Literacy Comprehension
Introduction
The focus of this project is in regards to increasing school-wide literacy scores in the Mid Cumberland Core District. This material supports in theory the PowerPoint professional development training presentation for teachers of the Mid Cumberland District. It has to be said, “If any recommendations are made, whether for better project-based learning teams, sometimes referred to as collaborative learning teams, or for additional support for teachers in other areas, then there must be practical and valid learning theory to support it.” This material is designed to do just that in support of CORE/CTE literacy standards. This material covers the professional development recommendations sponsored from the CTE directors to demonstrate that they serve as instructional leaders in the CTE system.
Additional Benefits of the Professional Development Project
This gives CTE directors as well as teachers firm guidelines on how to implement and support new CTE course standards with fidelity. This material discusses the use of these teams to accomplish the specific goals of career preparedness as it relates to work-based initiatives for students. This prepares student to be able to apply appropriate literacy learning to the real world they live in, “after school,” as it has been so called by some. This project directly points to several of the Tennessee Career and Technical Education Competency Attainment Rubric sections: “advanced knowledge attainment, advanced problem-solving (more for student success), advanced career awareness (more for student success), all from advanced communication/literacy (for teachers and students” (paraphrased, CTE Website). The sample PowerPoint presentation with notes is completed based on recommended first steps with a partial storyboard. The final slides in this presentation reflect the “next steps” and a “call to action.” Before entering the PowerPoint presentation, it is important to review the theory related to the use of collaborative learning teams for the purpose of increasing literacy comprehension in the classroom, which increases literacy scores.
Principle of Comprehension and Literacy Scores
When educators teach to literacy comprehension, they are also teaching to improve literacy scores. The ability of a student to be able to comprehend using reasoning abilities along with appropriate vocabulary directly relates to higher literacy scores. According to Busy Teachers Website, some of these literacy learning strategies are made up of six comprehension categories known as making connections, questioning, visualizing, inferring, determining importance, and synthesizing (Paraphrased, p. 1). There is also a connection between the amount of reading material a student is exposed to at home as well as in school to successful literacy scoring. For instance, according to The Literacy Company, “Students who reported having all four types of reading materials (books, magazines, newspapers, encyclopedias) in their home, scored, on average, higher than those who report having fewer reading materials” (2014). Since it is the goal of the CTE Literacy Standards to increase literacy scores, it is also the goal to increase the exposure of students to the multiple impact of a variety of reading materials. It is the goal and strategy of CTE Literacy Standards to improve all of the comprehension attributes in order to raise the literacy scores of the students.
According to Reading Rockets.org, “Effective comprehension strategy instruction can be accomplished through cooperative (collaborative) learning, which involves students working together as partners or in small groups on clearly defined tasks. Cooperative learning instruction has been used successfully to teach comprehension strategies. Students work together to understand texts, helping each other learn and apply comprehension strategies. Teachers help students learn to work in groups. Teachers also provide modeling of the comprehension strategies” (2014, p. 3). This is the emphasis of this particular project as it discusses better ways for teachers to include cooperative (collaborative) learning instruction that matches CTE goals and selected outcomes—higher literacy scores.
How Can CTE Directors Serve as Instructional Leaders?
This material discusses the need for CTE directors to encourage and plan for additional teacher training (professional development) that ensures improvement in literacy scores by enhanced teaching methods. This director support comes with the sponsor of four recommended methods:
- Support the use of applicable instructional design models like McTighe’s backward planning techniques: GRASPS, WHERETO,
- Train teachers on the appropriate use of collaborative student learning teams that can be also be used as project-based teams.
- Train teachers on the appropriate use of differentiated instruction (DI) in the classroom and especially to be used in the collaborative student learning teams.
- Train teachers on the appropriate use of what is referred to as the jigsaw learning method that is used in the collaborative student learning teams.
- Encourage teachers to form professional or peer coaching teams. These teams include team members that assist each other in improving the use of the first three methods through mentoring and classroom observations.
