learner-centered teaching: postsecondary strategies that promote "thinking like a...

This article was downloaded by: [Umeå University Library]On: 13 October 2013, At: 02:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Theory Into PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htip20

Learner-Centered Teaching: Postsecondary StrategiesThat Promote "Thinking Like A Professional"J. Thompson , B. Licklider & S. JungstPublished online: 24 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: J. Thompson , B. Licklider & S. Jungst (2003) Learner-Centered Teaching: Postsecondary Strategies ThatPromote "Thinking Like A Professional", Theory Into Practice, 42:2, 133-141, DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4202_7

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4202_7

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of orendorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyoneis expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htip20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1207/s15430421tip4202_7

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4202_7

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

133

“Thinking Like a Professional”Thompson, Licklider, and Jungst

The Learner-Centered Psychological Principles(LCPs) provide a holistic framework that integratessocial constructivist and cognitive theories, as wellas motivational and individual differences theo-ries. We have used these to better align our ownclassroom practice with the rapidly expandingknowledge about how learning occurs. In an ac-tive and collaborative learning environment, wehave used specific instructional techniques, identi-fying similarities and differences strategies, to en-hance students’ thinking and learning skills.Original research on the novice-expert continuumsupports the domains of the LCPs and underscoresthe importance of strategies to engage students inidentifying similarities and differences to enhancestudents’ abilities to “think like a professional.”

A CRITICAL PURPOSE OF postsecondary education is to prepare students for their future

professional lives. Meeting this purpose requiressupporting students in developing deep understand-ings of their disciplines and in honing their criticalthinking abilities. Helping students “think like a

professional” in the field is at the heart of learner-and learning-centered education at the college level.

Learner- and Learning-Centered PracticesAs indicated by McCombs (this issue), sup-

porting changes in educational practice and educa-tional systems so they operate more congruently withthe growing body of knowledge about human learn-ing was one impetus behind development of theLearner-Centered Psychological Principles (LCPs)(APA Work Group of the Board of EducationalAffairs, 1997). A similar desire to make teachingpractice at the college level consistent with learn-ing theory has led to intentional changes in ourown pedagogical approaches at the classroom lev-el. Although our approach has been formed aroundan independent understanding of social construc-tivist theory and cognitive theory, the LCPs pro-vide an overarching framework that integrates theseas well as elements of motivational and individualdifferences theories (Lambert & McCombs, 1998).

In the work we do with college students,learner- and learning-centered principles merge inan active and collaborative learning environment.Learner-centered educational environments havebeen described as those in which the focus on indi-vidual learners is combined with a pedagogical ap-proach that incorporates the best available knowledgeabout how learning occurs (Lambert & McCombs,1998). Specifically, attention is given to creating a

J. ThompsonB. LickliderS. Jungst

Learner-Centered Teaching:Postsecondary Strategies That Promote“Thinking Like A Professional”

J. Thompson is assistant professor of natural resourceecology and management, B. Licklider is associate pro-fessor of education, and S. Jungst is professor of natu-ral resource ecology and management, all at Iowa StateUniversity.

THEORY INTO PRACTICE, Volume 42, Number 2, Spring 2003Copyright © 2003 College of Education, The Ohio State University

Thompson/LickliderPM 4/11/03, 11:19 AM133

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

23 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

013

134

THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Spring 2003Learner-Centered Principles: A Framework for Teaching

supportive context that addresses an array of indi-vidual students’ prior knowledge, skills, attitudes,beliefs, and needs (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking,2000; McCombs, 1997). Thus, the culture of thelearner- and learning-centered classroom is coop-erative, collaborative, and supportive, and the in-structor and students learn together (Barr & Tagg,1995; Huba & Freed, 2000; McCombs, this issue).

We have adopted the collaborative and ac-tive learning approach of Johnson and Johnson(1989) as a vehicle to create the social context forlearner-centered education. The process of discov-ering what students are thinking, providing oppor-tunities for them to examine and correct possiblemisconceptions, and providing situations that in-vite students to expand their thinking and buildnew knowledge is enhanced by students’ activeparticipation in guided and authentic collaborativeexercises (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Stage,Mullen, Kinzie, & Simmons, 1998; Thompson,Jungst, Colletti, Licklider, & Benna, in press). Inaddition to enhancing student learning, these ap-proaches have also been shown to increase reten-tion (Gardiner, 1994; Slavin, 1992; Svinicki, 1992).

