Content uploaded by James D. Allen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by James D. Allen on Mar 06, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Insights from Educational Psychology Part 5: Learning as a Social Act
“… sociocultural theory does not avoid or deny recognition of the role of the individual in 'making sense' but
examines that role in the context of processes of collective thinking activity and the creation of socially shared
knowledge.” Neil Mercer (2013, p. 164)
Learning is a cognitive constructive act. That is, people actively build meaning as they
learn. This perspective on how people learn is known as individual cognitive constructivism, and
is based on Piaget’s cognitive development theory (Miller, 2010). Cognitive constructivism
suggests that everything individuals learn is due to the mental schemes we construct as we
interact with our environment (Schunk, 2016). However, learning is also almost always a social
act. The view of learning as an individual cognitive construction is incomplete, because much of
a student’s academic learning occurs through reading and social interactions.
Reading is a social act, because engaged reading involves social interaction between the
reader and the author. The authors of the works in our libraries wrote to reach an audience.
Authors communicate with the intent of interacting with readers through their written words.
Experienced readers conduct an internal dialogue between the author’s words and their
individual contextual understandings. Kintsch (1986) describes effective reading of texts as
finding meaningful connections within the text that the author is trying to communicate to the
reader, or between the author’s expressions to the reader and the knowledge the reader already
possesses. Either way, the reader is cognitively engaged in an implicit social interaction with the
author. When we consider the case of library instruction, much of what a student learns comes
from exchange of information between librarian and students, or perhaps exchange among
students if collaborative learning is part of the instruction. Both types of information exchange
2
are social acts. Since most academic learning involves social interaction, many educational
psychologists base their work on the theory of social constructivism. Social constructivism views
learning as a product of interactions with others. For example, an individual can develop interest
in a topic through interactions with parents, friends, teachers, or librarians (Bergin, 2016).
Two theories of learning have predominated in the last several decades of educational
psychology research on how people learn. Both are grounded in the idea that learning is the
product of social interactions. We will first introduce the social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 1989)
and then describe highlights of the socio-cultural theory (Vygotsky, Cole, John-Steiner, &
Souberman, 1980; Wertsch, 1979; Wertsch & Tulviste, 1992).
Social-cognitive View of Learning
According to Bandura (1989), a majority of what we learn in an academic environment is
learned through observing and interacting with others. This is illustrated by the reciprocal
influence of environment, personal characteristics, and behavior as depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Triadic Reciprocity
Personal
Characterisitics
BehaviorEnvironment
3
Environment is both the physical setting (e.g., classroom, library, home) and the elements within
the setting with which the individual observes or cognitively interacts. For example, elements of
the environment could be teachers and their comments, other students and their comments,
library collections, computer programs, or research assignments. Personal characteristics are the
cognitive and affective characteristics that each individual brings with them to the learning
environment. These include previous content knowledge, literacy skills, self-efficacy beliefs,
motivational levels, attitudes, values, and emotions. Behavior includes the observable
performances of the individual. Observable behaviors include academic performance, social and
interpersonal interactions, and level of effort. Each of these three components mutually
influences one another in a reciprocal manner.
For example, a student goes to the library to work on a research project on the internment
of American-Japanese during World War II. Let us name this student Pat. The library and the
assignment are key elements of Pat’s learning environment. Pat has done the assigned reading
for the course and therefore has a personal characteristic of prior knowledge. But Pat also
happens to have a low sense of self-efficacy about how to use the library. Unfortunately Pat also
wants to avoid revealing confusion about how to use the library. Pat’s low self-efficacy and
reluctance to reveal confusion cause Pat to not ask help from the librarian, and instead just find a
random book and sit at a table. In this case the library environment activated Pat’s personal
characteristic of low self-efficacy, which then prompted the non-engaged behavior of not asking
for help. The environment influences personal characteristics which then influence behavior.