A Little ADDIE
The ADDIE instructional design model was helpful in this project by setting the structure for developing curriculum and setting in-classroom standards that bring about authentic learning experiences. According to the article written by Roger Chevalier, When Did ADDIE Become addie?: “ADDIE is a systematic methodology for instructional design that includes five phases: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation” (2011, p. 1). A little ADDIE in this case is paying attention to the analysis and evaluation phases of the ADDIE model. According to the article Bringing ADDIE to Life: Instructional Design at its Best, “This approach provides educators with useful, clearly defined states for the effective implementation of instruction” (2003, p. 2). Another attribute of ADDIE that pertains more directly to the goals of the CTE literacy standards is the learner-centered approach rather than the teacher-centered approach. This goes a long way in assisting teachers to help student gain “relevancy,” another important CTE buzzword. Relevancy produces what McTighe calls “enduring understandings,” then works backwards in designing a pathway to relevant learning. This model gives teachers the ability to use design-and-redesign methods that are flexible and adaptable depending on student-and-peer responses and feedback. Teachers need to be encouraged to review and become more familiar with McTighe’s instructional design model.
More of McTighe
If we consider Jay Mctighe’s instructional design model from his book Integrating Instruction: Understanding by Design, then there items that match the need of relevancy that is so important in meeting successful CTE standards:
- “Where are we going? (What are the objectives of the instruction);
- How will we get there? (What are the instructional strategies and the instructional medium?)
- How will we know when we have arrived? (What should our assessments look like? How will we evaluate and revise the instructional materials to match student learning needs?)” (2008, p.473).
Since the goals of the CTE approach are so connected to work-based knowledge and the ability of the student to use their ability to comprehend literacy in a variety of ways, then it becomes important to understand that “relevant” learning is “authentic” learning.
Relevant Learning is Authentic Learning
Nothing is so much in line with the CTE Literacy Standards than providing students with an authentic learning experience. McTighe called his learning “authentic” learning, which meant to him that it was “real” learning. Sometimes McTighe used the word, “enduring,” as mentioned, to describe authentic learning. This is very much in line with CTE work-based learning concept where students are introduced to community partners and opportunities that include learning linked to career preparedness. McTighe also stated, “As a means of creating more ‘authentic performances of understandings’ we recommend that teachers frame assessment tasks with the features suggested by the acronym GRASPS. In other words, include (1) a real-world goal, (2) a meaningful role for the student, (3) authentic (or simulated) real-world audience, (4) a contextualized situation that involves real-world application, (5) student-generated culminating products and performances, and (6) consensus-driven performance standards (criteria) for judging success” (2006, p. 70). Authentic assessment is all about practical application of learning.
Application, Application, Application
As teachers continue to pay more attention to better comprehension of understanding literacy, they will do so by providing students with a variety of review texts, then making sure that material points directly to positive career-centered results; they are pointing to relevancy. Dorothy Mackeracher quoted Wlodkowski in her book Making Sense of Adult Learning, “Learning is defined as a process of making sense of life’s experiences and giving meaning to whatever sense is made (2004, p. 6). Macheracher believed that adults always must see the reason and meaning for what they are doing in order for it to be authentic. When learning is tied to work-based applications, then the student is given that connection that directly relates to their own world and what they will be doing in the future. Stephen Lieb stated in his book Principles of Adult Learners, “Adults are relevancy-oriented.” When students learn that they are learning how to learn, especially when the material is applicable to their own lives, they relate well to it.
What Do Students Know Now?
Since there is intent on wanting students to develop applicable knowledge for the future work place in regards to literacy, then understanding what they presently know and understand is important in measuring learning success. Therefore, essential in the ADDIE Instructional Design Model is the pre-assessment of student knowledge and application. This becomes the first step that will directly impact the CTE development of better literacy learning.
What Do Teachers Know Now?
