EDLI 7712, 1
University of Colorado Denver
School of Education & Human Development
Downtown Denver Campus
Campus Box 106, P.O. Box 173364
Denver, Colorado 80217-3364
Phone: 303-315-4978
Fax: 303-315-6311
http://soe.cudenver.edu
EDLI 7712, HO1: Seminar on Learning and Learners
Summer 2009
Face-to-face Meetings: Saturdays, 8AM-5PM, June 27, July 11, July 25,
NC 1605
Other work on eCollege
Instructor:
E-mail:
Phone:
Office:
Office Hours:
Dr. Honorine Nocon
Honorine.nocon@ucdenver.edu
303-315-6306
LSC 742
By appointment
SEMINAR GOALS:
This course is designed as a forum for doctoral students to discuss applications of, and implications
for, learning theories across a broad spectrum of learners and learning environments. Our doctoral
students represent a variety of disciplines and backgrounds; these backgrounds should contribute
much to our understanding of the theoretical perspectives we will discuss.
We will examine learning theories from different traditions, including canonical Western European
and US traditions and indigenous and oral traditions. We will consider the philosophical
assumptions underlying these interpretations of learning and learners and their relation to socialcultural-political contexts of formal and informal education.
The primary goal of the course is to assist students to acquire a thorough knowledge of learning
theories so that they can articulate clearly a sound theoretical and evidential base for explaining the
process of learning and its application to learners across contexts and across the lifespan.
ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS:
The following questions will serve as a foundation to the discussions and analysis in this course:
1. What constitutes learning?
2. How can we know when learning has occurred?
3. What constitutes instruction?
4. How can we best evaluate instruction?
5. What constitutes development?
6. How can development be assessed?
7. In what ways are development and learning the same or different?
EDLI 7712, 2
SEMINAR DESCRIPTION
The assumptions underlying this course design are based on How people learn: Brain, mind, experience,
and school by Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2000) and the National Research Council’s Committee
on Developments in the Science of Learning. In general, learning is facilitated when personally
meaningful goals are pursued; when the learner has contact with more experienced learners; when
the learner links new information to existing knowledge; and when relevant tasks within an optimal
range of difficulty are pursued. In addition, learning is shaped by and varies across socio-cultural
contexts.
Class time will be spent discussing our analysis and critiques of the readings and applying the
assigned readings to our individual contexts of practice. Together we will read two books and a
variety of articles and chapters on which to base our explorations. I anticipate that you will also
"survey" the literature related to learning in your field so that you may integrate ideas from the
course with your discipline specific experience.
I assume that people learn by actively integrating new skills and understanding with their previous
skills and understanding within and across socio-cultural contexts. This means ‘trying on’ the skills
and new information and seeing how well they fit, making adjustments, and trying again until those
skills and understanding can be applied across multiple contexts. I also assume that learning is
social, distributed, and situated. Hopefully, by the end of this seminar, you will have formed your
own assumptions relative to learning and those points.
In this class, you will be required to be active not only with others in the class, but with your own
construction of understanding, skills, and ability to demonstrate your ‘learning’ in meaningful and
applied ways. As doctoral students, I expect you to interrogate assumptions about ‘right’ and
‘wrong,’ cooperate, be objective in your explorations of the material, support and build on others’
ideas while looking for strengths in your own, and seek to examine different facets of the material as
you uncover new ideas and perspectives. Be willing to hear other points of view, encourage
everyone’s participation, and draw out reluctant participants. Be prepared to back up your positions
in an academically acceptable fashion, incorporate the research and acknowledge when you are
expressing an opinion, and do all this with respect for your classmates. Hopefully, the result will be
a learning community that is emotionally and academically safe and challenging.
A successful seminar calls upon a wide range of verbal skills. To that end, the following criteria will
serve as a guide for participation:
1. Content Mastery: We all must evidence an understanding of the declarations, concepts, and
theories presented in the assigned readings. This ability is the basis for all higher-level thinking
skills and must be made evident by classroom comments and/or responses to questions.