However, a classmate joins Pat at the table in the library, and immediately goes to the librarian to
ask for help. The classmate comes back a few minutes later with a book on the topic and a
strategy for how to find more information, and mentions how helpful the librarian was. Having
4
observed this, Pat overcomes reluctance and asks the reference librarian for help. The interaction
goes well and Pat is relieved to save time and worry. In this case the behavior of the classmate
influenced the environment, which in turn influenced the personal characteristics of the student
in a way that changed Pat’s behavior.
During this exchange in the environment, the student behavior was to observe the
interaction between the librarian and the classmate and notice the effect of the exchange. This
shifted the student’s personal characteristics by inducing a positive attitude toward asking for
help. The classmate’s question also primed the librarian to be ready for a similar question, thus
influencing the environment. Our example of Pat’s experience shows how environment,
behavior, and personal characteristics reciprocally influence the others in iterative processes.
Our example of this triadic reciprocity in the library is an example of vicarious or
observational learning. In the social environment of the library where students engage in
interactions with each other and the librarian, students observe the models set by classmates’
behaviors. Students imitate classmates’ academic behaviors via processes of attention, retention,
reproduction, and motivation. That is, a student may direct cognitive attention to the specific
behavior a model exhibits, retain it in memory, be capable of reproducing the observed behavior,
and be motivated act. Pat’s observation of a classmate interacting with a librarian is an example
of how attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation can influence learning. To reiterate the
crux of Bandura’s theory, observational learning is based on these four processes: attention,
retention, reproduction, and motivation (Bandura, 1989). All four processes are required for
effective learning.
5
Observational learning only occurs when the observer has a reason to attend to the
teacher, librarian, peer tutor, or whoever is offering the instruction. The social-cognitive theory
labels the source of instruction the model. There are two major types of models that individuals
generally focus their attention on, known as the mastery model and the coping model (Schunk,
2016). Mastery models are individuals who through expertise and skill have obtained a deep
understanding and mastery of a subject. Content specialists, such as college professors and
librarians, are examples of mastery models. Students who recognize the value of a mastery
model will pay attention and learn, especially if the content being taught is personally
meaningful. In our experience college students tend to appreciate mastery models within their
majors, and be less attentive to mastery models in required general education courses. However,
if the professor or librarian possesses mastery of pedagogical skills as well as content mastery,
they can trigger students’ attention to the subject. A truly attentive student is likely to retain
information, be able to reproduce it, and be motivated to succeed academically. Librarians as
mastery models can significantly influence students’ interest in academic work.
The second type of model in social-cognitive theory is the coping model (Schunk, 2016).
Students attend to a coping model because they share similar characteristics. Shared
characteristics might include academic ability, age, major, or gender. A mastery model is
typically a teacher or librarian, while coping models tend to be peers. A student who attends to a
coping model has observed the model move from a less knowledgeable state to a more
knowledgeable state in a content area within which the observer may be struggling. Coping
models are often beneficial to students working on academic assignments in small groups. Each
member of the group observes some peers overcome struggles to achieve success. Peer
observation of a coping model who applies effort and determination to overcome difficulties and
6
succeed academically can inspire greater engagement. Tutors can be good coping models. Often
the most effective tutors are individuals who at one point in their studies struggled with the same
academic content that is the topic of the tutoring. These coping models often have insights that
help them make clearer explanations to students than instruction from mastery models who may
have seldom struggled with mastering the content.
Socio-cultural View of Learning
The socio-cultural view of learning is based on the premise that mental functioning is
derived from the mastery and internalization of social interactions within one’s cultural
environment (Wertsch & Tulviste, 1992). The theory is rooted in the work of L. S. Vygotsky, a
Marxist Russian psychologist who lived from 1896-1934. Vygotsky asserted that all learning
comes from exchange of knowledge between individuals, and individuals are all products of their
socio-cultural group. Exchange of knowledge between individuals leads to greater understanding
of that knowledge within individuals. Translations of Vygotsky’s work refer to interpersonal
interactions as intermental functioning, and individual thought as intramental functioning. We
will not use those terms here, but be aware that the extensive literature based on Vygotsky’s
ideas frequently refer to intermental (i.e. interpersonal) and intramental (i.e. individual)
processes.