Since there is also an intent on wanting teachers to understand how to better address student learning, especially using collaborative learning teams, even project-based learning methods, then it becomes important that teachers also know how to put together learning groups that give the students the best chance of success in those very same teams. This means that teachers need to understand learning modalities as they pertain to learning preferences of those students prior to putting those learning teams together. It is not just about current knowledge; it is also about how to identify the three basic types of learning preferences such as: auditory learners, visual learners, and kinesthetic learners. Therefore, there needs to be two types of pre-assessments completed to balance current knowledge and learning preferences to enhance possibility of learning success. This leads directly to differentiated instruction. What kind of assessment works for DI?
Learning Style Inventory
The best way to incorporate DI is through the use of a Learning Style Inventory (LSI). A LSI is important as a tool for Brain-Based Learning (BBL). The development of the LSL inventory survey is an attempt to better understand how students learn. For instance, after using a LSI, what did we do with that information? McTighe and Tomlinson stated while discussing the attitude of a savvy teacher that a smart teacher would say, ‘“What does it mean for my students to understand this topic in ways that are relevant, are authentic, and give them power as learners? What can I do to make sure each of my learners is fully supported in growing as fast and as far as possible in understanding this topic?’” (2006, p. 11). Bilal Duman stated his article The Effects of Brain Based Learning on the Academic Achievement of Students with Different Learning Styles, “An understanding of styles requires some knowledge of how the brain works and learns (cognitive science), and how the brain functions. It is claimed that the learning styles of the individuals are determined by the way the brain functions” (2010, p. 2). Holl Antiprena stressed the importance of cognitive psychology in her Mini Literature Review Based on Brain Research and its Effect on Education Practices, “Continued developments in cognitive psychology have presented new ways of thinking about the brain and the human neurological structure and the attendant perceptions and emotions that contribute to learning (Standford, 2004)” (p. 24). Fogerty wrote in Brain Compatible Classrooms, “While most educators are interested in how the mind works and what they can do to enhanced learning, knowing how the brain itself works is an important prerequisite in shaping what is referred to her as brain-compatible classrooms: classrooms in which the teaching–learning processes are structured to parallel the ways the brain obtains and retains information (Sousa, 2001, Wolfe, 2001)” (2009, p. 3). The second step is to start what is sometimes referred to as a jigsaw (cooperative) learning technique.
The Strategy of Using Jigsaw/Cooperative (Collaborative) Learning
This concept of using the jigsaw method in learning in collaborative learning groups is part of the PowerPoint presentation that is essential in improving literacy scores for students. It has been called cooperative learning by some or teach-back exercises by others. The whole point of using jigsaw teaching methods is to allow students to fill in the blanks and discover what means most while interacting to their own learning preference strengths. The concept of teaching students on how to use jigsaw methods in learning is directly connected to Moore’s Theory of TD. Moore specifically stresses how important it is that there always be dialogue between teachers and students, “Dialogue is the extent to what in any educational program, learner and educator are able to respond to each other (Moore, 1983)” (Sorden, 2009, p. 17). The teacher purposely gives students materials for review that lead them directly into the enduring understandings that are learning goals and outcomes directly connected to work-place relevancy and standards. Sometimes, the learning goals are not obvious to the student, but they are to the teacher and is called the “hidden game” by Perkins.
The Hidden Game
The hidden game is discussed by Perkins in his book Making Learning Whole: How Seven Principles of Teaching Can Transform Education and directly relates to student career awareness and work-place relevancy. How else to better learn about the practical analogies and images created concerning literacy than from those peers in the jigsaw learning team? Personal analogies that may be not quite personally correct show up in the student interactions as they share with each using their critical-thinking skills. In addition, letting students discuss what it means to them and how would they apply what they learn to the real world they live in, brings with it all the images in their minds created as Benjamin stated from words, thoughts, persons, etc. Jigsaw exposes better learning and improves on learning through joint discovery and open group discussions. In regards to Perkins, the “hidden game” may fit very well seeing that this principle is one of inquiry. The students are exercising their abilities to understand and discuss articles, text, and a variety of literature while being exposed to very important and relevant information. Notice the similarities in the use of critical-thinking skills to the expression of personal opinions and the ability of the learning team to use what we could call their joint-discovery process.