This article includes a brief summary of thespecific literature that supports instructional ap-proaches we have used in the college classroom.We then describe strategies we have found to beeffective, and link them to what, in practice, areoverlapping domains of the LCPs.

“Thinking Like a Professional”: WhatDoes Novice-Expert Research Tell Us?

To meet the postsecondary education goal ofdeveloping students’ professional-level expertise,teaching should be done in a manner consistentwith findings on expert performance in domainsthat are relevant to a particular discipline (Niemi,1997). Although there is no direct substitute forthe kinds of life experiences that “make an expertan expert,” Glaser (1992) has suggested that find-ings from novice-expert research can be used tostructure learning experiences that move studentsfarther and faster toward thinking like an expert inthe discipline.

It is generally recognized that experts in somedomains use frameworks for thinking so problemsolving appears to occur without conscious effort.

Key research identifying differences between nov-ices and experts has been summarized by Glaser(1992) and Bransford et al. (2000). Very briefly,experts’ proficiency is highly specific, and allowsthem to (a) discern meaningful patterns in informa-tion they encounter (e.g., the classic chess masterstudy by deGroot, 1965); (b) effectively organizeknowledge around major principles and concepts(e.g., Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981); (c) respondto context and access appropriate knowledge toaddress it (e.g., Glaser, 1992); (d) perform fluentor effortless retrieval of relevant knowledge (e.g.,Spiro, Coulson, Feltovich, & Anderson, 1994); (e)self-regulate in terms of attention allocation andfeedback recognition (e.g., Glaser, 1992; Wineburg,1998); and (f) remain flexible in their applicationof knowledge (also referred to as adaptive exper-tise, Hatano & Inagaki, 1986). It is important tonote, however, that expertise in some domains (forexample, interpreting history) is not always char-acterized by “smooth and efficient” performanceby experts (Wineburg, 1998). In any domain, alearner-centered approach to developing expertiserequires purposeful and specific instruction thatbuilds student capacity in these arenas.

Thinking About Thinking ina Learner-Centered Context

All of the aforementioned attributes of ex-pertise are important, and teaching to enhance in-dividual student performance in that regard willhelp all students begin to think like professionals.Some depend heavily on broad and deep contentknowledge and major principles that can be usedto organize that knowledge (e.g., items a-c aboveand the cognitive factors identified in the LCPs);others depend on self-awareness and context aware-ness (items d-f above, and the metacognitive fac-tors identified in the LCPs). We believe thatself-regulation (including metacognition—knowl-edge of what one does and does not know), as wellas attention to “real-time” feedback while on task, isa frequently overlooked expert skill that can andshould be intentionally developed through work witheach student. In fact, the research of Wineburg(1998) suggests that arriving at an “expert” solu-tion, even for an expert, can depend heavily onself-questioning and self-monitoring during a given


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

23 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

013

135


task. This ties in particularly well with proposi-tions that “it is less the doing than the thinking,reflecting on that doing, that counts” for learning(Leamnson, 2000). Such reflection can be inten-tionally structured into learner-centered experiences.

Effective Learner-Centered PracticesThat Contribute to Expertise

Effective learner-centered teaching strategies,then, should contribute to the breadth and depth ofcontent knowledge, assist students in learning howto organize knowledge around major concepts andprinciples, enhance retention and retrieval, and con-tribute to student development of metacognitiveabilities, among other things. One group of strate-gies that has many of these characteristics is “iden-tifying similarities and differences.”

Instructional strategies for identifyingsimilarities and differences

In their meta-analysis of research studies oninstructional strategies, Marzano, Pickering, andPollack (2001) identify nine general strategies thathave a high probability of enhancing individualstudent performance. Of those nine, the instruc-tional strategies aimed at identifying similaritiesand differences had the largest effect sizes and per-centile gains in student performance after expo-sure to the instruction. Although Marzano andcolleagues were working with data generated inthe K-12 setting, and making recommendations forthe use of strategies specifically for K-12 educa-tors, we have found applications in postsecondarysettings.