Vygotsky theorized that exchange of knowledge is accomplished through the
psychological tools of a culture or social group that have developed historically over time
(Wertsch & Tulviste, 1992). These culturally based psychological tools for the exchange of
knowledge include verbal language and written texts. Language and writing develop within each
socio-cultural group for the purpose of sharing information among the members of that group.
7
Thus, individuals living in different social or cultural groups will have different mental schemes
about similar concepts. Individual understandings of concepts are based on how the person’s
socio-cultural group has historically learned those concepts.
The socio-cultural view has very important implications for education. The type of
learning that occurs in very homogeneous groups of students is quite different from what
happens in a heterogeneous group of students. The more homogeneous the group, the less
diversity of thought is shared among the group members. The more heterogeneous the group
members, the greater the diversity of ideas that may be shared within the group. Heterogeneous
grouping provides wider and more diverse perspectives on what one is learning. When one
brings people with different cultural backgrounds together, the diverse individuals bring to the
group various cognitive constructions of relevant concepts. In other words, they bring to the table
diverse assumptions about the world. Various assumptions and perspectives are the product of
diverse socio-cultural constructions of knowledge. Thus, learning environments structured to
foster social interaction among people with different ideas and conceptual knowledge expand
both the breadth and depth of what can be learned.
A key instructional implication of socio-cultural theory is that teachers or librarians need
to present information in a way that connects to what a student already knows, but that also
forces them to engage with different perspectives. Vygotsky (Vygotsky et al., 1980) asserted that
instruction should target students’ level of potential development, rather than target their present
level of development. He defined the Zone of Proximal Development as the psychological
difference (zone) between the cognitive level of what one currently understands and can do
independently and the potential cognitive level of what one can understand with support and
guidance. The space where students can learn with guidance and support is depicted in Figure 2.
8
Figure 2: Zone of Proximal Development
Support and guidance come from interacting with someone more knowledgeable about
the concept or skill being learned (Wertsch & Tulviste, 1992). The exchange of one another’s
understandings of a concept helps each person develop a new understanding of that concept. The
process of a well conducted reference interview is a good example of using the Zone of Proximal
Development to help a student grow and learn. The librarian will probably have a more extensive
understanding of how to do a literature search, but the student brings to the interactive dialogue a
unique understanding of their chosen research topic. Through collaboration the librarian guides
the student to learn beyond what they could do on their own. In educational psychology this type
of guidance is often called scaffolding. Scaffold questions can be used to learn what knowledge
the student possesses. Once the present level of abilities has been gauged, the librarian can
engage in dialogue to connect the student’s current knowledge with the librarian’s knowledge.
Modeling, explaining, and active listening are types of scaffolding strategies to help a student
achieve more than they could on their own. A good reference interview is an excellent example
Comfort Zone
Can do now
without help
Zone of
Proximal
Development
Can do with guidance
and support --
“scaffolding”
Anxiety
Zone
Not yet able to
do
Increasing degree of difficulty
9
of scaffolding, even if librarians rarely use that term to describe the guidance and support we
provide students.
The idea of supporting student learning by providing scaffolds has been interpreted in
myriad ways. The term originated from a study of how tutors supported young children’s ability
to complete a task (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). They identified six elements of effective
scaffolding functions the tutors provided to support learning, depicted in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Effective Scaffolding
Scaffolding strategies take many forms and can focus on both cognitive and motivational
aspects of learning. Effective scaffolding strategies are recognized by the student as relevant to
their work, are capable of getting the student to think or act in new ways, and include dialogue
that confronts confusion and inconsistencies in thinking (Greene & Land, 2000). The Zone of
Proximal Development is inherently uncomfortable for students, as learning beyond what they
can do by themselves involves taking risk and trusting others. The many possible goals of a
RECRUIT
enlist interest
SIMPLIFY
Screen out
unnecessary
choices
FOCUS
Keep student
on task in
pursuit of
goal
HIGHLIGHT
Point out most
important
elements
GUIDE
Counter frustration
with prompts or hints
(but not too much!)
