence or theory to back up the advice.

Sources that are just right— You could read this book, which synthesizes empirical research evidence and research-based learning theory into practical advice for how to improve your college teaching. In short, the strength of this book is that it combines research evidence and practical advice to produce an evidence-based approach to improving your college teaching. If you are interested in what the science of learning has to contribute to your college teaching, then this book is for you.

What should you look for in this book? In reading this book, I suggest that you look to make sure that it meets four basic criteria for applying the science of learning to your college teaching:

Theory-grounded: the advice is grounded in a research-based theory of how people learn

Evidence-based: the advice is supported by empirical research evidence showing how to help people learn

Relevant: the advice has clear and practical implications for how to improve your teaching

Clear: the advice is understandable, concrete, and concise

As you read about each of the seven basic learning principles in this book, you will find advice that is grounded in learning theory, based on research evidence, relevant to college teaching, and easy to understand. The authors have extensive knowledge and experience in applying the science of learning to college teaching, and they graciously share it with you in this organized and readable book.

I congratulate you for your interest in improving your teaching and commend you for taking the important step of reading this book. If you want to improve your teaching, it is useful to understand what research says about how learning works and about how to foster learning. In light of these goals, I welcome you to the feast of evidence-based advice you will find in this volume.

Richard E. Mayer

University of California, Santa Barbara

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Writing this book was a significant undertaking, which we would not have been able to complete without the help of many friends and colleagues. Although many faculty colleagues across disciplines and institutions have found these principles helpful and encouraged us to publish them, it was Rich Mayer who, after seeing a presentation of our learning principles, convinced us to share them with the larger education community. Little did he know that his encouragement would lead to more work for him! We are thrilled and grateful to Rich for writing the Foreword to this book.

We are forever in debt to Judy Brooks, our talented graphic designer, who cheerfully endured our endless wordsmithing, listening carefully, and asking insightful questions, in order to help us put our ideas into images for the figures in this book. Judy, we salute you! We also cannot express enough thanks to Hilary Franklin, a Ph.D. student working with us, who read every chapter with her characteristic precision and intelligence and provided invaluable feedback that forced us to recognize and address our own “expert blind spots.” Aimee Kane joined our group late in the writing process, and yet we cannot imagine how we functioned before she became our colleague. Her thoughtful and reflective responses to the chapters added a fresh and indispensable perspective and left an indelible mark on the finished product. We were also extremely lucky to have had the help of our former colleague Anne Fay throughout the early phases of planning and writing the book. Her ability to remember and access every research study she has ever read was truly awe inspiring. In addition, our “internal” editor, Lisa Ritter, applied her exacting standards and patience to the job of copy editing the manuscript, thus freeing us to continue revising ad infinitum; we thank her for a job well done.

We are also thankful for an outstanding set of colleagues, both at Carnegie Mellon and at other universities in the United States and abroad, who were willing to take time from their busy schedules to read and provide insightful feedback on different chapters. These colleagues include Vincent Aleven, Ryan Baker, Rebecca Freeland, Scott Kauffman, Edmund Ko, Ken Koedinger, Norma Ming, Matt Ouellett, Ido Roll, and Christian Schunn.

Finally, we would never have embarked upon this endeavor in the first place if it were not for the thousands of faculty members and graduate students with whom we have worked over the years. We are humbled by your ongoing dedication to your students and by your willingness to share your stories and experiences, open up your courses to us, and reflect thoughtfully on and refine your teaching practice. We continue to learn and benefit from our interactions with you, and we hope this book provides something useful in return.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Susan A. Ambrose is associate provost for education, director of the Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence, and teaching professor in the Department of History at Carnegie Mellon. She received her doctorate in American history from Carnegie Mellon in 1986 and has been at the Eberly Center since its inception. Her major responsibilities include identifying and responding to changing educational needs that impact faculty and graduate students, maintaining overall operation of the Eberly Center, and overseeing the Intercultural Communication Center and the Office of Academic Development. Susan Ambrose has been a visiting scholar for the American Society of Engineering Education and the National Science Foundation, and was awarded an American Council on Education fellowship to study leadership styles of two university presidents. She has coauthored three books and published more than twenty-five chapters, articles, and commissioned reports in such areas as faculty satisfaction, engineering education, teaching and learning, and women in science and engineering. In recent years she has received funding from the National Science Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, the Lilly Endowment, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Eden Hall Foundation, and the ALCOA Foundation. She also teaches courses on immigration, particularly Mexican and Asian immigration to the United States.