We believe the effectiveness of these strate-gies relates directly to the innate tendencies of hu-mans to search for meaning and make sense ofexperiences, and the natural inclination of ourbrains to seek recognizable patterns, including themotivational/affective and cognitive/metacognitivedomains in the LCPs (see also Caine & Caine,1997; Markman & Gentner, 1993). Students canbe encouraged to further develop these innate ten-dencies, and to become more aware of when andhow they are doing so. In this regard, identifyingsimilarities and differences strategies lend them-selves particularly well to developing students’abilities to think like professionals. In addition,

use of these strategies in a supportive and collabo-rative context addresses the developmental/socialand individual differences domains of the LCPs.

In terms of practical classroom application,Marzano et al. (2001) indicate that identifying sim-ilarities and differences strategies can include avariety of approaches, including comparing/con-trasting, classifying/categorizing, as well as creat-ing similes and analogies, and that they can beused effectively with either instructor-generated orstudent-generated structures. The following arethree specific examples of identifying similaritiesand differences strategies we have used to accom-plish learner-centered objectives in our own post-secondary classrooms.

Venn diagrams. While there are numerousways to structure compare/contrast exercises, onethat is relatively simple and can be structured in avariety of ways is the use of Venn diagrams. AVenn diagram, in its simplest form, consists of twooverlapping circles. Each circle represents a topicor idea to be compared. The overlap between thetwo circles represents things that are common toboth, while the nonoverlapping areas of the circlesrepresent those things that are true only to the topicin that circle—that is, the differences between thetwo topics. The instructor supplies the two thingsthat are to be compared, and students are then askedto put as much information as they can into appro-priate locations in the overlapping circles.

When students are first introduced to Venndiagrams used in this way, it is helpful to explainwhy the strategy is being used, and to give themsome practice in the form of a simple diagram us-ing familiar items to be compared. In one course,before using a three-circle Venn diagram in a spe-cific course-related comparison, the whole classspent five minutes adding information to a two-circle diagram comparing cars with bicycles (Fig-ure 1). Some obvious things were mentioned first,such as steering wheels for cars, handlebars forbicycles, and wheels for both. Then one studentindicated that pedals should be placed in the bicy-cle circle, but another student quickly said pedalsshould go in the overlap area, because cars havepedals too (albeit gas pedals and brake pedals).With that seemingly trivial discovery, student in-teraction and interest moved to a new level as they


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

23 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

013

136


Have a gas tankHave a steering wheelHave a windshieldHave four wheels

Cars

Have wheelsAre modes of transportationHave pedalsHave seats

Have handlebarsHave two wheels

Bicycles

Figure 1. Example of a two-circle Venn diagram identifying similarities and differences between carsand bicycles.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

23 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

013

137


tried to think of things that seemed different butwere, in fact, common to the two.

At the end of the two-circle exercise, stu-dents were assigned to teams of two people. Eachteam member was given a three-circle Venn dia-gram with each circle representing a height deter-mination method that had been studied in this aerialphoto interpretation class. With a three-circle Venndiagram, there are zones of overlap for each com-bination of two of the three things being compared,and one zone of overlap for all three. It is possi-ble, depending on the things being compared, thatone or more of the zones of overlap might remainempty, but students were encouraged to do theirbest to come up with meaningful items of compar-ison for each of the zones.

Initially, students were instructed to work in-dependently for 10 minutes to do the most com-plete job they could of filling in the various zoneson the diagram. At the end of that time, they wereinstructed to share what they had developed withtheir teammate, and to add and note informationthat their partner identified but they had missed intheir initial individual efforts. They were also askedto work together to identify still more items, andto clearly indicate which items were additions madeas a result of discussions with their partners thatneither of them had thought of previously. Aftercompletion of that portion of the exercise, a three-circle diagram was constructed on the chalkboard,and through whole-class discussion, the circles werefilled in as completely as possible. Again, studentswere asked to add to their own diagrams anythingdiscussed by the whole class that they might havemissed in their two-person teams.

