Final Synthesis Paper 504

8/3/2019 Final Synthesis Paper 504

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/final-synthesis-paper-504 1/19

Learning Theories and their Effect on Student Motivation

Amy Pollington

Boise State University

Dr. Yu-hui Ching

504 Theoretical Foundations of

Educational Technology

January 28, 2012

Running Head: LEARNING THEORIES AND THEIR EFFECT ON STUDENT MOTIVATION



Abstract

This paper examines the contributions that behaviorism, constructivism, and cognitivism make to

student motivation. Behaviorism is a learning theory based on the belief that people learn

through stimulus-response. Educational computer and online programs provide immediate feed-

back, increasing student motivation. Cognitivism is a theory that focuses on the brain develop-

ment of the individual. If a student is at an appropriate stage of development for a particular ac-

tivity, then the motivation for learning will increase. Constructivism is a theory that promotes

constructing new learning through the use of past experiences. In the classroom, educational

technology allows students the opportunity to differentiate based on ability and interest. In or-

der to effectively motivate students, a variety of learning theories need to be implemented.

LEARNING THEORIES AND STUDENT MOTIVATION 2



Introduction

Many learning theories exist in the world of education. Along with learning theories,

there are learning theory proponents: the learning theorists who are generally classified as Be-

haviorists, Constructivists, and Cognitivists. In addition to the three major learning theory para-

digms, there are other learning theories such as Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence's and Maslow’s

Hierarchy of Needs. Each theory’s proponent believes that their learning theory is the most effec-

tive tool for student learning.

How does one know which learning theory holds the answer to student motivation and

student learning? Can one learning theory truly be efficient for motivating students and in turn

increasing student learning? We need to ask ourselves the following questions: What motivates a

student to learn? Do all students have the same motivation to learn? Do all students learn in the

same way?

I believe that each student has their individual trigger for what motivates them. It is es-

sential that a learning theorist or teacher take into consideration the unique nature of each stu-

dent’s learning style when applying learning theory to the academic environment. With the di-

verse needs of students and various academic standards, it is apparent that the use of a single

learning theory is insufficient. In order for students to be motivated to learn, and consequently be

academically successful, a teacher must consider all learning theories, applying each learning

theory to the individual student or lesson being taught. If an educator does not have the ability to

shift learning theory to match the students’ diverse learning styles and varied academic curricu-

lum, motivation will be lost and academic achievement low. The following sections of this paper




describe different learning theories and how each of those learning theories can be attributed to

student motivation.

Constructivism

Constructivism is an educational philosophy that is based on the idea that individuals form or

construct new learning from previous experiences. Two people, having the same experience, can

glean different information. Constructivists believe that people learn by constructing the meaning

of their current learning experience based on what they already know. People learn from the cur-

rent experience by linking their new knowledge to past experiences; combining new learning to

the previous lessons learned. David H. Jonassen (2005) points out that, “Constructivism claims

that reality is more in the mind of the knower, that the knower constructs a reality, or at least in-

terprets it, based upon his or her apperceptions” (p. 10). There are many theories within the con-

structivist theory. The following sections of this paper describe some of those theories, how they

can motivate students, and how educational technology and constructivism are interconnected.

Sociocultural theory, contributed to Constructivist Lev Semenovich Vygotsky, is a con-

structivist theory in which Socioculturalists believes social interaction and social environment

are the foundation of learning. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory has three main themes. The first

is that socially meaningful activities, such as a child playing with other children, contribute

largely to the child’s learning. Vygotsky (1978) states that, “Every function in the child’s cultural

development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, be-

tween people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological)” (p. 57). A sec-

ond theme in Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory relates to cultural factors such as language and




cultural norms. For example, Kozulin, Gindis, Ageyev, and Miller (2003) describe a section of a

book called “The Teaching Gap,” where the authors of the book, Stiegler and Herbert, discuss

differences between teachers in various countries. “In a Japanese classroom . . . a teacher serves

as a mediator [between the students and knowledge] . . . In a German classroom . . . teachers per-