MODEL
Demonstrate
solutions that can
be imitated
10
scaffolding strategy can include establishing task value, promoting mastery goals, promoting
belonging, promoting expectancy for success, and promoting autonomy (Belland, Kim, &
Hannafin, 2013).
Recent work on Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory connects it to principles of evolutionary
psychology and anthropology. Mercer (2013) argues that human cognition is a direct result of
evolution. Humans have evolved to have what he calls social brains. “The nature and size of the
human brain might also reflect the survival advantages of a more subtle kind of mental capacity,
that of being able to make sense of complex social relationships” (Mercer, 2013, p. 150). Social
brains have evolved through the development of the psychological tools of verbal and written
language. Language allows for collective interpersonal cognitive activity. Interpersonal thinking
and communication leads to individual intellectual development and learning. Mercer (2013)
proposes that collaborative learning leads to individual intellectual development and learning in
three ways: appropriation, co-construction, and transformation.
Appropriation means students can absorb information and learn strategies by observing
others during joint activities. Appropriating information as one’s own is the least complex result
of collaborative learning. Language is the medium for transmitting information from one mind to
another. Appropriation is a straightforward means of transferring information that does not
usually induce self-reflection or metacognition (Mercer, 2013).
A second, and more powerful type of collaboration is the co-construction of knowledge
and conceptual understanding. Co-constructive learning activities include dialogue and
productive argumentation of ideas. Argumentation leads to joint construction of new ideas and
strategies for completing academic tasks. The process of weighing different perspectives and
11
collaborating on a solution gives greater personal meaning to what is being learned. As a
consequence, learning based on productive argument and co-constructed understanding is more
generalizable and transferable than learning by an individual working alone (Mercer, 2013).
Transformation is the most complex outcome of collaborative learning. Mercer (2013)
argues that co-constructive interpersonal communication can transform the nature of subsequent
individual reasoning. If the cooperative learning activity requires each student to explicitly
explain and support their reasoning, the argumentative dialogue will transform individual
student’s metacognitive awareness and regulation. The different perspectives shared among
group members causes each individual’s theory of mind to develop in response to the different
points of view. Engaging in dialogue teaches individuals to internally consider and debate
different points of view. Such internal dialogue would not develop absent interaction with other
perspectives and engagement with different assumptions about the world (Mercer, 2013).
Although collaborative learning may be transformative in nature, Kuhn (2015) suggests
that students’ abilities to learn effectively in groups does not occur naturally. Argumentation is a
skill that has to be learned and practiced. As we discussed in Part 3 (Black & Allen, 2017), if
students are not taught argumentative skills during their high school experience, they will often
not have developed the skills necessary for transformative collaborative learning. Since a major
purpose of collaborative learning is to develop the social cognitive and metacognitive skills
students will need later in their professional lives, it is very important to include argumentation
in the curriculum (Kuhn, 2015).
12
Collaboration, Learning, and Transfer
Most academic, professional, and daily living tasks involve solving problems. A major
purpose of school is to prepare students for successful personal and professional lives filled with
problems to be solved. Therefore the knowledge and skills one learns in school should be
transferable to real life problem solving. The main thesis of this installment of our series on
insights from educational psychology is that practically all learning comes from social
interactions. Recall that social interaction includes the inner dialogue a reader conducts with an
author. So if one is to have success in academic, personal or professional relationships, it is
important to consider how collaborating to solve problems can transfer to school, career, and
daily life settings.
Mayer (1998) suggests that three elements are key to develop transferrable problem
solving: skill, metaskill, and will. First, individuals must have the necessary content knowledge
and learning strategies to solve problems. An example would be basic information literacy skills
such as how to find books and articles relevant to a specific topic. Individuals also need
metaskills, meaning metacognitive awareness of when to apply a skill. Determining the extent of
information needed and understanding that research is inquiry are examples of metaskills.
