|
|
Educational Psychology 792: Tools Fall
2007
DRAFT
SYLLABUS August
2007 Subject to revision
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Instructor David
Williamson Shaffer
Educational Sciences 1069 office x5-4602 office hours: Wednesdays |
|
Wednesdays, Educational
Quick Links: Readings and
Assignments by Course Meeting |
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
Registering for the course |
This course has been oversubscribed in past
semesters. In order to create a workable seminar group, I am asking students
to send some information so I can admit an appropriately diverse group of
students in terms of background and expertise. As of
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Assignments and readings listed by course meeting |
|
Introduction: Why look at tools? Cognition and Tool Use Do Tools Shape Thought? Our Own Tools Deliberate Tools for Thought No class – Topic proposal due Tools and Culture School as a Tool for Thought Take-Home Midterm Case Studies I: Writing Case Studies II: New Literacies – Rough draft due No class – Full draft due Research: Reports of Findings Research: Reports of Findings Final Discussion: Do Tools Matter? – Final paper due
Download PDF files for the course readings |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Course Description |
This course is about emerging educational technologies in
historical and psychological perspective. We will look at theories of
cognition and tool use, as well as specific examples of tools and their
impact on thinking, learning, and teaching. The course is divided into roughly two parts. The first
part is a rigorous examination of theories of tools and thinking. We look at Brosterman
(an overview of Froebel and the development and impact of the kindergarten
movement); Cuban and Postman (noted techno-agnostics); Dewey (his work on
school as an environment designed for learning); Donald (a examination of the
development of thinking on an evolutionary scale); Illich and McLuhan
(classic works on the impact of tools on culture and society); Papert (a
disciple of Piaget and one of the leading advocates of
computation-in-education); Vygotsky (a leading theorist of development as a cultural
-- rather than merely individual -- phenomenon); and Turkle (foundational
work on the psychology of computation). The first half of the course addresses the fundamental
question: what is a tool, and how to tools relate to thinking? This is the question
posed in the midterm paper. Along the way to answering that basic question,
we explore examples of tools for thinking: the Gifts and Occupations, Logo,
film and television, and School itself. In the second half of the course, the emphasis moves from
understanding tools and thinking in general to understanding specific tools.
We look at writing, literacy, and communication technologies as a case study
of a domain that has been influenced by the development of new tools.
Readings explore how typewriters, email, hypertext, and presentation software
change what we learn, how we think, and the ways we communicate. Final projects are investigations of specific tools,
looking at how they work and why, what their impact has been, and what their
effect can and should be. These projects will be presented in class, with the
papers available to the class beforehand so we can have a rich discussion of
the tools we've all studied. The final discussion looks back over this range of tools,
grounded in Lieser's thoughtful essay on technology and childhood. There is an "ongoing assignment" for the course
that asks you to write a brief summary of each reading. This is because the
quality of class discussions as a whole are much higher when everyone does
some prior reflecting and writing before the discussion starts. The goal of the course is to give students an opportunity
to think deeply about what tools for thinking are, how they work, why they
are important, and how they can and should change education. Students will
also use these ideas as a lens to study a number of significant tools for
thinking -- current and historical. Students will leave this course able to
discuss the web and other technologies with an understanding of how new media
is (and isn't) new, and what abiding changes new media may bring to the field
of education. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Assignments and Evaluation |
Assignments The course has 5 components: Each of these is described in more
detail below, with specific due dates and times listed under topics and readings below. Please also see the note below
about written assignments, which includes information on submission,
formatting and due dates. A general note about written assignments Written assignments are turned in to the class website http://epistemicgames.org/tft. You may post assignments as text (with or without HTML or other formatting), or you may post a URL where your assignment can be found. Posting assignments directly to the course website is preferable. Please do not submit work via email. The logic behind this requirement is that reading work of other students is an important component of the class. Submitting work to the course website makes it easy to distribute work to the class. Written assignments are due at
9am on the Tuesday before class. This is to give students a chance to read
each others’ work before class. Because student work needs to be read by the class
before discussions, extensions
will not be available, except in extreme circumstances. If you need an extension, contact the
teaching staff by
Readings and class discussions You are responsible for completing
the reading and participating actively in class discussions each week. Your
rule of thumb should be that you have read the articles and thought about
them sufficiently such that you could start and lead a provocative and
insightful discussion about them if asked to. In many cases you will be asked
to do just that, and you should be prepared to do so at any point in the
semester. Each week you will be asked to
post a commentary on the readings to the class website http://epistemicgames.org/tft.