This approach involves eliciting students’intrinsic motivation (motivational/affective domain ofthe LCPs; see also McCombs & Pope, 1994), im-proves students’ abilities to organize their knowledge,and makes it easier for them to retrieve appropriateinformation when faced with a task requiring use ofone of the height determination methods (cognitivedomain of the LCPs). Test scores to date for stu-dents exposed to this instructional strategy appearto bear this out. In addition, this exercise has mul-tiple self-regulating/metacognitive points. Studentsbecome aware of items they failed to identify (oritems that they could identify but did not apply to

the correct situation), and they clearly recognizeddifferences between their original individual ver-sion and the whole-class diagram (addressing themetacognitive factors as well as social/developmen-tal and individual differences domains).

Yet another strength of this learner-centeredapproach is the use of graphic representation, whichhas been shown to enhance student understandingof and ability to use knowledge (Halpern 1992;Marzano et al., 2001; Robinson & Kiewra, 1995).

Categorization grids. Another example of asimilarities and differences strategy uses categori-zation/classification as an instructional tool. Cate-gorization grids (Angelo & Cross, 1993) have beendescribed as an assessment tool to evaluate stu-dents’ skills in analysis of information, but theyalso are very effective as a learning device. “Catgrids” can be created by the instructor and givento students as a direct way to introduce or summa-rize information. Marzano et al. (2001) indicatethat such direct methods are surprisingly effective.Alternatively, the ordinates alone can be determinedby the instructor and students can provide infor-mation to fill each cell, or the grid can be com-pletely created by students using ordinations theyinvent. Ordination topics should be large ideas orconcepts around which other ideas can be orga-nized, and they can be simple or hierarchical.

The first and most direct method works wellin introductory-level courses or in the introductorysessions of more advanced courses in which stu-dents will later create their own cat grids. Offeringthe completed grid allows students to learn possi-ble ways to organize information, and provides aconcrete example of knowledge organization theycan then apply to concepts taught later in the courseor the curriculum. Figure 2 shows an example ofthe second approach, providing only the classifi-cation variables, for plant structural and functionalcharacteristics from an advanced class in urbanforestry. This approach is useful when the instruc-tor wants to clearly define the intended organiza-tion and to have more influence on what isremembered and how it is remembered. The thirdapproach is more effective at illustrating students’own organization of knowledge and helps studentsbegin to recognize the large concepts and principlesand sort subordinate information related to them.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

23 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

013

138


An example of the use of categorization gridswith student-invented ordinations comes from anurban forestry course. After a discussion of pollut-ants in urban environments and their effects onplants in urban settings, students working in groupsof three were asked to develop categorization gridson overhead transparencies and then present theirgrid to the class. Different sets of student-inventedordinates included comparisons of the nature ofthe pollutants (e.g., solid, liquid, or gas) and thetime frame over which they had an effect (long-term versus short-term); portions of the environ-ment most directly affected by the pollutant (air,water, soil) and sources of pollutants (industrial,commercial, residential); and affected portions ofthe environment and level of ease with which theythought the pollutant could be controlled. Studentsthen answered questions from the instructor andtheir peers about the organization of informationin their grids.

Characteristics of this exercise that assist stu-dents in developing expertise include providingpractice in effectively organizing knowledge (cog-nitive domain), helping students create their ownmental models that will enhance knowledge retrievalin the future (cognitive and motivational domains),and requiring students to reflect on their process

and product by responding to questions (metacog-nitive factors). In addition, preparation of the gridsin small groups provides a social context for con-struction of new knowledge and metacognition(cognitive and social/developmental domains; seealso King, 2002). This is especially true of catgrids with student-invented ordinations that aredeveloped while working in small groups.

In the Venn diagram exercise, students prac-tice with simple representations and move to morecomplex ones, whereas in the cat grid exercise theshift is usually from instructor-structured to stu-dent-structured grids. In both cases, these progres-sive strategies are employed with the intention andoften the explicit suggestion that students can rec-ognize possibilities for generating their own dia-grams and grids based on other forms ofinformation in other contexts.

Similes. Experts mentally compare or cate-gorize not only the specific, concrete aspects ofinformation, they also look for patterns at moreabstract levels. Using similes and developing stu-dents’ skills in creating similes are good ways tohelp students practice identifying abstract similar-ities and differences between two different ele-ments. Using and creating similes at first seemsmore challenging to students than other strategies

STRUCTURE FUNCTION

Genetic Environmental Genetic EnvironmentInfluence Influence

Crown (branches/leaves)

Stem/Trunk

Roots

Figure 2. An instructor-generated set of ordinates for a categorization grid for plant structural and functionalcharateristics.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

23 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

013

139


for identifying similarities and differences. How-ever, this strategy helps students uncover what theymay know or believe about a concept or idea priorto more formal instruction. And, with some prac-tice, students can start to develop their own simi-les for important concepts.

