Instructor: Bruce Landon, Ph.D. Office: B3113 (tentative
classroom B2250)
Office phone: 604-777-6161
Office hours: Thursday class from 18:00 +
email: Bruce_Landon@douglas.bc.ca
Homepage: BruceLandon.Douglas.bc.ca
Required Reading:
Text: Bruning, R.H., Schraw, G.J., Norby, M.M., & Ronning, R.R, (2004). Cognitive Psychology and Instruction 4th Edition. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Readings: Spellman, B.A., & Willingham, D.T. (2005) Current Directions in Cognitive Science (editors), Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Anderson, J. R. (2005). Human Symbol Manipulation Within an Integrated Cognitive Architecture, Cognitive Science 29 (3), 313-341.
Link: http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/papers/580/s15516709cog0000_22.pdf Additional ACT-R papers available from: http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/papers/
Optional Reading: Wegner, D. (2002). The Illusion of Conscious Will, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Optional Reading: Klein, G. (1998). Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Optional Reading: Gigerenzer, G. &
Selten, R. (2001) Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Schedule outline to be supplemented with required articles from the library
and due dates
01/05 chapter 1 Introduction to Cognitive Psychology (brain imagery) (course resources)
Readings Miller, G. A., & Keller, J. (2000). Psychology and neuroscience: Making peace.
Readings Roser, M. & Gazzaniga, M. S. (2004). Automatic brains-Interpretative minds.
01/12 chapter 15 Cognitive Approaches to Science (expert-novice)
Readings Spellman, B. A., & Mandel, D. R. (1999). When possibility informs reality: Counterfactual thinking as a cue to causality.
Article: Cramerer, C. & Johnson, E. (chapter) The process-performance paradox in expert judgment:
How can experts know so much and predict so badly? pp. 343-364.
In Goldstein W. & Hogarth, R. (1997). Research on Judgment and Decision Making: Currents, Connections, and Controversies (editors),
Cambridge University Press, New York.
01/19 chapter 9 Classroom Contexts for Cognitive Growth (knowledge construction) eDiscussion and expectations/norms
Readings Norenzayan, A., & Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Culture and causal cognition.
Readings The Projective Way of Knowing: A Useful Heuristic That Sometimes Misleads
01/26 chapter 6 Beliefs about Self (attitudes) (attribution) (Theory of Planned Behaviour)
chapter 7 Beliefs about Intelligence and Knowledge (changing beliefs)
Readings Thompson, S. C. (1999). Illusions of control: How we overestimate our personal influence.
02/02 chapter 2 Sensory, Short-Term, and Working Memory (attention and perception) (multitasking)
Readings Inattentional Blindness: Looking Without Seeing
Article: Kahneman, D. (2002). A Perspective on Judgment and Choice: Mapping Bounded Rationality.
American Psychologist. 58 (9) pp. 697-720.
02/09 chapter 3 Long-Term Memory: Structures and Models (ACT-R) (PDP) (storytelling)
Readings McNally, R. J.(2003). Recovering memories of trauma: A view from the laboratory.
Article: Anderson, J. R. (2005). Human Symbol Manipulation Within an Integrated Cognitive Architecture, Cognitive Science 29 (3), 313-341.
02/16 chapter 4 Encoding Processes (imagery) (metacognition) (concept maps)
Readings Garry, M., & Polaschek, D. L. L. (2000). Imagination and memory.
Project title page and references section due
02/23 chapter 5 Retrieval Processes (reconstruction) (testing for learning) (storytelling)
Readings Landauer, T. K. (1998). Learning and representing verbal meaning: The latent semantic analysis theory.
Readings Brown, V. R., & Paulus, P. B. (2002). Making group brainstorming more effective: Recommendations from an associative memory perspective.
Project introduction outline due
03/02 chapter 8 Problem Solving and Critical Thinking (expert-novice) (creativity)
Readings Klahr, D., & Simon, H. A. (2001). What have psychologists (and others) discovered about the process of scientific discovery?
Readings Mellers, B. A., & McGraw, A. P. (2001). Anticipated emotions as guides to choice.
03/09 chapter 11 Learning to Read (ACT-R LSA model)
Readings Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension.
