HUDK 4080 Educational Psychology

SPRING 2024

Human Development Department| Teachers College, Columbia University ONLINE

Professor: Dr Lauren Young

Email: [email protected]

Office Hours: on Zoom by appointment

Course Assistants: Ishaq Chowdury ([email protected]) and Sena Hanaishi ([email protected])

Course Overview

This course will introduce you to the big ideas, theories and current topics in contemporary educational psychology. We will also spend a good deal of the course connecting overarching theories to their specific applications in empirical research studies and in the realm of educational practice. While the course attempts to give a broad overview of the field, emphasis will be given to learning, cognition, and motivation.

Throughout the course, you will:

● Grapple with big ideas, theories, and current topics in educational psychology

● Learn to critically read research studies in educational psychology

● Tie theory to its specific applications in research

● Gain knowledge in an area of your own interest, within the field of educational psychology

Class Structure

A major goal of the course is to enable you to wrestle with the big ideas in educational psychology and generate your own conclusions about them. In keeping with this goal, online modules will contain a mixture of discussion, activities, and lecture, designed to elicit critical thinking.

Small group discussions (75% TOTAL GRADE) - In the time of generative text AI, it has become untenable to teach online in a way that bases your assessment of learning around writing on discussion boards and other assignments. Therefore, this course’s assessments will be primarily from small group discussions. Groups of no more than 5 will meet with Dr Young to discuss the material from the relevant weeks, as indicated on the schedule. You will be able to sign up for these sessions on Canvas.

Literature review (25% TOTAL GRADE) - Choose an educational problem of interest. Synthesize the relevant research on this topic (10 articles minimum) in an 8-10-page double-spaced paper. You must do more than summarize the articles you’ve read. Make an argument and use empirical studies to support it. This project has 3 stages/assignments. Late assignments automatically incur a 10% reduction in grade, except in special circumstances.

• Thesis + Context and Argument Outline. (5%) Write 1-3 pages explaining the context/background for your argument and state your thesis. Then, outline the 3-6 points which you will need to make (and support) in order to build your argument.

• Annotated Bibliography (10%) Write a 1-2 sentence statement of the thesis you will aim to support throughout your literature review. Include an annotated list of at least 5 empirical journal articles that provide evidence to support your thesis. Additionally, turn in the actual annotated journal articles

• Draft of Literature Review (10%) This is the final draft of the literature review. The last small group session will be a “defense” of your ideas and the literature you use to back it up. Once you have turned in your final draft, there will be no chance for revisions until after the defense.

Discussion Boards on Canvas - Discussion boards will be posted for each week’s topic. These will be a mixture of mini lecture videos, outlines and/or linked media of some sort. Discussion board comments are not required and are not part of your grade, however you are strongly encouraged to engage with the material in this way for your own edification and as preparation for the small group discussions. While I very much hope to see students discussing these ideas with each

 other, should that not happen, the course assistants and I will also respond to questions/comments for those that have gone unanswered.

Extra Credit (UP TO 3% ON THE FINAL GRADE) - Diversity Topics in Education Presentation. You have the option of working alone or with ONE other person to create a 15 minute presentation comparing TWO empirical studies of choice which are related to some aspect of diversity in educational psychology. These will be posted on Canvas for the class to interact with and are due by APRIL 15. The topics are listed below and more information is available on Canvas.

• Cultural Diversity

• Racial (within US)

• Gender

• LGBTQ+

• Socioeconomic

• Topics in neurodiversity (gifted education/learning differences)

• Other topic of interest (subject to approval)

AI Writing Tools Policy.

All of your assignments and many of your discussion posts will be checked for plagiarism and the use of AI writing tools using Turnitin software. You should not use ANY writing tools for this class. This includes Grammarly (anything beyond the simple spelling and grammar check), paraphrasing tools, AI translators like google translate. Turnitin cannot really tell the difference, so to avoid confusion and penalty to your grade, avoid the use of all these tools. If you are concerned about how comprehensible a writing piece is, please contact the TC writing center. If there is additional concern regarding discussion posts, reach out to Dr Young to discuss solutions.

Class Rules & Expectations.

1. Do all readings (in at least some capacity)! All the articles have been carefully chosen to provide you with a deeper understanding of the material and/or to help foster discussion.

2. Contribute thoughtfully to the discussion boards! Sharing your ideas and questions is critical for discussion, even more so in the asynchronous environment.

3. FOLLOW WRITING SUBMISSION FORMAT. Details in class resources.

4. If you join the class late you will be responsible for learning the missed material on your own.

(According to College policy, during the “shopping” period you’re supposed to attend all the

lectures of your potential courses.)

5. Questions about material in preparation for discussions or the project will be answered by email if

they are (a) emailed before 7PM the evening before the exam, and (b) include your attempt to answer the question. By providing an attempt to answer the question your Professor can see your current thought process and better help you understand the material.