2. Communication Skills: We must be able to inform others in an intelligent manner about what we
know. Ideas must be communicated clearly and persuasively. Communication skills include
listening to others (with an open mind) and understanding what they have said, responding
appropriately, asking questions in a clear manner, avoiding rambling discourses or class
domination, using proper vocabulary pertinent to the discussion, building on the ideas of others,
etc.
3. Synthesis/Integration: We must illuminate the connections between the material under
consideration and other bodies of knowledge. For example, one could take several ideas from
the readings or class discussions and combine them to produce a new perspective on an issue, or
EDLI 7712, 3
one could take outside materials (other classes, personal experiences, etc.) and combine them to
create novel insights. Students who probe the interdisciplinary and socio-cultural and historical
roots of the theories presented or who are able to view the author or the material from several
viewpoints demonstrate this skill.
4. Creativity: We must demonstrate that we have mastered the basic material and integrated this
material to produce personal insights. A simple repetition of ideas from the texts will not
suffice, nor will simply commenting on what others have said. We must go beyond the obvious
by bringing our own beliefs and imagination to bear. Creativity may be displayed by showing
further implications of the material, by applying it to a new field, by finding new ways of
articulating the materials which produce significant insights, etc.
5. Valuing: We should be able to identify the values inherent in the material studied. The
underlying assumptions of the author should be identified. Furthermore, we should be able to
articulate their positions by reference to basic underlying values. We must be able to state why,
based on some hierarchy of values, we agree or disagree with presented material. In either
accepting or rejecting a position, the operative values must become explicit. [adapted from:
Clark, E. G. (1990). Grading seminar performance. In R.A. Neff and M. Weimer, Teaching
College. Madison, WI: Magma Publications.]
MISSED COURSE MEETINGS
In the event that a student must miss a face-to-face session, that student is responsible for reading
the material and posting a written reaction to the material on our eCollege site prior to the next class
posting day (the following Tuesday). In the event of missing a “working session,” in which class
members are making presentations, etc., the student will need to contact at least two of the class
members who were present in order to get a “briefing” on key events during the missed session. The
student will post a reaction to the briefings and questions regarding the session to our eCollege site
prior to the next posting day.
SEMINAR ASSIGNMENTS AND GRADING DISTRIBUTIONS
A. Course Participation and Inclusive Syllabus (25%)--Traditionally a seminar structure assumes a
collegial exploration of theory as it relates to practice and practice as it relates to theory. A
successful seminar is dependent upon the participants having read and thought seriously about
shared readings prior to the seminar. A seminar is made useful by participants’ willingness to share
reactions and related readings which individuals have found useful, and most important, by
openness to jointly constructing new understandings and gaining new tools for scholarship.
Therefore, prepared and enthusiastic participation is essential, whether our discussions take place
face-to-face or on-line.
Many of the assigned readings are complex and require time to digest; plan on reading not skimming.
Your responsibility is to raise questions and comment on the reading so that we may derive
understanding together. The following guidelines might be used to guide your notes.
1) your gut reactions to the various topics,
2) the big ideas presented within the topics,
3) the implications for those big ideas to your profession,
4) any nagging questions you have, and
5) connections of your summary of the readings’ main points to other events, courses,
perspectives.
EDLI 7712, 4
Syllabus for a course/or training: An Inclusive Perspective on How We Learn
One issue we will tackle this semester is that of constructing an inclusive approach to understanding
learning and learners. As educational leaders, we must be familiar with the canon. As educational
innovators, who are advocates for social justice, we must acknowledge that the canon is culturally
bound, i.e., the product of Western European heritage, and that many voices and worldviews are not
included in the canon. Therefore, as an ongoing seminar task, we will attempt to construct syllabi,
appropriate to the students or clienteles we serve. These syllabi will explore world, vs. exclusively
canonical, views on how we learn. Some of this work will be done in class during our second faceto-face meeting. Participation in developing these syllabi will include bringing in relevant readings to
share beyond the assigned readings.
B. Book Review (30%) - You will write a book review on a volume of your choice, published in 2007 or later.
Generally speaking a book review is about a 5-7 page paper (maximum), depending on the criteria
set forth by the publication outlet that you choose. The Book Review Guidelines provided below
may assist in your analysis of the issues presented in your selected book. In addition, you may want
to browse Education Review, an open-access electronic journal of book reviews (several people from
prior sections of this class have published there). This journal can be accessed through the
following URL: http://edrev.asu.edu.