Article: Bidiu, R. & Anderson, J.R. (2004) Interpretation-based processing: A unified theory of semantic sentence comprehension,
Cognitive Science, 28(1), 1-44. http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/papers/399/rb_jra_2002_a.pdf
03/16 chapter 12 Reading to Learn (strategies and individual differences)
Readings Saffran, J. R. (2003). Statistical language learning: Mechanisms and constraints
Lewis, R. & Shravan Vasishth, S. An Activation-Based Model of Sentence Processing as Skilled Memory Retrieval
http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/papers/600/s15516709cog0000_25.pdf
03/23 chapter 13 Writing (APAFORMAT) (summarizing)
Readings Zwaan, R. A. (1999). Situation models: The mental leap into imagined worlds.
Complete revised Project paper due
03/30 chapter 10 Technological Contexts for Cognitive Growth (HCI)
chapter 14 Cognitive Approaches to Mathematics (cognitive tutor)
Review for final examination
04/13 tentative date for Final exam
Research Designer Term Project Paper - The intention of the term project is that students will learn about a subtopic of Cognitive Psychology in depth by studying the scientific literature and by proposing an original experiment in the context of ACT-R theory. The intention of the designing of an "original experiment" is help develop the student's critical thinking skills in psychology. The term project paper will develop one of the approved topics in Cognition from the list below that have been studied in relation to the ACT-R theory. The form of the term paper is the first part of a research proposal that provides a review of the relevant current literature (10+ sources since January 1, 1994). This is similar in form to the introduction section of an experimental research paper with an emphasis on clarity of thought, logical development of ideas and clear expression of the study hypothesis. Papers that are plagiarized or do not integrate ACT-R theory of the mind will not be marked and will be awarded a zero mark.
Limited list of potentially Approved Project topics (for more information
please see topics at http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/publications/index.php
)
Essentially, this is a first part of a research proposal
that would be submitted as part of a grant proposal or advanced degree
requirement (title page, abstract, introduction, and references sections
only omitting the method, results and discussion sections in this term project
paper). In order to minimize the APA style problems all projects will use the
formatted Term Project Document and just make appropriate changes and build the
project inside the document where all of the margins and headings are
appropriate APA style.
The intention of breaking the term project into parts is to make the task
easier and to allow for feedback to guide student revisions so that in the
final version demonstrates the student's Researcher Term Project Deliverables
inside the basic APA style model document submitted by sending 3 emails with
the attachment and specific subject line:
Title Page & References Section
Outline of the introduction including draft hypothesis statement
Final proofread version
Grading System Policy
Plagiarism Policy - Academic Dishonesty will result in Zero credit for
assignment, quiz, or exam. Plagiarism can be avoided by not using other's work
as one's own. Be careful in citing all of your sources and people
appropriately.
Make-up Policy - Missed quizzes are made up on the final exam and assignments
must be made up within 5 days for any credit (credit is reduced 20% per day
late).
The overall intention of the marking system is to have occasions to encourage student learning and provide meaningful feedback on progress. There are five components of the grading system which are intended to promote specific competencies. The online discussions are intended to help students develop the skills future teamwork and to show how they are thinking about the course material. The computer based assignments are intended to provide some hands-on experiential learning of both psychological and artificial intelligence concepts. The quizzes are really intended to promote spaced practice style of learning complex material while the Question&Answer emails are intended to encourage students select and express important learnings from the course so that they may be available as long term memories. The term project is intended to engage the student in an exploration of psychology in the context of Anderson's Theory of the Mind. Lastly, the midterm and final examinations are intended to provide an opportunity for students to demonstrate their knowledge of Cognitive Psychology and also to make up for misunderstandings or absences on quizzes that may have during the term.
15% Online
Contributions to discussions
15% Computer based assignments (virtual labs)
20% Quizzes and Q&A emails on Assigned Readings
20% Term Project (minus 20% for each day of missed deadline)
30% Closed Book Comprehensive Final Exam both in-class (25%) and personal
Q&A parts (5%)
General weekly structure (10 tasks)
Check course site and course calendar for upcoming events Review of materials in preparation for in-class final exam (25%) Q&A for personalized in-class final exam (5% on final) Submit Complete essay Questions and Answers (10% in total) Occasional Assignments and Online reports Study Reading Assignments Preview class presentation online In-class Quiz (for a total of 10% in total) In-class presentation/video/discussion participation and notes After class discussion assignment (1.5% per for a total of 15%) Work on Term Project (Final version 20% for paper) Optional weekly activities (5 tasks)
Remediate skill deficits
Collaborate with other students
Ask questions in online discussion forums
Answer questions in online discussion forums
Update personal concept map for cognitive psychology