Application of the Hidden Game
The use of team-learning in conjunction with jigsaw methods of learning fits very well with the inquiry based learning that really sounds more like project-based learning, but inquiry is part of all learning phases. Inquiry involves elements from understanding categories and definitions to meaning and intuitive judgments. It avoids the surface and simplistic knowledge generated by repetition and memorization while letting the students get through the layers of information to the game that is really what a teacher wants them to understand. Perkins suggested two questions to help children learn to uncover the hidden game and do interpretative analysis: “What do you see going on? What do you see that makes you think so?’ These questions can spark discussion about a work of art, but also about a scientific demonstration, a political speech, or any of a number of other kinds of presentations, and can draw ‘learners into the game of inquiry.’ The hidden games make things more provocative, creative, insightful, rich, and relevant…” (p. 157). This learning discovery is transacted through the use of the material review methods of jigsaw.
Material Review Analysis
Using the jigsaw method of analyzing readings from a variety of applicable sources is an important part of this literacy learning experience. According to Laeser in his article Cooperative Learning, he stated, “Cooperative learning is an instructional strategy that emphasizes the importance of positive social interactions among students working in small groups on a given task or assignment related to a unit of study. The methodology can be employed in a wide range of classrooms, both K-12 and higher education, as well as in a wide range of subject specific disciplines. Research indicates that cooperative learning has a direct impact on academic achievement, self-esteem, confidence, interethnic relationships, and overall attitudes toward the learning process. The cooperative learning theory draws extensively on research by Piaget, Vygotsky and Carroll” (2011, p. 1). According to Mckeachie in his book Teaching Tips, “The jigsaw method, first developed by Elliot Aronson, begins like the syndicate by dividing a class into groups which are given assignments. Members of each group report back to their group, which agree on what and how to present to the rest of the class. In this new task group each student is responsible for teaching the students from the other groups what his group has learned. Since every student is thus in a group in which every group is represented, all students have the opportunity to learn the essence of all the assignments” (2002, p.192). One of the most important reasons that jigsaw works so well is the use of inference with inductive and deductive reasoning. Here are the following questions associated with each material review:
- “What did it say?
- What did it mean to you?
- What are the five most important facts that you read about?
- Of those facts, which ones would you be able to apply to the world that you live in?” (Pollitt, 2009, p. 25).
According to Huang, Liao, Huang, and Chen, in their journal article, A Jigsaw-based Cooperative Learning Approach to Improve Learning Outcomes for Mobile Situated Learning,
“Johnson and Johnson (1975) pointed out that successful cooperative learning requires two crucial elements: (1) the learning groups must promote the active learning of members through social interactions and discussions among; and (2) before the instruction, teachers should carefully design and arrange the course and provide the professional knowledge and guidance needed by the learners. Cooperative learning is basically a learning method that allows students to jointly achieve a given learning objective through the division of labor (Watson, 1991). In this type of learning process, group members have different responsibilities, and share each other’s learning accomplishments. Through social interaction, they can convey their understanding of certain concepts, assist each other, and jointly acquire new knowledge” (2014, p. 128). Pollitt quotes Bruner Jerome, in his article On Knowing: Essays for the Left Hand in his book Preparing Excellence for the Excellent:
- “Transfer is possible
- The closer the classroom situation is to the out-of-classroom situations, the greater is the transfer.
- Transfer can be increased and improved if teachers consciously teach for transfer.
- Transfer is greater when teachers help students to derive underlying generalization and to make applications of those generalizations.
- Generally speaking, when the learner discovers knowledge for himself or herself, transfer is increased” (2011, p. 13).
Perkins stated, “To get powerful transfer, learners need to learn something that matters widely” (p. 127, 129).
In order to continue to ensure that students are learning from the implementation of the literacy learning project, the jigsaw (cooperative) method is still encouraged. From this method of teaching, the student is more directly asked to apply what they learned, especially with the last two questions of the material review approach:
- What did it mean to you?
