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

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

Jan 08, 2018

Download

Documents

Betty Johnston

Cognitive Abilities All the mental activities associated with thinking, knowing and remembering
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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