Your review will not be considered complete until you provide evidence that you have submitted
your review to a journal for publication. Therefore, you will need notification that your review has
been accepted for review by that journal or a mailing receipt. On June 27, you will do a minipresentation on your book. On July 11 you will share your draft review with colleagues in a book
review “writers’ workshop” in a process of peer review. You will turn in your final version on July
14. These will be returned for any last revisions on July 18. Plan to submit your book review during
July 21, keeping or acquiring evidence that you have submitted your review for publication. Given
our tight schedule this summer, it is advisable for you to make your book selection and to start reading prior to our
first class.
Book Review Guidelines
Identify the key points made by the author(s) including:



The author(s)’s definition of the problem, issue or trends,
The author(s)’s credentials, evidence or research methodology,
The conclusions reached or the position advocated by the author(s).
Assess the accuracy of the work, including:




The credibility of the author(s)’s credentials (check for vested interests or hidden agendas),
The validity and reliability of the evidence or research methodology provided,
Whether the work could have been improved by incorporating an explicit theoretical
perspective (e.g., behavioral psychology, cognitive psychology, social psychology; cultural
psychology, socio-cultural-historical theory),
The resonance of the arguments with your own experiences.
EDLI 7712, 5
Assess the significance of the work, including:





Has the author covered the topic in sufficient depth or breadth?
Do the conclusions apply to a significant portion of the population?
Do the conclusions apply to a critical population or industry (e.g., schools)?
Are the conclusions and recommendations timely, premature or dated?
Are the predictions inevitable and are the recommendations feasible and desirable?
State your own position on the problem, issue or trend by:





Clearly indicating whether and on what grounds you agree with the author(s)’s evidence,
arguments, predictions and conclusions,
Providing your own analysis and insights of the problem, issue or trend,
Providing sufficient evidence from the literature or your own experience to support your
position (including reference to your professional position is often useful)
Stating whether you found the material interesting and worthwhile; that is, would you
recommend it to your colleagues?
Assessing the readability of the work: i.e., the quality of the written expression.
C. Three course papers (45%) – During our course you will be reading, discussing, writing, and thinking
about learning and learners. In lieu of a final paper in which you synthesize and articulate your own
informed position on learning and learners based on all our coursework, you will write a series of
three brief papers (4-5 pages, double spaced) in which you build your position in iterations, taking
into account the readings we have done so far as well as your own reading and out class discussions.
These papers will be due on July 11, July 25, and August 1.
REWRITES/DRAFTS/INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS
I want to provide you with support in producing the best book review, inclusive syllabus, and papers
you are able to produce. Once materials have been submitted for a grade they may not be rewritten. However, our process of peer reviews, presentations, and on-line discussion provides the
opportunity for feedback on your arguments and course products. An additional option, which I
encourage you to use, is instructor feedback on drafts of your products. I will be happy to provide
this feedback up to one week before the final products are due.
I will also work with you on your course products individually (or in pairs or small groups) during
scheduled meetings.
READINGS
Required:
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Smith, F. (1998). The book of learning and forgetting. New York: Teachers College Press.
Book of your choice – must be a recent release (2007 and later) and address learning, education,
learning environments, and/or human development, and be relevant to your own work. You will
ultimately read this book and prepare a book review for submission to a professional journal.
EDLI 7712, 6
Additional readings which will be available on our eCollege course shell:
Banks, J.A., Au, K.H., Ball, A.F., et al. (2007). Learning in and out of School: Life-long, Life-wide,
Life-deep. Seattle, WA: LIFE Center, University of Washington.
Bush, G. (2006). Learning about learning: From theories to trends. Teacher Librarian, 34(2), 14-18.
Cajete, G. (1993). Final thoughts (Chap. 9). Look to the mountain: An ecology of indigenous education.
Colorado Springs, CO: Kivakí Press.
Cajete, G. (1993). Introduction. Look to the mountain: An ecology of indigenous education (pp. 25-41).