We have used an activity involving similes in aseminar about creativity. Many people, including ourstudents, have some ingrained ideas about creativity,the most typical being that “I’m not creative,” a neg-ative response that forms a barrier to additional learn-ing. Engaging students in thinking about howcreativity is like a random set of inanimate objectscan remove barriers to deeper thinking.

In this exercise, students were divided intogroups of four, and each group was given a papersack that contained a number of objects. The taskfor each group was demonstrated by the seminarleader, who reached into a sack and pulled out anobject, a bar of soap. Holding up the soap andconsidering how creativity might be compared toit, the leader said, “Creativity is like a bar of soapbecause its shape can change as it is used.” A sec-ond demonstration, after the leader pulled a rubberband from the sack was, “Creativity is like a rub-ber band because it can stretch our thinking.” Next,the leader engaged students in guided practice withthis kind of thinking by holding up a third object,a dog bone, and asking students to write down athought that came to mind about how creativity islike a dog bone. It is important to note here thatthe leader gave time for all students to create anindividual answer because the process takes long-er for some than others. After students had time todo their own thinking, several student suggestionswere solicited.

Next the leader demonstrated how studentsshould continue the process in their groups. Theinstructor asked each of the four students in eachgroup, in turn, to provide his/her simile to the groupusing the complete statement each time, “Creativityis like a because .” It was emphasizedthat students should write down their own thoughtsindependently before any other student offered anidea out loud.

Students were told to use the same process,and to make note of what every student said aboutevery object until each person in the group had the

opportunity to draw an object from the sack. Aftercompleting this process, students were instructedto each choose one simile used that had particular-ly strong meaning for them and to post it for theentire class to consider. The class was then invitedto examine the similes posted by their classmatesand to try to find patterns, similarities, differences,and/or any other observations they could makeabout the information before them. Finally, as alast step, students were instructed to reflect by writ-ing about their own thinking during this process,how their thinking about the abstract concept mighthave changed, and to generate questions this raisedfor them. It is interesting to note that after usingsimiles to explore creativity, nearly all participantsexpanded their knowledge about creativity, believedthey could be creative, and even suggested ideas tomotivate themselves to think in more creative ways.

Each time this technique was used, it wasquickly apparent that there were many diverse sim-iles for creativity (individual differences domain).In addition, this activity has consistently generatedactive engagement in discussion about the concept(motivational/affective domain). This process hasgenerated similar results for other abstract conceptssuch as leadership, learning, assessment, and out-comes. In short, students gain deeper understanding,construct their own working meanings, recognizepatterns in thinking about abstract concepts, andself-reflect about the process and products associ-ated with this exercise (cognitive/metacognitive anddevelopmental/social domains).

ConclusionWe arrived at our own understandings of so-

cial constructivist theory and cognitive theory in-crementally, through research, interaction with ourcolleagues engaged in college teaching, and throughclassroom experimentation. The LCPs provide in-tegration of these elements and a holistic frame-work (Lambert & McCombs, 1998) that furthers ourunderstanding of effective classroom practice. Theuse of strategies for identifying similarities and dif-ferences support much of what we know about hu-man learning. Original research on the novice-expertcontinuum and on the important role of metacogni-tion supports the LCPs and underscores the impor-tance of these strategies. Use of these strategies in a


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

23 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

013

140


learner- and learning-centered collaborative envi-ronment leads to deep understanding of content,and helps students develop abilities that will en-hance their expertise.

Although our examples come from individualcourses, at a curriculum level purposeful design of asequence of exercises with increasing complexity(e.g., Glaser, 1992) will motivate students to inde-pendently and intentionally seek to identify simi-larities and differences as a habit of mind.Acquiring this habit will truly allow students tobegin to think like a professional. In addition, in-creased emphasis on the LCPs in postsecondaryeducation will assist educators in meeting the needsof all learners and providing opportunities for learn-ers to develop specific expertise.