ceive the knowledge as their property and dispense it to students as they think best” (p. 1). The

cultural and language theme of the Sociocultural theory emphasize that a child’s learning is ima-

pacted by his or her cultural environment. The third principle in Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory

is that of the Zone of Proximal Development. The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is de-

fined by Vygotsky (1978) as the “distance between the actual developmental level as determined

by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through

problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86). The

Zone of Proximal Development has three major components: scaffolding, apprenticeship, and

reciprocal teaching. Scaffolding (which is not a formal part of Vygotsky’s theory but does fit

with ZPD) is “appropriate when a teacher wants to provide students with some information or to

complete parts of a task for them so that they can concentrate on the part of the task they are at-

tempting to master” (Schunk, 2008, p. 247). In an apprenticeship “novices work closely with

experts in joint work-related activities” (Schunk, 2008, p. 248). This allows for a novice to work

on tasks beyond his or her capability. Schunk (2008) states that “apprenticeships represent a type

of dialectical constructivism that depends heavily on social interactions” (p. 148). The third

component is reciprocal teaching. Reciprocal teaching is where students take turns being the




teacher and teaching the material by asking questions or facilitating a discussion. This process is

modeled to the students prior to the lesson.

Socially meaningful activities, sociocultural influences and the zone of proximal devel-

opment all affect and impact student motivation. If a student has a meaningful social interaction

with his or her peer(s) that student will feel supported by the peer(s) and motivation will be in-

creased. According to Kathryn Wentzel (1998), “ . . . social and emotional support from peers

have been associated with motivational outcomes such as the pursuit of academic and prosocial

goals, intrinsic value, and self concept” (p. 203). Sociocultural influences also play a role in stu-

dent motivation. If a child is raised in a family where education and learning is not supported, a

student’s motivation will consequently be low. The same applies to a student who is raised in a

household of education advocates. That student’s motivation for education will be higher.

“When students view parents as models and trusted partners in learning, it helps them assess

their own capabilities and performance (Adunyarittigun, 1997)” (Gonzalez-Dehass, Willems, &

Doan Holbien, 2005, p. 118). If a student can assess his or her own capabilities and perform-

ance, the student will feel a sense of pride and consequently motivation increases. The zone of

proximal development plays a role in student motivation. When a student works on a task

through scaffolding their confidence increases. During scaffolding, help is provided to prevent

failure while the student is still working on mastering the task. The student’s increase in confi-

dence leads to an increase in motivation. The student will then be motivated to complete the task

again. Reciprocal teaching is motivational because students who are placed in a teaching position

feel a sense of power and control because they are asking questions. Many students are nervous




and unmotivated to answer questions because they are afraid to be wrong. Apprenticeships are

motivational because students are not in a classroom they are out in the field learning from an

“expert.”

A constructivist classroom can have a large effect on student motivation and is multidi-

mensional. According to Schunk (2008), “multidimensional classrooms have more activities and

allow for greater diversity in student abilities and performance” (p. 255). Characteristics of a

multidimensional classroom include differentiated instruction, high student autonomy, individual

work for students or groups not assigned by ability, and individual graded assignments which are

kept private (Schunk, 2008, p. 255). Each of these factors has an impact on student motivation.

When instruction is differentiated, students are completing assignments or tasks that are at a level

that is right for them. If the task is too difficult a student will feel less confident and experience a

sense of failure which will decrease student motivation. If the task is too easy a student will not

feel challenged which will cause a decrease in motivation because it is “too easy.” It is essential

that instruction is differentiated in order to increase student motivation. High autonomy refers to

students being able to make choices about what, when, and how complete a task. Schunk (2008)

states, “when autonomy is low, . . . [this] can hinder self-regulation and stifle motivation. Multi-

dimensional classrooms offer students more choices, which can enhance intrinsic motivation” (p.