Michael W. Bridges is the director of faculty development at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) St. Margaret Hospital, where he works with family practice residents and fellows. He received his doctorate in social psychology from Carnegie Mellon in 1997. He has applied his background in the psychology of personality and motivation to help develop courses across a broad range of topics and disciplines. He has also provided survey research consultation to numerous clients, including Carnegie Mellon’s Deliberative Polling Program, a campuswide first year experience called Big Questions and Fathom Designs. His research interests include the role of motivation in goal-directed behavior, the relation between stress and disease, and the role of personality in traumatic life events. He teaches courses in personality and stress and coping.

Michele DiPietro is associate director for graduate programs at the Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence and instructor in the Department of Statistics at Carnegie Mellon. He received his doctorate in statistics from Carnegie Mellon in 2001 and has been at the Eberly Center since 1998. He is responsible for all the graduate students and future faculty programs of the Eberly Center, including teaching workshops, individual consultations, and the Documentation of Teaching Development program. His scholarly interests include the application of learning sciences to enhance college teaching, faculty development, diversity in the classroom, student ratings of instruction, teaching in times of tragedies, academic integrity, and statistics education. He has served on the board of directors of the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education, the premiere faculty development organization in North America, and was the chair of its 2006 conference, “Theory and Research for a Scholarship of Practice.” He has received funding from the National Science Foundation. His freshman seminar “The Statistics of Sexual Orientation” has been featured in a variety of media, including The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Marsha C. Lovett is associate director for faculty development at the Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence and associate teaching professor in the Department of Psychology at Carnegie Mellon. The question that drives her work is how people learn. She has studied this question from various perspectives, as a graduate student, postdoctoral researcher, and assistant professor in Carnegie Mellon’s Psychology Department. Her research combines computational and mathematical modeling, controlled experiments, and classroom observation. She has studied learning in several disciplines, including geometry, physics, linear algebra, programming, and statistics, at the high school and college levels. She designed and developed StatTutor, a computer-based tutor that helps students learn the skills of data analysis. Her teaching has included undergraduate and graduate courses on research methods, the analysis of verbal data, and the nature of expertise. At the Eberly Center, Lovett applies theoretical and empirical principles from cognitive psychology to help instructors improve their teaching. She has published more than thirty research articles on learning and instruction and is co-editor of the book Thinking with Data. In recent years, she has received funding from the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, and the Spencer Foundation.

Marie K. Norman is a teaching consultant and research associate at the Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence, and adjunct professor of anthropology in the history department at Carnegie Mellon. She received her doctorate from the University of Pittsburgh’s Department of Anthropology in 1999, where her research, funded by a Fulbright doctoral studies grant, focused on the effects of tourism on caste relations in Nepal. At the Eberly Center, Marie Norman consults with junior and senior faculty who want to improve their teaching, helps run the Wimmer Faculty Fellows Program, and conducts a variety of workshops and seminars on teaching and learning. She is particularly interested in cross-cultural issues in the classroom. In addition to her work with the Eberly Center, she teaches courses on medical anthropology, gender, tourism, and South Asia. She has served on the faculty of the University of Pittsburgh’s Semester at Sea Program (2004), is an academic advisor for the Bachelor of Humanities and Arts Program at Carnegie Mellon, and co-edits the journal Ethnology. Norman is committed to applying anthropological approaches to practical problems, and has worked as a consultant on research studies for St. Margaret’s Hospital, Allegheny College, and Fathom Designs.

Introduction: Bridging Learning Research and Teaching Practice

Learning results from what the student does and thinks and only from what the student does and thinks. The teacher can advance learning only by influencing what the student does to learn.

