Three cognitive science principles every stats teacher should know
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52041/iase2023.310Abstract
Education practice continues to become more evidence-based, driving development of practices that align with research on learning and cognition. In fact, major education companies employ teams of cognitive scientists to help build their products and services according to decades of empirical research on memory, attention, and other cognitive processes. This is a welcome development, but the biggest impact on learning will come from teachers’ application of cognitive science principles in their own classrooms. Thankfully, empirical research has established core principles that are both widely applicable and easy to implement. Here we review three: cognitive load management, memory retrieval practice, and metacognitive awareness. Each is summarized in nontechnical terms followed by guidelines for classroom application, including an easy-to-implement example.References
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559.
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417-444.
D'Esposito, M. (2007). From cognitive to neural models of working memory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1481), 761-772.
Dignath, C., & Büttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students. A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 231-264.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906.
Jarrold, C., & Towse, J. N. (2006). Individual differences in working memory. Neuroscience, 139(1), 39-50.
Lai, E. R. (2011). Metacognition: A literature review. Always Learning: Pearson Research Report, 24, 1-40.
Perry, J., Lundie, D., & Golder, G. (2019). Metacognition in schools: what does the literature suggest about the effectiveness of teaching metacognition in schools?. Educational Review, 71(4), 483-500.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81.
Roediger, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20-27.
Roediger III, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 181-210.
Sweller, J., Ayers, P. & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. New York: Springer.
Vaccaro, A. G., & Fleming, S. M. (2018). Thinking about thinking: A coordinate-based meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies of metacognitive judgements. Brain and Neuroscience Advances, 2, 1-14.
Van den Broek, G., Takashima, A., Wiklund-Hörnqvist, C., Wirebring, L. K., Segers, E., Verhoeven, L., & Nyberg, L. (2016). Neurocognitive mechanisms of the “testing effect”: A review. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 5(2), 52-66.
