Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

58
Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories

description

Cognitive Abilities All the mental activities associated with thinking, knowing and remembering

Transcript of Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Page 1: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Thursday, October 22

• Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories

Page 2: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Thinking

Page 3: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Cognitive Abilities

• All the mental activities associated with thinking, knowing and remembering

Page 4: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Thinking: Concepts

Page 5: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Concept

• Mental grouping based on shared similarity

• Categorizing items in one’s environment

Page 6: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Prototype

• Typical best example incorporating the major features of a concept

• The closer a new object is to our concept prototype the easier it is to categorize it

Page 7: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Concept Hierarchy

• A means to keep mental information organized from basic concepts to specific ones

Page 8: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Concept Hierarchy

Page 9: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Thinking:Problem Solving

Page 10: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Algorithms

• Problem-solving strategy that guarantees the solution to the problem

• Not always the most efficient method

Page 11: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Heuristics

• A rule-of-thumb problem solving strategy that makes a solution more likely and efficient but does not guarantee a solution

• These can be handy shortcuts, or they can get us into trouble

• Ex: “i before e, except after c”

Page 12: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Insight

• Sudden realization of the solution to a problem

• “Aha” experience

Page 13: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Thinking:Problems Solving

Problems

Page 14: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Mental Set

• Tendency to approach a problem in a particular way

• The set may or may not be helpful in solving a new problem

Page 15: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Fixation

• Mental set that hinders the solution of a problem

• One needs to think beyond the mental set to solve the new problem

Page 16: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Functional Fixedness

• Tendency to think of things only in terms of their usual functions

Page 17: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Functional Fixedness

Can you think of a way to use these materials to mount the candle on a

bulletin board?

Page 18: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Functional Fixedness

Page 19: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Confirmation Bias

• Tendency to focus on information that supports preconceptions

Page 20: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Availability Heuristic

• Estimating the likelihood of events based on their availability in memory

• Can be correct or incorrect

• Activity: Availability Heuristic

Page 21: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.
Page 22: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.
Page 23: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Overconfidence

• When confidence is greater than accuracy

Page 24: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Framing

• How an issue is worded or presented• Can influence decisions and judgments

Page 25: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Friday, October 23

• Objective: Define intelligence and methods of measuring intelligence

Page 26: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Intelligence and Intelligence Testing

Page 27: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

The Nature of Intelligence

Page 28: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Intelligence

• Ability to learn from experience, solve problems, and use knowledge to adapt to a new situation

• Is intelligence one thing or are there multiple intelligences?

Page 29: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

The Nature of Intelligence:

Howard Gardner

Page 30: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Howard Gardner (1943- )

• Author of a contemporary theory of multiple intelligences consisting of eight separate kinds of intelligence

Page 31: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Gardner’s Types of Intelligence

Page 32: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Gardner’s Types of Intelligence

Page 33: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Gardner’s Types of Intelligence

Page 34: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Gardner’s Types of Intelligence

Page 35: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Gardner’s Types of Intelligence

Page 36: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Gardner’s Types of Intelligence

Page 37: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Gardner’s Types of Intelligence

Page 38: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Gardner’s Types of Intelligence

Page 39: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Charles Spearman (1863-1945)

• Theorized that a general intelligence factor (g) underlies other, more specific aspects of intelligence

Page 40: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

General Intelligence (g)

• Factor that Spearman believed underlies specific mental abilities

Page 41: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

The Nature of Intelligence:Emotional

Intelligence

Page 42: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Emotional Intelligence

• Ability to perceive, express, understand, and regulate emotions

• People high in emotional intelligence are more in touch with their feelings and the feelings of others.

Page 43: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Intelligence Testing

Wednesday, October 28th

Page 44: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Intelligence Testing:Alfred Binet

Page 45: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Alfred Binet (1857-1911)

• Developer of the first test to classify children’s abilities using the concept of mental age

• Assumed children’s intellectual abilities grew every year

Page 46: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Mental Age

• Chronological age that corresponds to the difficulty of the questions a child can answer

• An average 8-year-old child should have the mental age of 8 years.

Page 47: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Chronological Age

• The actual age of a person

Page 48: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Intelligence Quotient (IQ)

• Number that results from dividing mental age by chronological age and multiplying by 100

• IQ = (MA/CA) X 100• A score of 100 would be considered

average• Formula has been replaced with modern

versions

Page 49: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Intelligence Testing:David Wechsler

Page 50: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

David Wechsler (1896-1981)

• Developed the Wechsler intelligence scales which included:–Different tests for different

age groups–Separate verbal and

nonverbal scores–Subtests and subtest scores

Page 51: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Test

Page 52: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.
Page 53: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Test Construction:Achievement and

Aptitude Tests

Page 54: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Achievement Tests

• Tests that attempt to measure what the test-taker has accomplished

• i.e. classroom tests at the end of a unit

Page 55: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Aptitude Tests

• Tests that attempt to predict the test-taker’s future performance

• Examples: ACT and SAT

Page 56: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Test Construction:Reliability and

Validity

Page 57: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Test Reliability

• Extent to which a test yields consistent results

Page 58: Thursday, October 22 Objective: Compare and contrast learning theories.

Test Validity

• Extent to which a test measures or predicts what it is suppose to

• Does an achievement test accurately measure accomplishments?

• Does an aptitude test accurately measure the person’s future performance?

• One needs to know the purpose of the test