6. Plagiarism is absolutely not tolerated. Your papers will be run through the Turnitin software, which automatically detects plagiarized text.

     Grading Scale

 A = 95% and above

C = 73% - 76.99%

 A- = 90% - 94.99%

 C- = 70% - 72.99%

B+ = 87% - 89.99%

D+ = 67% - 69.99%

 B = 83% - 86.99%

 D= 60% - 66.99%

B- = 80% - 82.99%

F=59.99% and below

 C+ = 77% - 79.99%

       Teachers College Policies

Plagiarism. Students who intentionally submit work either not their own or without clear attribution to the original source, fabricate data or other information, engage in cheating, or misrepresentation of academic records may be subject to charges. Sanctions may include dismissal from the college for violation of the TC principles of academic and professional integrity fundamental to the purpose of the College.

Accommodations – The College will make reasonable accommodations for persons with documented disabilities. Students are encouraged to contact the Office of Access and Services for Individuals with Disabilities (OASID) for information about registration. You can reach OASID by email at [email protected], stop by 163 Thorndike Hall or call 212-678-3689. Services are available only to

students who have registered and submit appropriate documentation. As your instructor, I am happy to discuss specific needs with you as well. Please report any access related concerns about instructional material to OASID and to me as your instructor.

Incomplete Grades – For the full text of the Incomplete Grade policy please refer to http://www.tc.columbia.edu/policylibrary/Incomplete Grades

Student Responsibility for Monitoring TC email account – Students are expected to monitor their TC email accounts. For the full text of the Student Responsibility for Monitoring TC email account please refer

to http://www.tc.columbia.edu/policylibrary/Student Responsibility for Monitoring TC Email Account

Religious Observance – For the full text of the Religious Observance policy, please refer to http://www.tc.columbia.edu/policylibrary/provost/religious-observance/

Sexual Harassment and Violence Reporting – Teachers College is committed to maintaining a safe environment for students. Because of this commitment and because of federal and state regulations, we must advise you that if you tell any of your instructors about sexual harassment or gender-based misconduct involving a member of the campus community, your instructor is required to report this information to the Title IX Coordinator, Janice Robinson. She will treat this information as private, but will need to follow up with you and possibly look into the matter. The Ombuds officer for Gender-Based Misconduct is a confidential resource available for students, staff and faculty. “Gender-based misconduct” includes sexual assault, stalking, sexual harassment, dating violence, domestic violence, sexual exploitation, and gender-based harassment. For more information,

see http://www.tc.columbia.edu/titleix

Privacy Statement - Students in this course may be recorded. Students who receive or are provided access to a

recording of a class may not download the recording to a computer or other electronic device on which it would be accessible to others and may not distribute the recording or any portion or transcript of it to anyone else. We are part of a learning community and students must respect each other’s privacy. Students may talk about personal or sensitive topics and it is important to the course that we have a safe space to share openly. If a student is found to have shared a recording in violation of this rule, the student will be subject to sanctions for academic and general misconduct, including a failing grade for this course. The instructor has the option of sharing the class session recordings with other members of your class. Any other use of the recording will require your expressed written permission.

 Course Calendar & Readings

All readings will be made available on Canvas. Readings are tentative and subject to change.

       #

Date

Topic

Readings

Assignments Due

1

Jan 16- Jan 22

Introduction

Graesser, A. C., Sabatini, J. P., & Li, H. (2022). Educational psychology is evolving to accommodate technology, multiple disciplines, and Twenty-First-Century skills. Annual review of psychology, 73, 547-574.

Suggested:

Alexander, P. A. (2018). Past as prologue: Educational psychology’s legacy and progeny. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2), 147.

Intro on Canvas

Survey of timing for small groups

2

Jan 23 - Jan 29

Nature of Knowledge

Case, R. (1998). Changing views of knowledge and their impact on educational research and practice. The handbook of education and human development: New models of learning, teaching and schooling, 73-95.

Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (2012). Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional view of transfer. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 248-258.

Suggested:

Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning.

International encyclopedia of education, 2.

Intro on Canvas

Survey of timing for small groups

3

Jan 30 - Feb 5

Power and Equity in the Learning Spaces

Esmonde, I. (2016). Power and sociocultural theories of learning. Power and privilege in the learning sciences, 24-45.

Au, W. W. (2009). High-stakes testing and discursive control: The triple bind for non-standard student identities. Multicultural Perspectives, 11(2), 65-71.

Mijs, J. J. (2016). The unfulfillable promise of meritocracy: Three lessons and their implications for justice in education. Social Justice Research, 29(1), 14-34.

Suggested:

Nasir, N. I. S., Lee, C. D., Pea, R., & McKinney de Royston, M.

(2021). Rethinking learning: What the interdisciplinary science tells us. Educational Researcher, 50(8), 557-565.