HERBERT A. SIMON,1 one of the founders of the field of Cognitive Science, Nobel Laureate, and University Professor (deceased) at Carnegie Mellon University

As the quotation above suggests, any conversation about effective teaching must begin with a consideration of how students learn. Yet instructors who want to investigate the mechanisms and conditions that promote student learning may find themselves caught between two kinds of resources: research articles with technical discussions of learning, or books and Web sites with concrete strategies for course design and classroom pedagogy. Texts of the first type focus on learning but are often technical, inaccessible, and lack clear application to the classroom, while texts of the second type are written in accessible language but often leave instructors without a clear sense of why (or even whether) particular strategies promote learning. Neither of these genres offers what many instructors really need—a model of student learning that enables them to make sound teaching decisions. In other words, instructors need a bridge between research and practice, between teaching and learning.

We wrote this book to provide such a bridge. The book grew out of over twenty-nine years of experience consulting with faculty colleagues about teaching and learning. In these consultations, we encountered a number of recurring problems that spanned disciplines, course types, and student skill levels. Many of these problems raised fundamental questions about student learning. For example: Why can’t students apply what they have learned? Why do they cling so tightly to misconceptions? Why are they not more engaged by material I find so interesting? Why do they claim to know so much more than they actually know? Why do they continue to employ the same ineffective study strategies?

As we worked with faculty to explore the sources of these problems, we turned to the research on learning, and from this research we distilled seven principles, each of which crystallizes a key aspect of student learning. These principles have become the foundation for our work. Not only have we found them indispensable in our own teaching and in our consultations with faculty, but as we have talked and worked with thousands of faculty from around the world, we have also found that the principles resonate across disciplines, institution types, and cultures, from Latin America to Asia. In our experience, these principles provide instructors with an understanding of student learning that can help them (a) see why certain teaching approaches are or are not supporting students’ learning, (b) generate or refine teaching approaches and strategies that more effectively foster student learning in specific contexts, and (c) transfer and apply these principles to new courses.

In this book, we offer these principles of learning, along with a discussion of the research that supports them, their implications for teaching, and a set of instructional strategies targeting each principle. Before briefly summarizing the full set of principles and discussing the characteristics they share and some ways that this book can be used, we begin by discussing what we mean by learning.

WHAT IS LEARNING?

Any set of learning principles is predicated on a definition of learning. In this book, we define learning as a process that leads to change, which occurs as a result of experience and increases the potential for improved performance and future learning (adapted from Mayer, 2002). There are three critical components to this definition:

1. Learning is a process, not a product. However, because this process takes place in the mind, we can only infer that it has occurred from students’ products or performances.

2. Learning involves change in knowledge, beliefs, behaviors, or attitudes. This change unfolds over time; it is not fleeting but rather has a lasting impact on how students think and act.

3. Learning is not something done to students, but rather something students themselves do. It is the direct result of how students interpret and respond to their experiences—conscious and unconscious, past and present.

OUR PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING

Our seven principles of learning come from a perspective that is developmental and holistic. In other words, we begin with the recognition that (a) learning is a developmental process that intersects with other developmental processes in a student’s life, and (b) students enter our classrooms not only with skills, knowledge, and abilities, but also with social and emotional experiences that influence what they value, how they perceive themselves and others, and how they will engage in the learning process. Consistent with this holistic perspective, readers should understand that, although we address each principle individually to highlight particular issues pertaining to student learning, they are all at work in real learning situations and are functionally inseparable.

In the paragraphs below, we briefly summarize each of the principles in the order in which they are discussed in the book.

Students’ prior knowledge can help or hinder learning.

Students come into our courses with knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes gained in other courses and through daily life. As students bring this knowledge to bear in our classrooms, it influences how they filter and interpret what they are learning. If students’ prior knowledge is robust and accurate and activated at the appropriate time, it provides a strong foundation for building new knowledge. However, when knowledge is inert, insufficient for the task, activated inappropriately, or inaccurate, it can interfere with or impede new learning.

How students organize knowledge influences how they learn and apply what they know.

Students naturally make connections between pieces of knowledge. When those connections form knowledge structures that are accurately and meaningfully organized, students are better able to retrieve and apply their knowledge effectively and efficiently. In contrast, when knowledge is connected in inaccurate or random ways, students can fail to retrieve or apply it appropriately.