Colorado Springs, CO: Kivakí Press.
Gredler, M.E. (2007). Of cabbages and kings: Concepts and inferences curiously attributed to
Lev Vygotsky (Commentary on McVee, Dunsmore, and Gavelek, 2005). Review of Educational
Research, 77(2), 233-238.
Gutierrez, K., & Rymes, B. (1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the classroom: James
Brown versus Brown v. Board of Education. Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 445-471.
Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition (LCHC). (forthcoming). Qualitative research:
Cultural-historical activity theory. In B. McGaw, P. Peterson, & E. Baker (Eds.),
International Encyclopedia of Education, 3rd ed.
Lewis, A.E. (2001). There is no “race” in the schoolyard: Color-blind ideology in an (almost) allWhite school. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 781-811.
McVee, M. B., Dunsmore, K., & Gavelek, J. R. (2005). Schema theory revisited. Review of Educational
Research, 75, 531–565.
Nocon, H., & Cole, M. (2009). Relating diversity and literacy theory. In L.M. Morrow, R. Rueda, &
D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on literacy and diversity (pp. 13-31). New York, NY:
Guilford.
Rushton, S.P., Eitelgeorge, J., & Zickafoose, R. (2003). Connecting Brian Cambourne’s conditions
of learning theory to brain/mind principles: Implications for early childhood educators.
Early Childhood Education Journal(31)1, 11-21.
Solano-Flores, G. (2008). Who is given tests in what language by whom, when, and where? The
need for probabilistic views of language in the testing of English language learners
.Educational Researcher, 37(4), 189-199.
Spencer, M.B. (2008). Lessons learning and opportunities ignored since Brown v. Board of
Education: Youth development and the myth of a color-blind society. Educational Researcher,
37(5), 253-266.
Taylor, K. (2006). Brain function and adult learning: Implications for practice. In New directions for
adult and continuing education, no. 110 (pp. 71-85). Retrieved August 20, 2007 from
http://www.interscience.com (through Educational Full Text).
Wolf, M. (2007). How the Brain Adapted Itself to Read: The First Writing Systems (Chap. 2).
Proust and the Squid: The story and science of the reading brain. New York: Harper Collins.
COURSE POLICIES
You are expected to attend class meetings and to post to eCollege on schedule, to have read the
readings, and to come to class and our electronic discussions prepared. Individualized instruction
and project assistance can be arranged.
EDLI 7712, 7
NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY
The University of Colorado at Denver is committed to providing reasonable accommodation and
access to programs and services to persons with disabilities. Students should contact the Disability
Services Office, Arts Building 177, 303-556-8387, TTY 303-556-8484. Any other person requiring
accommodation in order to access programs and services of the University of Colorado at Denver,
either on or off campus, should request accommodation from the individual or office responsible
for providing the program or service. This request should be made in a timely fashion to allow the
individual or office adequate opportunity to provide reasonable accommodation.
EMAIL POLICY
You are welcome to email me at any point over the semester. If you have a question that pertains to
the class or might be a question that others in the class may have, we may share the
question/response to the entire class by using my virtual office in eCollege. If you have other
questions that you want to send to me privately, please feel free to do so. I will respond to your
email within 2 working days, unless there is an automatic reply letting you know that I am out-oftown or otherwise not available. In those rare instances, my auto-reply message will indicate a date
by which I will return and I will then get to your message within the two working day period.
For all campus business, including courses and communication with instructors, you must use your UC Denver email
account.
DATES AND ACTIVITIES
Date
Focus
Week 1
June 27, Sat.
Face-to-face
Theories of learning and learners
Week 2
June 30, Tues.
(on-line)
July 4, Sat.
Week 3
July 7, Tues.
(on-line)
Learning across the lifespan
July 11, Sat.
Face-to-face
Canonical theories and other voices,
writers’ workshop
Happy Independence Day!
Learning, development, and
instruction
Readings Due
This Date
Smith book,
bring your choice
for your book
review book,
Bush (in class)
Bransford, et al.,
Chaps. 1 & 2;
Banks, et al.