Small group sessions for weeks 1-3

4

Feb 6 - Feb 12

Cognition and Cognitive Processes

Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learners as information processors: Legacies and limitations of educational psychology's second metaphor. Educational psychologist,31(3-4), 151- 161.

Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and learning, 1, 3-14.

Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.

Suggested:

Perry, J., Lundie, D., & Golder, G. (2018). Metacognition in schools: what does the literature suggest about the effectiveness of teaching metacognition in schools?.

Small group sessions for weeks 1-3

Thesis +Outline Due Feb 12

        5

Feb 13- Feb 19

Constructivist Perspective

Siegler, R.S. & Alibali, M.W. (2005). Chapter 2: Piaget’s Theory of Development. In Children’s Thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice.

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Constructivism as a theory of learning versus constructivism as a prescription for instruction. In Constructivist Instruction (pp. 196-212). Routledge.

Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo, M. A., & Chin, D. B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of educational psychology, 103(4), 759.

6

Feb 20- Feb 26

Socio-Cultural Perspective

Rowe, S. M., & Wertsch, J. V. (2008). Vygotsky's model of cognitive development. In Goswami, U. (Ed.). Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development. (pp. 538 - 554).

Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational researcher, 44(1), 46-53.

Saxe, G. B. (1988). The mathematics of child street vendors. Child development, 1415-1425.

Suggested:

Göncü, A., & Gauvain, M. (2012). Sociocultural approaches to

educational psychology: Theory, research, and application.

Small group sessions for weeks 4-6

7

Feb 2- Mar 4

Motivation Theories

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self- determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 82-91.

Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational psychologist, 47(4), 302-314.

Small group sessions for weeks 4-6

Annotated Bibliography Due

Mar 4

8

Mar 5- Mar 11

Motivation Applications

Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child development, 78(1), 246-263.

Bashant, J. (2014). Developing grit in our students: Why grit is such a desirable trait, and practical strategies for teachers and schools. Journal for Leadership and Instruction, 13(2), 14-17.

Credé, M. (2018). What shall we do about grit? A critical review of what we know and what we don’t know. Educational Researcher, 47(9), 606-611.

9

Mar 12- Mar 17

Learning Technologies

Mayer RE. 2019. Computer games in education. Annu. Rev. Psychol.70:531–49

Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M. A., & Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3, 275-285.

Delacruz, S. (2020). Starting From Scratch (Jr.): Integrating code literacy in the primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 73(6), 805-812.

Small group sessions for weeks 7-9

 SPRING BREAK

  10

 Mar 26- Apr 1

 Educational Artificial Intelligence

Phillips, A., Pane, J. F., Reumann-Moore, R., & Shenbanjo, O. (2020). Implementing an adaptive intelligent tutoring system as an instructional supplement. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 1409-1437.

Chin, D. B., Dohmen, I. M., Cheng, B. H., Oppezzo, M. A., Chase, C. C., & Schwartz, D. L. (2010). Preparing students for future learning with Teachable Agents. Educational

 Small group sessions for weeks 7-9

        Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 649-669. Su, J., Ng, D. T. K., & Chu, S. K. W. (2023). Artificial

intelligence (AI) literacy in early childhood education: The challenges and opportunities. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100124.

Suggested:

Koedinger, K. R., Anderson, J. R., Hadley, W. H., & Mark, M. A.

(1997). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city, 30-43.

11

Apr 2 - Apr 8

Neuroscience Applications

Varma, S., McCandliss, B. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (2008). Scientific and pragmatic challenges for bridging education and neuroscience. Educational researcher, 37(3), 140-152.

Christodoulou, J. A., & Gaab, N. (2009). Using and misusing neuroscience in education-related research. cortex, 45(4), 555.

Supekar, K., Swigart, A. G., Tenison, C., Jolles, D. D., Rosenberg-Lee, M., Fuchs, L., & Menon, V. (2013). Neural predictors of individual differences in response to math tutoring in primary-grade school children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(20), 8230-8235.

Literature Review Due April 8

12

Apr 9 - Apr 15

Instructional Methods

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational psychologist, 49(4), 219-243.

Galbraith, J., & Winterbottom, M. (2011). Peer-tutoring: what’s in it for the tutor?. Educational Studies, 37(3), 321-332.

Last Day to turn in extra credit presentation April 15

13

Apr 16 - Apr 22

Assessment

Bransford, John D., and Daniel L. Schwartz. "Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications." Review of research in education 24 (1999): 61-100.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010). Kappan Classic: Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment: Formative assessment is an essential component of classroom work and can raise student achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 81-90.

Au, W. (2013). Hiding behind high-stakes testing: Meritocracy, objectivity and inequality in US education. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 12(2).

Suggested:

Berliner, D. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The

case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge journal of education, 41(3), 287-302.

Small group sessions for weeks 10-13

14

Apr 23- Apr 29

Final meetings for literature review defense

Small group sessions for weeks 10-13

15

Apr 30 - May 6

Final meetings for literature review defense