Students’ motivation determines, directs, and sustains what they do to learn.

As students enter college and gain greater autonomy over what, when, and how they study and learn, motivation plays a critical role in guiding the direction, intensity, persistence, and quality of the learning behaviors in which they engage. When students find positive value in a learning goal or activity, expect to successfully achieve a desired learning outcome, and perceive support from their environment, they are likely to be strongly motivated to learn.

To develop mastery, students must acquire component skills, practice integrating them, and know when to apply what they have learned.

Students must develop not only the component skills and knowledge necessary to perform complex tasks, they must also practice combining and integrating them to develop greater fluency and automaticity. Finally, students must learn when and how to apply the skills and knowledge they learn. As instructors, it is important that we develop conscious awareness of these elements of mastery so as to help our students learn more effectively.

Goal-directed practice coupled with targeted feedback enhances the quality of students’ learning.

Learning and performance are best fostered when students engage in practice that focuses on a specific goal or criterion, targets an appropriate level of challenge, and is of sufficient quantity and frequency to meet the performance criteria. Practice must be coupled with feedback that explicitly communicates about some aspect(s) of students’ performance relative to specific target criteria, provides information to help students progress in meeting those criteria, and is given at a time and frequency that allows it to be useful.

Students’ current level of development interacts with the social, emotional, and intellectual climate of the course to impact learning.

Students are not only intellectual but also social and emotional beings, and they are still developing the full range of intellectual, social, and emotional skills. While we cannot control the developmental process, we can shape the intellectual, social, emotional, and physical aspects of the classroom climate in developmentally appropriate ways. In fact, many studies have shown that the climate we create has implications for our students. A negative climate may impede learning and performance, but a positive climate can energize students’ learning.

To become self-directed learners, students must learn to monitor and adjust their approaches to learning.

Learners may engage in a variety of metacognitive processes to monitor and control their learning—assessing the task at hand, evaluating their own strengths and weaknesses, planning their approach, applying and monitoring various strategies, and reflecting on the degree to which their current approach is working. Unfortunately, students tend not to engage in these processes naturally. When students develop the skills to engage these processes, they gain intellectual habits that not only improve their performance but also their effectiveness as learners.

WHAT MAKES THESE PRINCIPLES POWERFUL?

The principal strength of these seven principles is that they are based directly on research, drawing on literature from cognitive, developmental, and social psychology, anthropology, education, and diversity studies, and research targeting not only higher education but also K–12 education. Although, of course, this is not an exhaustive review and any summary of research necessarily simplifies a host of complexities for the sake of accessibility, we believe that our discussions of the research underlying each principle are faithful to the scholarship and describe features of learning about which there is widespread agreement. Indeed, several of our principles converge with those that others have delineated (Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center, 2009; American Psychological Society, 2008), a convergence that we believe attests to their salience.

Not only are these principles research-based, but as we have shared them with colleagues over the years, we have found that they are

Domain-independent: They apply equally well across all subject areas, from biology to design to history to robotics; the fundamental factors that impact the way students learn transcend disciplinary differences.Experience-independent: The principles apply to all educational levels and pedagogical situations. In other words, although the pedagogical implications of a principle will be somewhat different for first-year undergraduate students in a lab environment as opposed to graduate students in a studio environment, the principle still applies.Cross-culturally relevant: Although the research we identified has been conducted primarily in the Western world, faculty colleagues in other countries have resonated with the principles, finding them relevant to their own classes and students. However, it is important to bear in mind that culture can and does influence how the principles should be applied as instructors design and teach their courses.

INTENDED AUDIENCES

This book is intended for anyone interested in understanding more about how students learn and in applying that information to improve instruction. This includes—but is not limited to—faculty members, graduate students, faculty developers, instructional designers, and librarians. It also includes K–12 educators. In addition, the principles outlined here are valuable for instructors at all experience levels. They can help new and inexperienced instructors understand the components of effective course design and classroom pedagogy. They can help experienced instructors troubleshoot problems or adapt effective strategies to suit new courses or student populations. They can also help highly successful and experienced instructors reflect on what makes their approaches and methods effective. Finally, these principles can enable faculty members to better support student learning without having to rely on outside experts (a benefit that is particularly valuable for faculty at campuses without teaching and learning centers).