Please make sure to bring a copy of your commentary to class and be prepared
to expand upon it as a basis for further discussion.
Each week you will be asked to
post on the course website http://epistemicgames.org/tft
a commentary on each reading. This commentary should include a brief summary
of the main points of the text, and provide a question or issue that you
think is raised by the reading and that would be a relevant and important
topic for further discussion by the class. This should NOT be a point of
clarification (eg, “what does Vygotsky mean by Zone of Proximal
Development?”), but rather an idea that connects readings with each other or
with other work in the class (eg, “does the idea of a Zone of Proximal
Development link Geertz’ concept of culture and Simon’s view of mind?”). You
should both state your question, and explain its relevance to the content of
the course. Commentaries should ideally be
no more than 250 words for each reading. You are expected to read summaries from other participants
before coming to class each week and to comment on at least one other person's post.
This assignment asks you to
identify a tool that was/is influential in your own thinking/development, and
write a short (approx. 500 words) explanation of the tool and its impact on
you. The purpose of this assignment
is to provide grounding for the abstract discussion of psychology and cognition
in the first weeks of the course. Do the theories hold water? Are they true
in your individual experience? You may find the readings from Donald,
Vygotsky, Norman, and McLuhan particularly (though not exclusively) helpful
in seeing how a tool has (or has not) influenced the way you think. This is also a chance to think
expansively about what qualifies as a tool, and to connect the readings to
your own personal experience. You should not feel obliged to quote formal
theory, although obviously you will want to do so when it is appropriate in
your discussion. You are not limited in the
choice of tool you wish to discuss, except that it be something that was/is
influential in your own thinking/development. You are also not required to
pick the same tool for this assignment as for the final project. The midterm asks you to prepare
a thought paper (approx 1000 words) answering the question: "What is a
tool for thought?" This is a more formal paper than
the reflective assignment for Our Own Tools, in the sense that you are
expected to write an essay that answers the question, supports that answer
with a logical argument, and supports that argument with specific examples
and evidence. It is a "thought paper" in the sense that the focus
is on how you are thinking about the question and the issues it raises. The
goal is to give you a chance to reflect on the readings and provide your own
analysis of the relationship between tools and thinking. You may refer to work outside
the syllabus and class discussion, and there is no specific requirement that
you cite works from the course. However, there clearly is an expectation that
you will give credit for ideas as would be appropriate in any academic
writing. More important, your thinking as presented in the paper must show
meaningful relationship to the topics we have discussed -- you can agree
with, or disagree with, or ignore some of the authors in the syllabus, but
the paper should reflect the material and topics of the course. The final project for the course
asks you to pick a tool and analyze it using one of the theories that we are
reading and discussing in the course. Each student will prepare an in-depth
research paper presenting an analysis of his or her tool for thinking. This
analysis should be based on significant library and/or original
(observational) research. It is expected to build on the topics and readings
of the course and extend this body of work by exploring a specific case study
of a tool and its relationship to thinking in depth. These final papers should be
substantive scholarly examinations of a particular tool for thought. They
will be evaluated on the extent to which they establish a thesis about a
particular tool and the way it relates to thinking, argue for that thesis
logically, and support that argument with specific evidence. You might want
to think of this project as a more detailed exploration of the
"theory" of tools and thinking that you created in your midterm
project through a the study of a particular tool. You are not required to
structure your project that way, but the most successful papers will choose a
specific tool and look carefully at how it "works" in relationship
to one specific theory about the way people think and learn. In general, your paper should
include: (1) an introduction that describes the tool your study is exploring;
(2) a description of the single theory that your study is exploring; (3) a
description of the kind of information or observations you are going to use
to support your analysis; (4) a description of your evidence or observations;
(5) a discussion of what that suggests about the theory you were exploring;
(6) a conclusion that describes the implications of what you found -- that
is, what, if anything, someone would do with this information. We will discuss the results of
these projects in detail as part of the class towards the end of the
semester, and our conversations about how these ideas play out in the real
world will be an important link between cognition and tool use. This is a difficult and
ambitious project. To make it more manageable, the assignment is broken up
into 5 stages, each with a separate due date during the semester. If you
complete each step of the assignment on time and get positive feedback, you
should be in a position to do a good job on the project overall. However,
managing your time on the project overall remains your responsibility. If you
feel parts of your particular project need to be completed ahead of the
“schedule” in the syllabus you should talk with the instructor. The key steps in the final
project are: Early in the semester, you will be asked to submit a list
of prospective tools for analysis. While there is no formal follow-up to this
list, you are encouraged to consult peers and instructor about which
prospective tools will make the most productive choice for a final project.