255). When students have the opportunity to make choices they feel a sense of control. This

causes an increase in motivation. Individual work or randomly grouping students (not by ability)

has a positive effect on student motivation. When students are grouped by ability or they are

working on whole-group activities it is likely that there will be social comparisons made. The




class, whether working in ability-leveled groups or on a whole-group activity, will know which

group has the “smart kids” and which group has the “dumb kids.” This can lead to a decrease in

motivation as the kids who are in the lower leveled groups feel less confident in their abilities.

For the students in the high leveled groups they will feel a sense of entitlement and may not be

motivated to work to their full academic potential. Grading affects student motivation as well.

When students’ grades are made public, students who have lower grades will feel less confident

and embarrassed and their motivation will decrease. When students are graded on differentiated

assignments and the grades are kept private students are unable to compare grades. “Grading

[different assignments for different students] can motivate a higher proportion of students, espe-

cially those who believe they are progressing and capable of further learning (Pintrich & Schunk,

2002)” (Schunk, 2008, p. 256).

Educational technology plays a role in the Constructivist Theory and the effect it has on

student motivation. Students can get on a computer, choose from many educational websites that

are at the academic level of that student, and learn concepts in any subject. For example, if a

classroom has six computers, six students can each use a computer. All students can work on

reading at their own individual levels. On many educational websites, the students are hearing,

seeing, and interacting with the lesson. When using educational technology such as educational

websites, students are able to work individually, at their level, and make choices that motivate

them.

Behaviorism




Behaviorism is a theory that places its beliefs on external stimuli. Behaviorists believe

that all behavior is caused from a “stimulus-response” which means something external (a stimu-

lus), causes a behavior (a response). There are three main components of behaviorism: Operant

Conditioning, Respondent Learning (classical conditioning), and Observational Learning. Op-

erant Conditioning was contributed to the theory of behaviorism by Burrhus Frederic Skinner.

B.F. Skinner developed a box called the Operant Conditioning Chamber. This chamber had a

lever and a bar attached to the wall of the box. The lever released food for a rat while the metal

rod produced electric shock. Skinner learned that the rat was able to discern which to push, the

lever or the metal bar, in order to get the desired result which was food for the rat. The rat,

through a stimulus-response, was able to learn a behavior, thus making Operant Conditioning a

learning theory. According to Burton, Moore and Magliaro, Operant Conditioning is based on

the principle that “there is a functional and interconnected relationship between the stimuli that

preceded a response (antecedents), the stimuli that follow a response (consequences), and the

response (operant) itself (p. 10). Operant Conditioning is also referred to in many educational

settings as the ABCs (antecedent, behavior, consequence).

The next component of Behaviorism is called Respondent Learning or Classical Condi-

tioning. Classical Conditioning involves an involuntary action, called a respondent, produced by

a stimulus. Classical Conditioning was founded by Ivan Pavlov. Pavlov discovered that if he pre-

sented a piece of food to a dog it made the dog salivate. Each time the dog was fed, Pavlov si-

multaneously rang a bell. Eventually, the dog would salivate when the bell was rung and no food

was presented. Pavlov discovered that the dog involuntarily salivated (respondent) when the bell




was rung (stimuli). The dog had connected, over time, the ringing bell with food. Pavlov named

this type of stimulus response Classical Conditioning.

The last component of Behaviorism is called Observational Learning. Observational

Learning is a theory that incorporates the basic principles of Operant Conditioning but is based

on the “definition that learning is a change of behavior brought about by experience, organisms

can be thought of as learning new behaviors by observing the behaviors of others (Chance,

1994)” (Burton et al., 1996, p. 12). Many theorists contribute the theory of Observational Learn-

ing with Edward Thorndike who tested this theory with animals. Attention eventually turned to a

psychologist named Albert Bandura and his “bobo doll” studies. Bandura asked a woman to kick

and hit an inflatable doll in one room while children in another room, also with a bobo doll, ob-

served the woman. The children then began to hit and kick the bobo doll just as the woman did,

learning by observing the adult woman’s behavior patterns.