- Of those facts, which ones would you be able to apply to the world that you live in?”
Jigsaw learning is involved in the situated-learning approach is defined by Keskin and Metcalf in their article The Current Perspective, Theories and Practices of Mobile Learning, “Learning is not merely the acquisition of knowledge by individuals, but instead a process of social participation (Brown et all, 1989)” (2011, p. 203). According to Keskin and Metcalf, “Learning is promoted and enhanced by interaction and collaborations between students” (p. 204). This brings us to Tomlinson and McTighe as they discussed building authentic learning: “As a means of creating more authentic performance of understanding, we recommend that teachers frame assessment tasks with the features suggested by the acronym GRASPS as previously mentioned.
Collaborative Learning Teams
As an example, Merlot Pedagogy Portal lists: active learning; collaborative/cooperative learning, and team-based learning as categories that can work well with a classroom to improve learning and especially improve CTE results. Here, according to Merlot, “Active learning is anything that students do in a classroom other than merely passive listening to an instructor’s lecture;” while collaborative/cooperative learning, “Are instructional approaches in which students work together in small groups to accomplish a common learning goal,” then, team-based learning, “Case studies present students with real-life problems and enable them to apply what they have learned in the classroom to real life situations. Add to this mix a teacher who is familiar with student learning preferences (modalities), and the learning can be excellent. This also follows the model outlined in from CTE PowerPoint presentation that stated, “They outline what students should know and do upon completion of the course in order to achieve proficiency in the subject matter……and be sufficiently prepared to pursue all the options available to them when they graduate from their chosen POS: postsecondary, career entry, advanced training, industry certification, and more” (2014, CTE Homepage Link). This project prepares teachers to teach.
Preparing Teachers to Teach
The PowerPoint slides were chosen to encourage teachers to teach in those collaborative teams and groups that encourage the work-based relevancy by using differentiated instruction (DI). A good example of this is the specific introduction of unit frameworks for each of the seminars, then following this very typical formal instructional method, follow by allowing the teachers dividing into specific learning teams that incorporate their own mix of learning modalities. Teachers learn first how to use collaborative team activities with DI. From this, there are research discussions where the teams bring a variety of ideas about related materials through the use of what is referred to as jigsaw reviews. Now, the informal approach comes into play allowing teachers to research additional and like-kind materials for what will be future formal presentation (teach-back). The final approach is to develop peer coaching teams where teachers continue to share what they have learned and research on their own and how they were able to incorporate best practices into their classroom.
The whole intention of this recommended training is to introduce teachers to a better way to use the collaborative team approach. As the training advances, specific and practical literacy choices will always be made to make a big difference in the students’ learning success. These choices are instrumental in student success. Are they linked to the CTE goals and agreed-upon outcomes. The jigsaw method in the collaborative form is really project-based learning with its own inquiry momentum.
Project-Based Learning
A common explanation of project-based learning is stated by Pansasan and Nuangchalerm in their journal article Learning Outcomes of Project-Based and Inquiry Based Learning Activities, “Project-based learning is a model that organizes learning around projects. It is definitely based on challenging questions or problems that involve students in design, problem-solving, decision making, or investigative activities; and give students the opportunity to learn relatively (Jones et al., 1997; Marx et al., 1994).” (2010, p. 253). The challenge that project-based learning has opened for students as one of the best ways to ensure that all facets of what Perkins would call the WG with its hardest parts can be learned. The ways in which it incorporates the talents and energies of all students working together gives the greatest opportunity for in-depth learning. Project-based learning is discussed by Fischer in his article Project-Based Learning:
There are many benefits to project-based learning. For starters, projects appeal to a lot of students and teachers because they are flexible. As Barab and Landa (1997) indicated, projects can serve diversity in all its forms: cultural, developmental, cognitive, motivational, and stylistic. Schlemmer and Schlemmer (2008) wrote that projects allow for differentiation by many standards, including: content, process, product, readiness, interest and learning profile. Because of this flexibility, projects offer a chance for students to develop many skills because they are the ones doing the work. The skills depend on the goals and objectives of the project, but can involve anything from tangible skills like sewing to thinking skills like decision-making” (2014, p. 1). As the teacher relates outcomes to the project to be completed by the learning teams, they follow some basics that come from McTighe as well as from Perkins. McTighe stated in Understanding by Design:
1). “What knowledge is truly essential and enduring? (hard parts)
- What’s worth understanding? (hard parts)
- What powerful ideas should all students encounter? (path to hard parts)” (p. 24).