NoteThe authors would like to acknowledge colleagues thathave shared and challenged ideas through participationin Project LEA/RNTM (Learning Enhancement Action/Resource Network), College of Educational Leadershipand Policy Studies, Iowa State University.

ReferencesAngelo, T., & Cross, K. (1993). Classroom assessment

techniques: A handbook for college teachers. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs.(1997, November). Learner-centered psychologi-cal principles: A framework for school reform andredesign. Washington, DC: American Psychologi-cal Association.

Barr, R., & Tagg, J. (1995, Nov/Dec). From teachingto learning: A new paradigm for undergraduateeducation. Change, 27(6) 13-25.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000).How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, andschool. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Caine, G., & Caine, R. (1997). Teaching and the hu-man brain. Tucson, AZ: Zephyr Press.

Chi, M., Feltovich, R., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categoriza-tion and representation of physics problems by ex-perts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.

DeGroot, A. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. TheHague, Netherlands: Mouton.

Gardiner, L. (1994). Redesigning higher education:Producing dramatic gains in student learning.Washington, DC: George Washington University.(ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Vol. 23,No. 7)

Glaser, R. (1992). Expert knowledge and processes ofthinking. In D. Halpern (Ed.), Enhancing thinking

skills in the sciences and mathematics (pp. 63-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Halpern, D. (1992). A cognitive approach to improv-ing thinking skills in the sciences and mathemat-ics. In D. Halpern (Ed.), Enhancing thinking skillsin the sciences and mathematics (pp. 1-14). Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of ex-pertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta(Eds.), Child development and education in Japan(pp. 262-272). New York: Freeman.

Huba, M., & Freed, J. (2000). Learner-centered assess-ment on college campuses: Shifting the focus fromteaching to learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation andcompetition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: In-teraction Book Co.

King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to pro-mote high-level cognitive processing. Theory IntoPractice, 41(1), 33-39.

Lambert, N., & McCombs, B. (1998). Learner-centeredschools and classrooms as a direction for schoolreform. In N. Lambert & B. McCombs (Eds.), Howstudents learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education (pp. 1-22). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Leamnson, R. (2000, Nov/Dec). Learning as biologicalbrain change. Change, 32(6), 34-40.

Markman, A., & Gentner, D. (1993). Structural align-ment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psy-chology, 25, 431-467.

Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollack, J. (2001). Class-room instruction that works: Research-based strate-gies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria,VA: ASCD.

McCombs, B. (1997). Self-assessment and reflection:Tools for promoting teacher changes toward learner-centered practices. NASSP Bulletin, 81(587), 1-14.

McCombs, B., & Pope, J. (1994). Motivating hard toreach students. Washington, DC: American Psy-chological Association.

Niemi, D. (1997). Cognitive science, expert-novice re-search, and performance assessment. Theory IntoPractice, 36(4), 239-246.

Robinson, D., & Kiewra, K. (1995). Visual argument:Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in im-proving learning from text. Journal of Education-al Psychology, 87(3), 455-467.

Slavin, R. (1992). When and why does cooperativelearning increase achievement? Theoretical andempirical perspectives. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz &N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups:The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp.145-173). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Spiro, R., Coulson, R., Feltovich, P., & Anderson, D.(1994). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advancedknowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

23 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

013

141


In R. Ruddell, M. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.),Theoretical models and processes of reading (4thed., pp. 602-610). Newark, DE: International Read-ing Association.

Stage, F., Mullen, P., Kinzie, J., & Simmons, A. (1998).Creating learning-centered classrooms: What doeslearning theory have to say? Washington, DC:George Washington University. (ASHE-ERICHigher Education Report Vol. 26, No. 4)

Svinicki, M. (1992). Practical implications of cogni-tive theories. In K. Feldman & M. Paulsen (Eds.),

Teaching and learning in the college classroom(pp. 27-39). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.

Thompson, J., Jungst, S., Colletti, J., Licklider, B., &Benna, J. (in press). Experiences in developing alearning-centered natural resources curriculum.Journal of Natural Resource and Life Science Ed-ucation.

Wineburg, S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: Anexpert-expert study in the interpretation of histor-ical texts. Cognitive Science, 22(3), 319-346.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

23 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

013

learner-centered teaching: postsecondary strategies that promote "thinking like a...

Documents