Stimulus-Response has a major effect on student motivation. Stimulus-Response is the

basis for classroom reward systems, behavior charts, behavior therapy and much more. Stimulus-

Response, Operant Conditioning and Classical Conditioning, are motivational for students be-

cause students understand if they do “A” then “B” will happen. For example, if a first grade stu-

dent completes a worksheet and the teacher praises him by saying “great job!” the student will

feel happy, and will be motivated to complete the task again. According to Effie Maclellen

(2005), “Process praise [, feedback directed towards the work not the student,] is helpful follow-

ing success (to indicate that success can be repeated) and failure (to overcome mistakes)” (p.

200). Stimulus-Response also motivates students by use of negative reinforcement. If a student




does “A” (positive) then “B”(negative) will get taken away. For example if a student follows

directions all day (stimulus) the teacher will not give that student homework that night (re-

sponse). In this situation there was a positive and as a consequence a negative was taken away.

Punishment is also part of Behaviorism. If a student talks when the teacher is talking (stimulus)

the student will miss 5 minutes of recess (response). This motivates the student to not talk when

the teacher is talking because she does not want to miss 5 minutes of recess again. Stimulus-

Response is used in most classrooms in many different ways to motivate student behavior.

Educational technology also plays a role in Behaviorism and student motivation. Many

technologically integrated educational programs are in the form of a game. This is engaging for

students because the possibility of winning increases their motivation to succeed. For example,

in an application on an iPod touch, called TeachMe:Kindergarten, the students must answer a se-

ries of questions. If they answer the questions correctly (stimulus) they get to choose a stamp (re-

sponse) to put in a stamp book in the application. The students are motivated to answer the ques-

tion correctly so that they can get the stamps. This is directly related to the Stimulus-Response

theory of Behaviorism. The National College of Education at National Louis University found

that students’ favorite parts of a specific computerized literacy program were obtaining prizes or

goals after answering questions correctly (Blachowicz et al.,) Students were asked to tell about

their favorite parts of the computerized literacy program. The most common responses included

to the top of an object such as an ice cream cone and getting points. Many aspects of Behavior-

ism contribute to student motivation.

Cognitivism




Cognitivism is a major learning theory that places belief on the fact that all learning is

done cognitively- within the brain. According to Smith and Ragan (2005) “cognitive learning

theories attempt to explain learning in terms of cognitive processes, structures, and representa-

tions that are hypothesized to operate within the learner.” Many theories exist within the theory

of Cognitivism including Information Processing Theory, Gestalt Psychology, Schema Theory

and Social Cognitive Theory. How the brain performs mental processes such as memory, prob-

lem solving and thinking are all part of the Cognitive Learning theory.

Gestalt Psychology is a component of Cognitivism. Gestalt is a German word which

means “‘share or form and entity or individual (Hartmann, 1935)” (Winn, 2004, p. 82). Accord-

ing to Winn (2004), Gestalt Psychology is the study of how people see and understand the rela-

tion of the whole to the parts that make it up (p. 2004). Gestalt psychologists believe that “we see

our world in large phenomenological units and act accordingly” (Winn, 2004, p. 82). Within Ge-

stalt Psychology are laws of perceptual organization which laid the groundwork for Gestalt Psy-

chology's theory on how information is perceived and organized.

Gestalt Psychology plays a role in student motivation. Gestalt Psychology is based on the

belief that everything is a part of a whole. If students understand that what they are learning is

part of something greater then their motivation to complete the task can be increased. For exam-

ple, if a student is assigned a topic to research such as “wind” the student might be unhappy and

unmotivated to research this topic. If this student was told that researching “wind” is a small part

of a larger topic such as natural disasters, the student, if interested in natural disasters, might see

researching “wind” as exciting because wind is part of something that is interesting to that stu-




dent. Another example is the area of math. Many students do not understand why they have to

learn how to complete basic math functions and are unmotivated to do so. Once the students un-

derstand that the basic math functions are part of a larger math function (ie: learning to add can

be used to understand how to multiply - a rapid form of addition with more complexity), their

motivation for learning the basic math function increases. Student motivation can by increased

by a change of perception of the task at hand. Winn (2004) writes “The central tenet of Gestalt

theory- [is] that our perception and understanding of objects and events in the world depend

upon the appearance and actions of whole objects not of their individual parts.” By using Gestalt

Psychology, a students perceptions can be changed and motivation increased.