HOW TO READ THIS BOOK

Each chapter in this book begins with stories that represent teaching situations that we hope will strike readers as familiar. Although the instructors described in these stories are fictional, the scenarios are authentic, representing composites of real problems we have encountered over many years of consulting with faculty. We analyze these stories to identify the core problems or issues involved and use them to introduce the learning principle relevant to those problems. Then we discuss the principle in relation to the research that underlies it. Finally, we provide a set of strategies to help instructors design instruction with that principle in mind.

Because all of these principles combine to influence learning, no one principle stands alone. Consequently, the chapters can be read in any order. Moreover, the book can be read in conjunction with our Web site, which provides additional strategies, applications, sample materials, and resources. The URL is http://www .cmu.edu/teaching.

NOTE

1. Herb Simon was a university professor at Carnegie Mellon University and had joint appointments in the departments of psychology and computer science. While at Carnegie Mellon, Herb played a major role in the development of the Graduate School of Industrial Administration (renamed the Tepper School of Business in 2004), the Department of Psychology, the School of Computer Science, and the College of Humanities and Social Sciences. He was one of the founding fathers of the fields of cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence, and won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1978 and the National Medal of Science in 1986. For many years (until his death), Herb served as a member of the Advisory Committee to the Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence. He was often heard paraphrasing this quote from Elliott Dunlap Smith, a past president of Carnegie Mellon University.

CHAPTER 1

How Does Students’ Prior Knowledge Affect Their Learning?

But They Said They Knew This!

I recently taught Research Methods in Decision Sciences for the first time. On the first day of class, I asked my students what kinds of statistical tests they had learned in the introductory statistics course that is a prerequisite for my course. They generated a fairly standard list that included T-tests, chi-square, and ANOVA. Given what they told me, I was pretty confident that my first assignment was pitched at the appropriate level; it simply required that students take a data set that I provided, select and apply the appropriate statistical test from those they had already learned, analyze the data, and interpret the results. It seemed pretty basic, but I was shocked at what they handed in. Some students chose a completely inappropriate test while others chose the right test but did not have the foggiest idea how to apply it. Still others could not interpret the results. What I can’t figure out is why they told me they knew this stuff when it’s clear from their work that most of them don’t have a clue.

Professor Soo Yon Won

Why Is This So Hard for Them to Understand?

Every year in my introductory psychology class I teach my students about classic learning theory, particularly the concepts of positive and negative reinforcement. I know that these can be tough concepts for students to grasp, so I spell out very clearly that reinforcement always refers to increasing a behavior and punishment always refers to decreasing a behavior. I also emphasize that, contrary to what they might assume, negative reinforcement does not mean punishment; it means removing something aversive to increase a desired behavior. I also provide a number of concrete examples to illustrate what I mean. But it seems that no matter how much I explain the concept, students continue to think of negative reinforcement as punishment. In fact, when I asked about negative reinforcement on a recent exam, almost 60 percent of the class got it wrong. Why is this so hard for students to understand?

Professor Anatole Dione

WHAT IS GOING ON IN THESE STORIES?

The instructors in these stories seem to be doing all the right things. Professor Won takes the time to gauge students’ knowledge of statistical tests so that she can pitch her own instruction at the appropriate level. Professor Dione carefully explains a difficult concept, provides concrete examples, and even gives an explicit warning about a common misconception. Yet neither instructor’s strategy is having the desired effect on students’ learning and performance. To understand why, it is helpful to consider the effect of students’ prior knowledge on new learning.

Professor Won assumes that students have learned and retained basic statistical skills in their prerequisite course, an assumption that is confirmed by the students’ self-report. In actuality, although students have some knowledge—they are able to identify and describe a variety of statistical tests—it may not be sufficient for Professor Won’s assignment, which requires them to determine when particular tests are appropriate, apply the right test for the problem, and then interpret the results. Here Professor Won’s predicament stems from a mismatch between the knowledge students have and the knowledge their instructor expects and needs them to have to function effectively in her course.

