http://www.benwilbrink.nl/projecten/leren.htm
Om het nodige over leren te weten te komen is het nodig de psychologische literatuur te raadplegen. Mijn referentie is voorlopig het recente boek van Stellan Ohlsson (2011) Deep Learning. Ik zal daar later nog een aantal andere titels aan toevoegen, maar wijs meteen al op Anderson, Reder en Simon (2000): leren van voorbeelden, en leren door doen (een variant op leren van voorbeelden)
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (2000). Applications and misapplications of cognitive psychology to mathematics education. Texas Educational Review, 1, 29-49. pdf
Hans Freudenthal moest niets hebben van psychologie, fulmineerde er desondanks bij herhaling en uitvoerig tegen, en cultiveerde zijn eigen idee over leren. Mijn referentie is in dit geval zijn (1991) China Lectures, waarvan een gedeeltelijke annotatie hier beschikbaar is.
Stellan Ohlsson (2011). Deep learning. How the mind overrides experience. Cambridge University Press. zie ook hier
Taatgen, N. A. (1999). Learning without limits: from problem solving toward a unified theory of learning. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. abstract
Michelene T. H. Chi, Marguerite Roy, Robert G. M. Hausmann (2008). Observing Tutorial Dialogues Collaboratively: Insights About Human Tutoring Effectiveness From Vicarious Learning. Cognitive Science, 32, 301–341.
Let op. Vicarious learning is het leren van het leren van anderen. Dat is het leren zoals dat bijvoorbeeld bij klassikaal onderwijs plaatsvindt: de instructieve dialoog van leraar met leerling Y is leerzaam voor Y, maar in bijna dezelfde mate eveneens voor alle andere lerlingen die bij de les zijn. Dit is waarschijnlijk de belangrijkste reden waarom klassikale instructie de meest effectieve vorm van instructie is, en waarom vakmanschap van de leraar zo belangrijk is.
Joseph J. Williams & Tania Lombrozo (2010). The Role of Explanation in Discovery and Generalization: Evidence From Category Learning. Cognitive Science, 34, 776-806. abstract
Hans Freudenthal (1991). Revisiting Mathematics Education. China Lectures. Kluwer. pdf van het hele boek
Patricia A. Alexander, Diane L. Schallert & Ralph E. Reynolds (2009). What is learning anyway? A topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44, 176-192. abstract. Dupliek: Ralph E. Reynolds, Diane L. Schallert & Patricia A. Alexander (2009). An atlas has more than one map: A reply to our commentators. abstract
Arthur C. Graesser (2009). Cognitive scientists prefer theories and testable principles with teeth. Educational Psychologist, 44, 193-197. abstract
Dit is een commnetaar op de knulligheid van Alexander, Schallert & Reynolds.
David C. Geary (2009). The why of learning. Educational Psychologist, 44, 198-201. abstract
Roger Säljö (2009). Learning, theories of learning, and units of anlysis in research. Educational Psychologist, 44, 202-208. abstract
Normand Péladeau, Jacques Forget and Françoys Gagné (2003). Effect of Paced and Unpaced Practice on Skill Application and Retention: How Much Is Enough? American Educational Research Journal, 40, 769-801. abstract
Dit artikel snijdt een aantal belangrijke thema’s aan, en noemt er de literatuur bij. Hoewel het onderzoek gaat over een groepje college-studneten, is het direct relevant voor de discussie over rekendidactiek.
The results confirmed that practicing until mastery improved individual exam scores, group success rates, and long-term retention. Moreover, overlearning provided additional benefits, especially in long-term retention. However, fluencybuilding instructions did not further increase academic achievement or longterm retention. Despite the alleged detrimental effects of drill and practice on motivation, a positive relationship was found between amount of practice and attitudes toward the course, the subject matter, and practice activities.