Another Cognitive theory that increases student motivation is Piaget’s Stages Theory of

Cognitive Development, developed by Jean Piaget. His theory of Cognitive Development holds

the belief that a person goes through 4 stages of cognitive development. Each stage of develop-

ment becomes more complex. In order for an individual to adequately complete certain tasks or

understand certain concepts he or she must be developmentally ready. The four stages of this

theory are 1) Sensorimotor, 2) Pre-Operational, 3) Concrete Operational, and 4) Formal Opera-

tional. The Sensorimotor stage happens during infancy. At this stage motor activity is the main

indicator of intelligence. At about 7 months memory is acquired and physical movement starts to

take place. The Pre-Operational stage occurs during early childhood or the age of a toddler. Dur-

ing this time a child becomes very egocentric and can demonstrate intelligence by physical

movements, symbols, and sound. The Concrete Operation stage occurs during elementary school

and early adolescence. Huitt and Hummel (2003) state that at this stage “intelligence is demon-




strated through logical and systematic manipulation of symbols related to concrete objects. Op-

erational thinking develops . . . [and] egocentrism diminishes.” In the formal Operational Stage,

adolescence and adulthood, egocentric thought returns and “intelligence is demonstrated through

the logical use of symbols related to abstract concepts”(Huitt & Hummel, 2003).

Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development plays a role in student motivation. It is based

on developmental stages through a person’s life. Each stage is detailed with specific tasks that

cannot be accomplished until a person has gone through that stage of development. If students in

kindergarten, between the ages of 5 and 6, are asked to participate in a discussion about various

viewpoints about “rain” they may not participate. According to Piaget, children at this age, be-

tween the ages of 2 and 6, in the Pre-operational Stage, are not developmentally at a stage where

they can understand others viewpoints. If a student’s brain is unable to understand a concept they

will not participate or will participate and fail. If the expectations were that all students must par-

ticipate, then the child will feel a sense of failure which will decrease motivation. If that teacher

modifies that same discussion to have each student tell the class how he or she felt about rain the

students would be developmentally ready to participate in that discussion. If Piaget’s stages of

Cognitive Development Theory are not taken into consideration student’s motivation can be

greatly impacted.

Another theory that has an impact on student motivation is called the Schema Theory.

Schema Theory was one of the first concepts that represented the cognitive learning theory. The

Schema Theory has four main characteristics: 1) schema as a memory structure, 2) schema as an

abstraction, 3) schema as a dynamic structure and 4) schema as context (Winn, 2004, p. 86-88).




These characteristics suggest that schema is the idea that memory is an organized structure and

things are remembered by organizing them in the brain (schema as a memory structure). Schema

also helps with generalizing an object such as the identification of a cat. The brain does not have

to remember every cat but only the basic characteristics of a cat in order to identify it (schema as

an abstraction). In regards to schema being a dynamic structure Winn (2004) states, “As we

learn new information, either from instruction or from day-to-day interaction with the environ-

ment, our memory and understanding of our world will change.” (p. 87). Schema also plays a

large role in interpretation. If a story is told about a person participating in an “exciting” activity

one person might assume that the story is about a person sky diving while another person might

assume the story is about someone going to the movies. Depending on the context each individ-

ual might perceive the story differently. Schema as a context can be contributed to that.

The Schema theory plays a role in student motivation. A student’s memory, ability to

identify objects, the way a student interprets things, and how a student understands new informa-

tion (accommodating new information to previous learning by assimilation) are all part of the

Schema theory. When a student is introduced to new information, the brain, according to the

Schema theory, accommodates that new information to previous learning which helps the student

to understand the new material. If a student is familiar with the new material the student’s confi-

dence is increased. Schema helps the student to connect the new material with past learning to

find familiarity and make that learning relevant to that student. Since the new learning is assimi-

lated by accommodating the old with the new the student will have an easier time remembering

the material which will cause an increase in motivation.