You will be asked to write a short (200-400 words) proposal for your final project topic. Proposals should explain what tool you are planning to analyze, what sources or resources will be available for your analysis, and why you think that an analysis and presentation of this particular tool will be a valuable addition to the class.
The week before we will begin discussing your papers, a “rough draft” of your research paper is due. There is no specific requirement as to what constitutes a “rough draft,” other than that it documents substantial progress on your work, and demonstrates that you will be able to turn in a “full draft” on time next week. A rough draft typically includes (through is not required to include) an outline of the paper as a whole, examples of text from some key sections, as well as graphs, figures and examples from the data. You should not need to make any special preparations for this rough draft -- if your work has progressed and you are on track to finish your paper on time, you should be able to send your work to date in whatever form you have been working from. However, you should be aware that failure to document substantial progress on your paper will be reflected in your final grade on the project.
We will be spending two class periods discussing your research projects. To make this possible, you will be asked to post a “full draft” of your paper to the course website http://epistemicgames.org/tft. A full draft of your paper means a complete paper that would be acceptable to turn in as a final draft: the text should be complete and proof-read; figures, graphs, tables, captions, and all references should be complete and in correct APA format. Basically, a full draft of the paper is a final draft, except in this case, your will be submitting the full draft for peer review in class.
You will get two forms of feedback on your full draft: comments in class, and written comments from the teaching staff, including a “full draft grade.” Based on comments in class and from the teaching staff, you will revise your paper into a final draft.
Your full draft should be NO MORE than 2000 words, EXCLUDING title, figures, and references.
Final drafts of papers are due to the course
website http://epistemicgames.org/tft
by
Your final draft should be NO MORE than 2000 words, EXCLUDING title, figures, and references. Along with your final draft, you should include a cover letter that documents the revisions that you have chosen to make. Please include a description of the relevant critiques you received from the teaching staff and your peers. For each point of critique, explain how you chose to address it in the final draft and your rationale for revising in that way. Evaluation The course has 5 components that
are weighted as follows for the purposes of grading:
You will receive letter grades
for your final project and for your midterm assignment. You will receive feedback
about your work on the course website, but not a specific letter grade. If
you have concerns about your performance on any assignment, please consult
with the instructor. The course will not be graded on
a curve. Each student’s work will be evaluated based on expectations of
performance in a graduate-level course. Students are encouraged to discuss
work with each other and to collaborate wherever possible. However, unless
specific arrangements are made in advance, students are expected to turn in
written work that is entirely their own. Accommodations for Individuals with Disabilities To include persons with
disabilities in this course, please let me know if you require special
accommodations in the curriculum, instruction, or evaluation. I will try to
maintain the confidentiality of the information you share. If you have
special needs or if you have questions about campus disability-related
policies and services, please contact the McBurney Disability Resource
Center, 905 University Avenue, 263-2741.
Academic Misconduct and PlagiarismAs indicated in the University
of Wisconsin System administrative code, "The board of regents,
administrators, faculty, academic staff and students of the university of
Wisconsin system believe that academic honesty and integrity are fundamental
to the mission of higher education and of the university of Wisconsin system.
The university has a responsibility to promote academic honesty and integrity
and to develop procedures to deal effectively with instances of academic
dishonesty. Students are responsible for the honest completion and
representation of their work, for the appropriate citation of sources, and
for respect of others' academic endeavors. Students who violate these
standards must be confronted and must accept the consequences of their
actions." |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Topics and Readings |
Readings
Selected readings are also available for purchase in new or used form at the University bookstore.
WEEKLY
LISTING OF TOPICS, READINGS, AND ASSIGNMENTS Introduction: Why look at tools?
Reading
·
As soon as possible, please create a personal page
for yourself on the course website http://epistemicgames.org/tft
including the following information:
Posting your phone number is optional,
but helpful if other members of the class want to get in touch with you. The
website is not accessible without a password. If you have concerns about
sharing this information, please contact the instructor. · Post your thoughts/comments/responses (written in class) to the excerpts from Work, Life, Tools to the course website http://epistemicgames.org/tft Cognition and Tool Use
Reading | ||||||||||||||