In addition:
Stage 1: Identify desired results
Stage 2: Determine acceptable evidence
State 3: Plan learning experiences and instruction” (path to hard parts) (p. 27-28).
Other guidelines followed what Perkins describes as PFSST. This process goes hand-in-hand with McTighe’s enduring outcome guidelines:
- “Pace: Is each learner actively involved most of time?
- Focus: Do learner’s activities fall within the core game we would like to see them getting better at, rather than taking some other form of busyness?
- Stretch: Are learners being optimally challenged?
- Stick: Are parts of the unfolding pattern of activity designed specially to help (enduring)
knowledge, (enduring) understanding, and (essential) skills stick in places? Stick includes
elements such as deliberate rehearsal, reflection, stock taking, and revisiting ideas and
practices later and then later” (p. 46).
Mctighe provided some of the best instructional tools through what he refers to as his unit frameworks that combine the WHERETO strategy.
- “W—Help the student know where the unit is going and what is expected. (To help the professor know where the students are coming from [prior knowledge, interest]).
- H—Hook all students and hold their interests.
- E—Equip students, help them experience the key ideas, and explore the issues.
- R—Provide opportunities to rethink and review their understandings and work.
- E—Allow students to evaluate their work and its implications?
- T—Be tailored (personalized) to the different needs, interest, and abilities of learners.
- O—Be organized to maximize initial and sustained engagement as well as effective learning” (p.121-127).
The Team Projects Stretch Understandings
According to Sheckley and Bell, “Experience, Consciousness, and Learning: Implications for Instruction, “At the most elemental level, the human brain accomplishes its remarkable feats by making connections between neurons” (p. 43). (Firing between attention and WM).We should realize that consciousness is as Sheckley and Bell stated, “The brain has a remarkable capability to select from interactions occurring among some thirty-two million neurons a subset or ‘dynamic core’ of neural activity (Edelman and Tononi, 2000). (p. 44). “Your consciousness also includes the amazing ability of the brain to ‘extend’ consciousness into the future (Damasio, 1999)” (p. 44). This is important in letting students expand their minds to imagine, innovate, and create new learning experiences. Your literacy project should allow students to extend, imagine, and stretch their knowledge while learning. The student partnerships that are created in project-based learning enhance their learning experience because they worked together so closely to get it done. They were feeding off each others’ interests and emotions.
Observing the Learning Teams
The teacher is always observing the working of the project-based teams and managing the learning emotions of the students. The management of emotions is a skill that is all about emotional intelligence (EI). It is the skill that determines just how good a teacher really is in managing the learning. A teacher won’t a good teacher unless they can become the encourager of positive and productive emotions as well as a perceiver of the emotions of others. It is as Goleman’s article in Harvard Review The Leadership That Gets Results that discussed that EI is like using golf clubs. For instance, a teacher can pull out emotional golf clubs based on the students’ own emotional needs and classroom environments. Being able to use different emotional golf clubs in different situations is significant—long shot short puck. One of the biggest EI attributes for teachers is listed by Goleman as self awareness (The Hay Group). Goleman explained categories in his book Primal Leadership that followed the self-awareness trait by asking the following questions that work well in my classrooms:
- “What matters most to them?
- Listen to their interest, dreams, and aspirations
- Respect and give positive expectations
- Seek out, affirm, and draw on the unique abilities of each employee (students),
- Nurture a growing awareness of employees’ (students’) particular strengths.”