Finally, individuals need to have the will or motivation to put forth the effort to apply their skills
and metaskills to solving real problems. It is for good reason that the Framework for Information
Literacy (2015) includes dispositions, as the listed dispositions capture the motivations students
need to apply information literacy to real problems. Information literacy is of little use without
the will to apply it to real world problems. So it is important for teachers, librarians, and parents
to do their best to make sure students have the knowledge, skills, and strategies to collaboratively
solve problems. Practice with collaborative learning and productive argumentation promotes
13
metacognitive awareness and self-regulation, which in turn strengthens transferability of
learning. When skills and metaskills are combined with the will to solve problems, students can
transfer their learning in the classroom or library to new problems in other contexts.
However, transfer of learning requires these three acts: detect a similarity between what
one already knows with a new situation, connect the knowledge or skill one possess to the new
situation, and elect to pursue the connection between two related situations (Perkins & Salomon,
2012). Failure to detect, connect, or elect derails transfer of prior learning to a novel problem.
These failures are more likely when students have been taught content or a skill in an isolated or
superficial manner. Collaborative engagement helps students learn how to detect knowledge that
can apply to a different context. But even when students can detect similarities between what
they already know and a new situation, competing stimuli in the environment may interfere with
making a connection. While being able to detect and connect does not guarantee that one will
elect to apply learned skills to new problems, experience working in groups reinforces the ability
to transfer problem-solving abilities.
This issue of transfer is why social collaborative learning activities are so important.
When individuals with different skills, metaskills, and motivation levels work together to solve a
problem, interpersonal collaboration generates richer personal understanding and promotes
greater transfer of learning for all. Much of the research on collaborative learning has focused on
young children, but there has been increased interest in collaborative learning on the college
level. Svinicki and Schallert (2016) assert that for collaborative learning in college to succeed,
the instructor must focus on learning goals and match the type of collaboration to the goals. They
define four broad categories of learning goals: knowledge acquisition, knowledge application,
knowledge creation, and discipline-specific discourse (Svinicki & Schallert, 2016). Say the goal
14
is knowledge acquisition, such as building foundational understanding or learning a discipline’s
vocabulary. One appropriate approach would be to use the jigsaw technique, whereby individuals
are responsible for learning one section of the material and then teaching it to others (Svinicki &
Schallert, 2016).
The reciprocal questioning strategy is another collaborative way to support knowledge
acquisition. Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning has been shown to increase retention of content
knowledge, promote metacognitive skills and motivation, and lead to greater transfer of
knowledge (King, 1990). The Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning method teaches students how
to write effective group discussion questions based on course readings or lectures, and then use
those questions to collaboratively help everyone in the group gain deep and broad understanding.
The central element to the method is to provide prompts designed to elicit questions that solicit
high-level cognitive processing (King, 2002). After reading or listening to lectures, students
create higher-order application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation questions build upon generic
question stems provided by the instructor, such as:
• How would you use . . . to . . ?
• What would happen if ... ?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of ... ?
• How does ... tie in with what we learned before?
• Explain why . . . Explain how ...
• How does . . . affect . . . ?
• What is the meaning of ... ?
• Why is ... important?
15
• How are . . . and . . similar?
• How are . . . and ... different?
• What is the best ... and why?
• Compare . . . and . . . with regard to ...
• What do you think causes . . ?
• What conclusions can you draw about ... ? (King, 2002).
With Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning it is important to place students in
heterogeneous groups by gender, major, culture, or other criteria to maximize the benefits of
drawing on individual understandings. If the students all bring the same understandings to the
group, no one will have to engage in different points of view. In a successful collaboration the
interpersonal dialogue will lead the group to create shared meaning. The collaboratively
produced shared meaning is richer when diverse personal understandings are brought to bear.
This strategy of using question stems has been shown to effectively promote retention of course
content and the ability to transfer the content to other contexts (King, 1990). Reciprocal
questioning thus supports not only knowledge acquisition, it also supports knowledge
application.