Stellan Ohlsson (2009). Resubsumption: A possible mechanism for conceptual change and belief revision. Educational Psychologist, 44, 20-40. abstract
Andrew Shtulman (2009). Rethinking the role of resubsumption in conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 44, 41-47. abstract
CLARK A. CHINN & ALA SAMARAPUNGAVAN (2009): Conceptual Change—Multiple Routes, Multiple Mechanisms: A Commentary on Ohlsson (2009), Educational Psychologist, 44:1, 48-57. abstract
MICHELENE T. H. CHI & SARAH K. BREM (2009): Contrasting Ohlsson's Resubsumption Theory With Chi's Categorical Shift Theory, Educational Psychologist, 44:1, 58-63. abstract
STELLAN OHLSSON (2009): Meaning Change, Multiple Routes, and the Role of Differentiation in Conceptual Change: Alternatives to Resubsumption?, Educational Psychologist, 44:1, 64-71. abstract
Tamara van Gog & Fred Paas (2008): Instructional Efficiency: Revisiting the Original Construct in Educational Research, Educational Psychologist, 43:1, 16-26 abstract
Jörg Wittwer & Alexander Renkl (2008): Why Instructional Explanations Often Do Not Work: A Framework for Understanding the Effectiveness of Instructional Explanations, Educational Psychologist, 43:1, 49-64 abstract
Lucia Mason (2007): Introduction: Bridging the Cognitive and Sociocultural Approaches in Research on Conceptual Change: Is it Feasible?, Educational Psychologist, 42:1, 1-7 abstract
James G. Greeno & Carla van de Sande (2007): Perspectival Understanding of Conceptions and Conceptual Growth in Interaction, Educational Psychologist, 42:1, 9-23 abstract
Ola Halldén, Liza Haglund & Helge Strömdahl (2007): Conceptions and Contexts: On the Interpretation of Interview and Observational Data, Educational Psychologist, 42:1, 25-40 abstract abstract abstract abstract abstract abstract abstract
Matthew M. Botvinick, Yael Niv & Andrew C. Barto (2009). Hierarchically organized behavior and its neural foundations: A reinforcement learning perspective. Cognition, 113, 262-280. pdf
Nocolas J. Wilkins & Katherine Rawson (2010). Los of cognitive skill across delays: Constraints for theories of cognitive skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Leaning, Memory, and Cogition, 36, 1134-1149. abstract
Doug Rohrer & Harold Pahler (2010). Recent research on human learning challenges conventional instruction strategies. Educational Researcher, 39, 406-412.abstract
A. Mitrovic, S. Ohlsson & B. Martin (2006). Problem-solving support in constraint-based tutors. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 3, abstract
A. Mitrovic & S. Ohlsson (2006). Evaluation of a constraint-based tutor for a data-base language. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Education, 10, 238-256. paper
Antonija Mitrovic (2005). The effect of explaining on learning: A case study with a data normalization tutor. In C.-K. Looi, G. McCalla, B. Bredeweg & J. Breuker: Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (499-506). Amsterdam: IOS Press. pdf
Antonija Mitrovic, Pramuditha Suraweera, Brent Martin & Amali Weerasinghe (2004). DB-suite: Experiences with three intelligent, web-based database tutors. abstract
Alexander Renkl & Robert K. Atkinson (2010). Learning from worked-out examples and problem solving. In Jan L. Plass, Roxana Moreno & Roland Brünken: Cognitive Load Theory. (91-108) Cambridge University Press.
Robert K. Atkinson, Sharon J. Derry, Alexander Renkl & Donald Wortham (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked example research. Review of Educational Research, 70, 181. abstract
Robert K. Atkinson, Alexander Renkl & Mary Margaret Merrill (2003). Transitioning From Studying Examples to Solving Problems: Effects of Self-Explanation Prompts and Fading Worked-Out Steps Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 774-783. pdf
Martin A. Simon (2009). Amidst multiple theories of learning in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 477-490. pdf
Dit lijkt me een absurd artikel, dat in al zijn absurditeit mogelijk model kan staan voor veel van het denken over leertheorieën in kringen van onderzoekers van wiskundeonderwijs. Ik illustreer het maar met een paar citate, die laten zien dat deze Martin Simon totaal losgezongen is van wat behoorlijke leertheorie genoemd mag worden (zoals in Anderson, Reder en andere Simon 2000 te vinden).
My focus, in this article, is on major background theories (e.g., constructivism, enactivism, sociocultural theory) adopted by researchers and not on more specific theoretical constructs meant to explain particular phenomena in mathematics education (e.g., quantitative reasoning, Thompson, 1994) or on conceptual frameworks that are particular to individual projects. The rationale for the choice of this focus is threefold. First, a discussion that attempts to consider all theory in mathematics education is complicated by the lack of consensus of what constitutes a theory. Second, the diversity of what might be considered in this category (theory) makes it difficult to make statements about theory use that are not in conflict for some elements of the category. The focus on major background theories of learning affords a more focused discussion, a discussion that I argue is timely. Third, a focus on theories of learning allows me to make arguments that build on my research experience. Indeed, some of the points made in this article are applicable to theory use for theories other than theories of learning.
Ernest (2006), in reviewing four background theores of learning, “simple” constructivism, radical constructivism, enactivism, and social constructivism, alternately referred to them as “philosophies of learning” (p. 8) and noted that some might argue that they are not theories in the sense that they can be falsified (Ernest, 2006). What would it mean to falsify enactivism?
Diep treurig. Dit is pseudo-wetenschappelijk terrein, bevolkt door academici die de weg kwijt zijn. Martin Simon gaat zijn collega’s niet uit dit moeras leiden.
http://www.benwilbrink.nl/projecten/leren.htm