(2002, p. 40).
Conclusion
It has been the purpose of this support material to demonstrate appropriate learning theories behind the recommended training as shown on the PowerPoint project for CTE Literacy Improvement. No matter what kind of recommendations are made if there cannot be appropriate learning theory to support it, then it is not a valid training program for improvement.
Next Steps
- Agreement to discuss and review instructional design concepts like McTighe’s for a better understanding how to frame lesson plans and activities.
- Agreement to train teachers on the use of collaborative team-based learning.
- Agreement to train teachers on how to use the jigsaw learning method in their teams.
- Agreement to train teachers on how to use DI.
- Agreement to let teachers create their own peer coaching teams for classroom assessment and peer assistance in implementing team-teaching techniques
Action Plan
Tasks
- Prepare to have LSI sent out to all the teachers for submission on week before the training takes place.
- Prepare to receive and process the teacher modalities identification so they may be placed into modality balanced groups
- Prepare the colored ribbons based on modality for green: auditory; blue: visual; red: kinesthetic.
- Prepare to have copies of the articles for the working groups.
- Prepare to have presentation art supplies such as markers, demo boards, for group presentations.
- Prepare to have white paper available to teachers to review.
- Prepare to have a black and white version of the PowerPoint prepared for each attendee.
- Prepare a sample Likert for the use of peer coaching classroom observations.
- Prepare to have Tech agree to post the white paper in PDF form on the CTE Intranet site
- Have CTE volunteers who will act as observers to assist groups in discussion difficulties if that comes.
References
Adcroft, Willis, & Hurst, A New Model for Managing change: the Holistic View, p. 40).
Ahmadi, M. R., Gilakjani, A. P., & Ahmadi, S. M. (2011, November). The relationship between
attention and consciousness. Academy Publishers. 2: 1366-1373.
Anonymous. (2014). Literacy comprehension. Retrieved from http://busyteachers.com
Anonymous (2014). Tennessee career and technical education competency rubric. Retrieved
from http://tn.gov/education/cte/
Barbey, A. K. & L W Barsalou, L. W. (2009) Reasoning and problem solving: Models. Emory
University. 35.
Bierema, L. (Winter, 2008). Adult learning in the workplace: Emotion work or emotion
Learning? 120. 55-64.
Benjamin, J. (2005). The human cognitive processing. Amsterdam:
Bierema, L. (Winter, 2008). Adult learning in the workplace: Emotion work or emotion
Learning? 120. 55-64.
Bltatti, R. & William, B. (August, 2013). On the effect of learning styles on scholastic
achievement. Current Issues in Education. 16. 1-6.
Bouchard, J. (2014). Transformative learning theory. Research Starter Education. 1: 1-7.
Chevalier, R. (2011). When did ADDIE become ADDIE? Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Cognitive science. Standard Encylopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from
http://.pato.stanfor.edu/entries/ cognitive-science/
Demetrious, H. & Wilson, E. (November, 2008). A return to the use of emotion and reflection.
Teach & Learn. 21. 938-940.
Dirkx, J. (Winter, 2008). The meaning and role of emotions in adult learning. New Directions for
Adult Continuing Education. 120, 7-18.
Dolan, R.J. (2002). Emotion, cognition, and behavior. Science. 298. 1191-1194.
Dolan, R.J. (2002). Emotion, cognition, and behavior. Science. 298. 1191-1194.
Duman, B. (August, 2010). The effects of brain-based learning on the academy achievement of
students with different learning styles. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice. 10. 2077-
2103.
Fogerty, R (2009). Brain compatible classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fougnie, D. (2008). The relationship between attention and working memory. Nova Science
Publishers, Inc. 1: 1-43.
Garrett, C. (November, 2011). Defining, deteching, and promoting student engagement in
College learning environments. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal. 5.
12.
Garner, P. W. (2010, May). Emotional competency and its influences on teachers and learning.