An effective technique for knowledge application and knowledge creation is problem-
based learning (Svinicki & Schallert, 2016). Effective problem based learning requires students
to work together to find solutions to ill-defined, open-ended problems. The key to problem based
learning is to create good problems that allow room for disagreement and discussion, are open to
elaboration, and that capture the interest of students (Svinicki & Schallert, 2016). Project-based
learning is a variation of the same technique, with the added element that students are required to
16
create a presentation for a target audience. Project-based learning is particularly well suited to
fulfilling the learning goal of knowledge creation.
The highest level learning goal to address with collaborative learning is the development
of discipline-specific discourse, which fits with the information literacy concept that scholarship
is a conversation. “Group activities associated with practicing disciplinary ways of talking and
writing are helpful not only because they are effective and motivating but because they offer
learning environments in which to practice the very discourse skills being learned” (Svinicki &
Schallert, 2016, p. 545). Techniques for supporting this aspect of information literacy include
peer response to writing and online discussion. These techniques can be effective for building
fluency in a discipline so long as interaction among peers is both critical and supportive.
Librarians have an important social role to play in education. We influence the learning
environment in many ways, and our interactions with students influence their developing
personal characteristics and behaviors. A major theme in this part of our series is that diversity of
perspectives enhances collaborative learning. Our next column will focus on insights educational
psychologists have on the role of cultural difference in education.
Takeaways for librarians
• Be mindful that all aspects of the library environment can influence the development of
personal characteristics and behaviors. The impact of students’ interactions in the library
may not be immediately apparent.
• How we treat patrons impacts not only those individuals, but also potentially influences
everyone those individuals interact with.
17
• When we model our mastery of information literacy, students can learn by observing what
we do. Our modeling can significantly influence students’ interest in academic work.
• Model not only what you know, but also the process of how you came to know it.
• In reference interviews show interest, stick to the most essential steps, encourage effort,
accentuate key points, reduce frustration but leave ownership with the patron, and model
how to find solutions to the problem.
• The guidance and support we give students should be recognized by them as relevant to
their work and capable of getting them to think in new ways. Work to discover points of
confusion or mistaken ideas and model solutions to overcome the confusion or error.
• The way we model problem solving and interact with students can transform how they
reason.
• Learning collaboratively increases the transferability of knowledge and skills.
• If you use collaborative learning in library instruction, match the technique to the desired
learning outcomes.
Recommended reading
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A Social-cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
This classic work describes the primary principles of social-cognitive learning theory. The heart
of the theory is a model of causal reciprocity between personal characteristics, environmental
factors, and social behavior. The processes by which people learn from observing others is
described in depth. Bandura also addresses how social interactions impact self-regulation and
self-efficacy.
18
Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds
that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243-270.
doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.838920
The authors assert that problem based learning does not necessarily engage students.
Sscaffolding strategies need to address both cognition and motivation. They suggest guidelines
for effective supports and provide a cited list of thirty scaffolding strategies. The comprehensive
overview of what scaffolding is and the extensive citations make this an excellent entry point to
the literature on effective scaffolding strategies.
King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through
reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 664-687.
doi:10.2307/1163105
King describes the socio-cultural foundations behind her research on reciprocal questioning, an
instructional and learning strategy designed to promote retention and transfer of academic
content. Reciprocal questioning is based on the need for students to relate to prior knowledge,
reword ideas, note relationships, and generate new examples. Two studies compare the
effectiveness of guided discussion versus non-guided discussion. Students who apply generic
question stems to problems increase the quality of their learning.
Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving.
Instructional Science, 26, 49-63. doi:10.1023/A:1003088013286
Mayer discusses the importance of developing cognitive skills, metacognitive strategies
(metaskills), and the motivation (will) for students to become effective problem solvers. A main
focus is on what it takes to transfer problem solving skills to novel situations. His discussion is
19
based on a constructivist view of learning and motivation based on interest, self-efficacy, and
causal attributions. Skills, ability to recognize when to apply skills, and motivation are all
necessary to transfer learning to new contexts.