In Professor Dione’s case it is not what students do not know that hurts them but rather what they do know. His students, like many of us, have come to associate positive with “good” and negative with “bad,” an association that is appropriate in many contexts, but not in this one. When students are introduced to the concept of negative reinforcement in relation to classic learning theory, their prior understanding of “negative” may interfere with their ability to absorb the technical definition. Instead of grasping that the “negative” in negative reinforcement involves removing something to get a positive change (an example would be a mother who promises to quit nagging if her son will clean his room), students interpret the word “negative” to imply a negative response, or punishment. In other words, their prior knowledge triggers an inappropriate association that ultimately intrudes on and distorts the incoming knowledge.

WHAT PRINCIPLE OF LEARNING IS AT WORK HERE?

As we teach, we often try to enhance our students’ understanding of the course content by connecting it to their knowledge and experiences from earlier in the same course, from previous courses, or from everyday life. But sometimes—like Professor Won—we overestimate students’ prior knowledge and thus build new knowledge on a shaky foundation. Or we find—like Professor Dione—that our students are bringing prior knowledge to bear that is not appropriate to the context and which is distorting their comprehension. Similarly, we may uncover misconceptions and inaccuracies in students’ prior knowledge that are actively interfering with their ability to learn the new material.

Although, as instructors, we can and should build on students’ prior knowledge, it is also important to recognize that not all prior knowledge provides an equally solid foundation for new learning.

Principle: Students’ prior knowledge can help or hinder learning.

Students do not come into our courses as blank slates, but rather with knowledge gained in other courses and through daily life. This knowledge consists of an amalgam of facts, concepts, models, perceptions, beliefs, values, and attitudes, some of which are accurate, complete, and appropriate for the context, some of which are inaccurate, insufficient for the learning requirements of the course, or simply inappropriate for the context. As students bring this knowledge to bear in our classrooms, it influences how they filter and interpret incoming information.

Ideally, students build on a foundation of robust and accurate prior knowledge, forging links between previously acquired and new knowledge that help them construct increasingly com­plex and robust knowledge structures (see Chapter Two). However, students may not make connections to relevant prior knowledge spontaneously. If they do not draw on relevant prior knowledge—in other words, if that knowledge is inactive—it may not facilitate the integration of new knowledge. Moreover, if students’ prior knowledge is insufficient for a task or learning situation, it may fail to support new knowledge, whereas if it is inappropriate for the context or inaccurate, it may actively distort or impede new learning. This is illustrated in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1. Qualities of Prior Knowledge That Help or Hinder Learning

Understanding what students know—or think they know—coming into our courses can help us design our instruction more appropriately. It allows us not only to leverage their accurate knowledge more effectively to promote learning, but also to identify and fill gaps, recognize when students are applying what they know inappropriately, and actively work to correct misconceptions.

WHAT DOES THE RESEARCH TELL US ABOUT PRIOR KNOWLEDGE?

Students connect what they learn to what they already know, interpreting incoming information, and even sensory perception, through the lens of their existing knowledge, beliefs, and assumptions (Vygotsky, 1978; National Research Council, 2000). In fact, there is widespread agreement among researchers that students must connect new knowledge to previous knowledge in order to learn (Bransford & Johnson, 1972; Resnick, 1983). However, the extent to which students are able to draw on prior knowledge to effectively construct new knowledge depends on the nature of their prior knowledge, as well as the instructor’s ability to harness it. In the following sections, we discuss research that investigates the effects of various kinds of prior knowledge on student learning and explore its implications for teaching.

Activating Prior Knowledge

When students can connect what they are learning to accurate and relevant prior knowledge, they learn and retain more. In essence, new knowledge “sticks” better when it has prior knowledge to stick to. In one study focused on recall, for example, participants with variable knowledge of soccer were presented with scores from different soccer matches and their recall was tested. People with more prior knowledge of soccer recalled more scores (Morris et al., 1981). Similarly, research conducted by Kole and Healy (2007) showed that college students who were presented with unfamiliar facts about well-known individuals demonstrated twice the capacity to learn and retain those facts as students who were presented with the same number of facts about unfamiliar individuals. Both these studies illustrate how prior knowledge of a topic can help students integrate new information.