Educational technology contributes to Cognitivism and student motivation. Schema the-

ory has been used to develop techniques to make new learning more memorable. If the learning

is more memorable for a student, motivation will be increased. Schema has also been used in

educational technology to “validate a theory of audiovisual . . . education” (Winn, 2004, p.88).

When students have a learning opportunity that involves visual and audio material, student moti-

vation is increased because of the various learning styles (audio and visual) that are incorporated

in that material.

Conclusion

Many learning theorists strongly believe that there is only one learning theory that holds

the truth to how students learn and what motivates student learning. Behaviorists strongly advo-

cate that behaviorism is the key to understanding student learning and motivation. Constructiv-

ists strongly believe that constructivism is the most effective learning theory and the answer to

student motivation is directly linked to the theories of constructivism. Cognitivists believe cogni-

tivism holds the answers to how students learn and what motivates students. Behaviorism, Cog-

nitivism, and Constructivism all contribute to student motivation. It is essential that each learning

theory is examined and applied appropriately. In order to successfully motivate students, it is im-

portant that the diversity of each student is taken into consideration and that the diversity of the

learning theories of Behaviorism, Cognitivism and Constructivism are all considered as an effec-

tive way to motivate students.




References

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models.

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(1), 3-11.

Blachowicz, C., Bates, A., Berne, J., Bridgman, T., Chaney, J., & Perney, J. (2009). Technology

and at-risk young readers and their classrooms. Reading Psychology, 30(5), 387-411.

Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M., & Magliaro, S. G. (1996). Behaviorism and instruction technology.

In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and

Technology (pp. 46-73). New York: Macmillan.

Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R., Willems, P. P., & Doan Holbein, M. F. (2005). Examining the relation-

ship between parental involvement and student motivation. Educational Psychology Re-

view, 17(2), 99-123. doi: 10.1007/s10648-005-3949-7

Kozulin, A., Boris, G., Ageyev, V. S., & Miller, S. M. (2003). Sociocultural theory and educa-

tion: Students, teachers, and knowledge. In Kozulin, A., Boris, G., Ageyev, V. S., &

Miller, S. M. (Ed.), Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context (pp. 1-8). Cam-

bridge, United Kingdom: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

Huitt, W., & Hummel, J. (2003). Piaget's theory of cognitive development. Educational Psychol-

ogy Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from

http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/piaget.html

Hyun, E., & Davis, G. (2005). Kindergartners' conversations in a computer-based technology

classroom. Communication Education, 54(2), 118-135.







Jonassen, D. (1992). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical

paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.

Maclellan, E. (2005). Academic achievement: The role of praise in motivating students. Active

Learning In Higher Education, 6(3), 194-206. doi: 10.1177/1469787405057750

Palmer, D. (2005). A motivational view of constructivist‐informed teaching. International

Journal of Science Education, 27(15), 1853-1881. doi:10.1080/09500690500339654

Sadik, A. (2008). Digital Storytelling: A meaningful technology-integrated approach for engaged

student learning. Education Technology Research Development, 56(4), 487-506. doi:

10.1007/s11423-008-9091-8

Schunk, D. H. (2008). Constructivist theory. In Learning theories: An educational perspective

(5th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Seifert, T. L. (2004). Understanding student motivation. Educational Research, 46(2), 137-149.

Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in

the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology,

100(4), 765-781. doi:10.1037/a0012840

Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Trommsdorff, G., & Friedlmeier, W. (1999). Motivational conflict and prosocial behaviour of

kindergarten children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 23(2), 413-429.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cam-

bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012840

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9091-8

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012840

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012840

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9091-8

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9091-8



Wachs, H. (1981). Visual implications of Piaget's theory of cognitive development. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 14(10), 581-583.

Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents,

teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 202-209.

Winn, W. (2004). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of

Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 79-112). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


Final Synthesis Paper 504

Documents

Transcript of Final Synthesis Paper 504