Springer Science & Business. 22: 297-321.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2009). Primal leadership: Learning to lead with
emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Grandin, T. (2014). Different kind of minds. Tedx Hendrix Talks. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com’watch?V=aF4sP-uC-Y1
Hansen, E. (2011). Idea-based learning. VA: Stylus Publishing.
Holl, A. (June, 2007). Mini literature review based on brain research and its effect on educational
practice.
Huang, Y., Liao, Y. , Huang, S., & Chen, H. (2014). A Jigsaw-based Cooperative Learning
Approach to Improve Learning Outcomes for Mobile Situated Learning. Journal of
Education Technology & Society. 17: 128-140.
James, A. (2014). The cognitive connectome. Tedx Hendrix College. Retrieved from
Jones, E. L. & Ross, B. H. (December, 2010). Classification versus inference learning contrasted
with real-world categories. Psychonomic Society Inc .https:// www. ideals. illinois. edu/
bitstream/handle/2142/16208/Jones_Erin.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1
Kafgdar, H. (2012). Cognitive model of problem solving. Yeni Symposium, 50: 195-206.
Kolk, M. (2011). The 21st Century Classroom – where the 3 R’s meet the 4 C’s! Retrieved
from http://web.tech4learning.com/blog-0/bid/45149/The-21st-century-classroom-where-the-
3-R-s-meet-the-4-C-s
Litzunger, T., Ho Lee, S, Wise, J., & Felder, R. (2007). A psychometric study of the index of
learning styles. Journal of Engineering, Education. 96. 309-319.
Mackeracher, D. (2004). Making sense of learning. Toronto: University of Toronto.
McAndrew, P., Farrow, R., & Elliott-Cirigottis, G. (2012). Special issue. Journal of Interactive
Media in Education. Special Issue. 1-13.
Mcheachie, W. J. (2002). Teaching tips. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
McLeod, S.A. (2009). Jean Piaget. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/
piaget.html
Panason, M. & Nuangchalerm, P. (2010). Learning Outcomes of Project-Based and Inquiry
Based Learning Activities. 6: 252-255.
Perkins, D. (2009). Making learning whole: How seven principles of teaching can transform
education. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass. ISBN-13: 978-0470633717.
Peterson, C. (2003, July). Brining ADDIE to life: Instructional design at its best. Journal of
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. 3: 1055-8896
Pollitt, D. (2009). Better organizational training and communication. Nashville: Professionals
in Print.
Pollitt, D. (2011). Preparing excellence for the excellent. Nashville: Professionals in Print.
Popham, J. W. (1995). Classroom assessments: What teachers need to know. Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Annoymous (2014). Effective comprehension. Reading Rocket. Retrieved from http://reading
rocket.org
Reeves, T. C. & Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. (2004). A development research agenda for online
Collaborative learning. Educational Technology Research and Development. 52. 53-65.
Revere, L. & Kovach, J. V. (2011). Online technologies for engaged learning: A meaningful
synthesis for educators. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 12. 113-124.
Richardson, W. (2014, January 15). World without walls: Learning well with others: How to
teach when learning is everywhere. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/collaboration-
age-technology-will-richards
Schwier, R. A. (2010). Focusing educational technology research on informal learning
environments. Contemporary Educational Technology. 1. 1.
Smith, T. (2014). Schema theory. Theory Research: Starter Education. 1. 1-12.
Thoms, K. (2001). They’re Not Just Big Kids: Motivating Adult Learners. Proceedings of the
Annual Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference. Murfreesboro, TN. Retrieved from
Tomlinson, C.A. & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction: Understanding by
design. Alexandria. ASCD
Walker R. (2009, January). Education at bat: Seven principles for education. Teacher &
Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.uknow.gse.harvard.edu/teaching/TC326.html
Wlodkowski, R. J. (Summer, 1999). Motivation and diversity: A framework for teaching. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning. 78: 7-10.
Yao, Y. Y. (2014). Concept formation and learning: A cognitive informatics perspective.
Department of Computer Science. Retrieved from http://www.cs.uregina/-yyao
professoredit 