However, students may not spontaneously bring their prior knowledge to bear on new learning situations (see the discussion of transfer in Chapter Four). Thus, it is important to help students activate prior knowledge so they can build on it productively. Indeed, research suggests that even small instructional interventions can activate students’ relevant prior knowledge to positive effect. For instance, in one famous study by Gick and Holyoak (1980), college students were presented with two problems that required them to apply the concept of convergence. The researchers found that even when the students knew the solution to the first problem, the vast majority did not think to apply an analogous solution to the second problem. However, when the instructor suggested to students that they think about the second problem in relation to the first, 80 percent of the student participants were able to solve it. In other words, with minor prompts and simple reminders, instructors can activate relevant prior knowledge so that students draw on it more effectively (Bransford & Johnson, 1972; Dooling & Lachman, 1971).

Research also suggests that asking students questions specifically designed to trigger recall can help them use prior knowledge to aid the integration and retention of new information (Woloshyn, Paivio, & Pressley, 1994). For example, Martin and Pressley (1991) asked Canadian adults to read about events that had occurred in various Canadian provinces. Prior to any instructional intervention, the researchers found that study participants often failed to use their relevant prior knowledge to logically situate events in the provinces where they occurred, and thus had difficulty remembering specific facts. However, when the researchers asked a set of “why” questions (for example, “Why would Ontario have been the first place baseball was played?”), participants were forced to draw on their prior knowledge of Canadian history and relate it logically to the new information. The researchers found that this intervention, which they called elaborative interrogation, improved learning and retention significantly.

Researchers have also found that if students are asked to generate relevant knowledge from previous courses or their own lives, it can help to facilitate their integration of new material (Peeck, Van Den Bosch, & Kruepeling, 1982). For example, Garfield and her colleagues (Garfield, Del Mas, & Chance, 2007) designed an instructional study in a college statistics course that focused on the concept of variability—a notoriously difficult concept to grasp. The instructors first collected baseline data on students’ understanding of variability at the end of a traditionally taught course. The following semester, they redesigned the course so that students were asked to generate examples of activities in their own lives that had either high or low variability, to represent them graphically, and draw on them as they reasoned about various aspects of variability. While both groups of students continued to struggle with the concept, post-tests showed that students who had generated relevant prior knowledge outperformed students in the baseline class two to one.

Exercises to generate prior knowledge can be a double-edged sword, however, if the knowledge students generate is inaccurate or inappropriate for the context (Alvermann, Smith, & Readance, 1985). Problems involving inaccurate and inappropriate prior knowledge will be addressed in the next two sections.

Implications of This Research

Students learn more readily when they can connect what they are learning to what they already know. However, instructors should not assume that students will immediately or naturally draw on relevant prior knowledge. Instead, they should deliberately activate students’ prior knowledge to help them forge robust links to new knowledge.

Accurate but Insufficient Prior Knowledge

Even when students’ prior knowledge is accurate and activated, it may not be sufficient to support subsequent learning or a desired level of performance. Indeed, when students possess some relevant knowledge, it can lead both students and instructors to assume that students are better prepared than they truly are for a particular task or level of instruction.

In fact, there are many different types of knowledge, as evidenced by a number of typologies of knowledge (for example, Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Anderson, 1983; Alexander, Schallert, & Hare, 1991; DeJong & Ferguson-Hessler, 1996). One kind of knowledge that appears across many of these typologies is declarative knowledge, or the knowledge of facts and concepts that can be stated or declared. Declarative knowledge can be thought of as “knowing what.” The ability to name the parts of the circulatory system, describe the characteristics of hunter-gatherer social structure, or explain Newton’s Third Law are examples of declarative knowledge. A second type of knowledge is often referred to as procedural knowledge, because it involves knowing how and knowing when to apply various procedures, methods, theories, styles, or approaches. The ability to calculate integrals, draw with 3-D perspective, and calibrate lab equipment—as well as the knowledge of when these skills are and are not applicable—fall into the category of procedural knowledge.