Mercer, N. (2013). The social brain, language, and goal-directed collective thinking: A
social conception of cognition and its implications for understanding how we think,
teach, and learn. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 1-21.
doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.804394
Mercer integrates research from the fields of anthropology and evolutional psychology with
Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory of cognitive development. He argues that collaborative learning
towards a common goal leads to greater individual intellectual development. Interpersonal
(“intermental”) collaboration leads to individual (“intramental”) understanding through the three
processes of appropriation, co-construction, and transformation. Collective reasoning is a key
element of a functioning society.
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (2012). Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional
view of transfer. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 248-258.
doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.693354
Transfer of knowledge and skills is often difficult to achieve because individuals often fail to
detect, connect or elect to find the similarities between what they already know and how that
might relate to a new situation. Transfer of learning comes easily if detect-elect-connect are
prompted by prior learning, cues, or other clues. Perkins describes why seeing connections often
exceeds students’ capabilities.
20
Svinicki, M. D., & Schallert, D. L. (2016). Learning through group work in the college
classroom: Evaluating the evidence from an instructional goal perspective. In M. B.
Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, v. 31 (pp. 513-558).
New York: Springer.
The authors provide a thoroughly referenced overview of research on collaborative learning in
college. Nine group work methods are described: jigsaw technique, guided reciprocal
questioning, team-based learning, constructive controversy and collaborative argumentation,
problem based learning, project based learning, computer supported collaborative learning, peer
response to writing, and online discussion. Research findings and tips for maximizing
effectiveness are provided for each method.
Wertsch, J. V., & Tulviste, P. (1992). L. S. Vygotsky and contemporary developmental
psychology. Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 548-557. doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.28.4.548
Although dated, this succinct and readable overview of Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory of
learning and cognitive development remains a valuable introduction. The authors include
Vygotsky’s concept of psychological tools and the Zone of Proximal Development. Emphasis is
placed on the role language plays in the social exchange of knowledge within a culture.
Vygotsky’s view that learning as beginning with a social intermental process that leads to an
intramental process (thinking) within the individual is explained.
21
References
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9),
1175-1184. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds that
improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243-270.
doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.838920
Bergin, D. A. (2016). Social influences on interest. Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 7-22.
doi:10.1080/00461520.2015.1133306
Black, S., & Allen, J. D. (2017). Insights from educational psychology part 3: College student
development. The Reference Librarian, 58(3), 214-228.
doi:10.1080/02763877.2016.1276505
Greene, B. A., & Land, S. M. (2000). A qualitative analysis of scaffolding use in a resource-
based learning environment involving the world wide web. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 23(2), 151-179. doi:10.2190/1GUB-8UE9-NW80-CQAD
King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal
questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 664-687. doi:10.2307/1163105
King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing. Theory
into Practice, 41(1), 33-39. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4101_6
Kintsch, W. (1986). Learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 3(2), 87-108.
doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0302_1
Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 46-53.
doi:10.3102/0013189X15569530
22
Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving.
Instructional Science, 26(1-2), 49-63. doi:10.1023/A:1003088013286
Mercer, N. (2013). The social brain, language, and goal-directed collective thinking: A social
conception of cognition and its implications for understanding how we think, teach, and
learn. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 148-168. doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.804394
Miller, P. H. (2010). Piaget's theory: Past, present, and future. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Wiley-
Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (2nd ed., pp. 649-672). Hoboken:
Wiley.
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (2012). Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional view
of transfer. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 248-258. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.693354
Schunk, D. H. (2016). Learning theories: An educational perspective (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Svinicki, M. D., & Schallert, D. L. (2016). Learning through group work in the college
classroom: Evaluating the evidence from an instructional goal perspective. In M. B. Paulsen
(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, v. 31 (pp. 513-558). Dordrecht ;
New York: Springer.
Vygotsky, L. S., Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., & Souberman, E. (1980). Mind in society: The
development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1979). From social interaction to higher psychological processes: A clarification
and application of Vygotsky's theory. Human Development, 22(1), 1-22.
doi:10.1159/000272425
Wertsch, J. V., & Tulviste, P. (1992). L. S. Vygotsky and contemporary developmental
psychology. Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 548-557. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.4.548
23
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Child
Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89-100. doi:10.1111/j.1469-
7610.1976.tb00381.x