Bransford, et al.,
Chaps. 3-8
Bransford, et al.,
Chaps. 9 & 10;
Cajete, Intro. &
Chap. 9
Activities and
Assignments
Introductions,
Class organization,
syllabus, eCollege,
approaches to
theorizing learning,
tour of campus,
book review
selections
Reading reflection
and on-line
discussion
No assignment
Reading reflection
and on-line
discussion.
Begin inclusive
syllabus.
Book Review
draft;
Paper 1 due;
Draft inclusive
EDLI 7712, 8
Week 4
July 14, Tues.
(on-line)
July 18, Sat.
(on-line)
Finish book review
Developing a perspective
McVee, et al., &
Gredler
Week 5
July 21, Tues.
(on-line)
Learners and learning environments
LCHC, Lewis,
Spencer
July 25, Sat.
Face-to-face
Learners in contexts: Learning as
situated and distributed
Week 6
July 28, Tues.
(on-line)
August 1, Sat.
(on-line)
Brains and minds
Nocon & Cole,
Gutierrez, et al.;
Solano-Flores
Rushton, Taylor,
Wolf
Finals
syllabus
Submit Book
Review to
Dropbox
Reading reflection;
Continue work on
inclusive syllabus,
challenging the
canon.
Reading reflection;
Continue work on
inclusive syllabus,
submit book
review for
publication
Inclusive syllabus
due; Paper 2 due
Reading reflection
Final paper (3)
due.
RECOMMENDED READINGS
Bredo, E. (1994). Reconstructing educational psychology: Situated cognition and deweyian
pragmatism. Educational Psychologist, 29 (1), 23-35.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice.
Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4-15.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Cole, M. & Y. Engeström. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G.
Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations
(pp. 1-46). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cole, M., Engestrom, Y., & Vasquez, O. (Eds.). (1997). Mind, culture and activity: Seminal papers from
the laboratory of comparative human cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Delpit, L. (2003). Educators as ‘seed people’ growing a new future. 2003 Dewitt Wallace-Reader’s
Digest Distinguished Lecture. Educational Researcher, 7(32), pp. 14-21.
Dewey, J. (1933/1988). How we think: A restatement of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Engestrom, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamaki, R. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
EDLI 7712, 9
Garrison, J. (1995). Deweyan pragmatism and the epistemology of contemporary social
constructivism. American Education Research Association, 32 (4), 716-740.
Hofer, B. K. & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about
knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88140.
John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A
Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 191-206.
Jones, B.F., Rasmussen, C.M., & Moffitt, M. C. (1997). Real-life problem solving: A collaborative approach
to interdisciplinary learning. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Knight, J. (2002). Crossing boundaries: What constructivist can teach intensive-explicit instructors
and vice versa. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35(4).
Kozulin, A., & Gindis, B. (2007). Sociocultural theory and education of children with special
needs: From defectology to remedial pedagogy. In, H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J.V. Wertsch
(Eds.). The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 332-362). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Krishner, D. & Whitson, J. A. (1998). Obstacles to understanding cognitions as situated. Educational
Researcher, 27(8), 22-28.
Luria, A. R. (1928). The problem of the cultural development of the child. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 35, 493-506.
Marshall, H. H. (1996). Implications of differentiating and understanding constructivist approaches.
Educational Psychologist, 31 (3/4), 235-240.
Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational
Researcher, 24 (7), 5-12.
Prawat, R. S. (1995). Misreading Dewey: Reform, projects, and the language game. Educational
Researcher, 24 (7), 13-22.
Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D (Eds.). (1991) Perspectives on socially shared cognition.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusions of Innovations (4th Ed.). New York: Free Press.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B., & Chavajay, P. (1995). What’s become of research on the cultural basis of cognitive
development? American Psychologist, 50(10), 859-877.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational
Researcher, 27 (2), 4-13.
Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? The Psychological Review, 57(4), 193-216.
Sprenger, M. (1999). Learning and memory: The brain in action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Spillane, J.P., Reiser, B.J., Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and
refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), pp. 387-431.
van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective.
In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245-259). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Wells, G., & Claxton, G. (2002). Learning for life in the 21st century. Oxford, UK:Blackwell.
Wertsch, J.V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.