No abstract

The study addressed the question of how learners' a priori perceptions of message categories relate to their perceived self-efficacy in handling them, and how perceptions relate to the amount of invested mental effort (AIME) and learning. The AIME was defined as the number of nonautomatic mental elaborations applied to material and measured by learners' self-reports. It was hypothesized that in the absence of instructions AIME expended in elaborating materials varies as a function of initial perceptions even when the material warrants otherwise. Television and print were considered categories for which children have general perceptions. Sixth graders (n = 124) were tested for their perceptions of self-efficacy with print and TV, perceived media realism, and attributions of failure and success with each medium. Half the subjects viewed a silent film, the other half read a comparable text. Measures of AIME and achievement were then taken. As expected, children felt more efficacious with TV, and perceived it as more realistic and easy. Print was reported to demand more effort, but led to better inference making. Efficacy correlated positively with AIME in print and negatively in TV. The discussion focuses on the roles of a priori perceptions and AIME in learning. '

Effective problem solving, sound decision making, insightful invention—do such aspects of good thinking depend more on deep expertise in a specialty than on reflective awareness and general strategies? Over the past thirty years, considerable research and controversy have surrounded this issue. An historical sketch of the arguments for the strong specialist position and the strong generalist position suggests that each camp, in its own way, has oversimplified the interaction between general strategic knowledge and specialized domain knowledge. We suggest a synthesis: General and specialized knowledge function in close partnership. We explore the nature of this partnership and consider its implications for educational practice.

No abstract

No abstract

We examine how technologies, particularly computer technologies that aid in cognitive processing, can support intellectual performance and enrich individuals’ minds. We distinguish between effects with and of a technology: Effects with occur when people work in partnership with machines, whereas effects of occur when such partnerships have subsequent cognitive spin-off effects for learners working away from machines. It is argued that effects both with and of depend on the individual's mindful engagement in the partnership. Such mind-machine collaborations also invite reexamination of prevailing conceptions of intelligence and ability: Are they properties of the individual or of the joint system? We respond to these dilemmas by offering two views, one emphasizing mainly the upgraded performance in a person-machine system of partnership, the other emphasizing more the educationally valued cognitive residue that can result. The use of computer tools to extend the reach of minds is briefly discussed within wider normative, theoretical, and practical contexts.

No abstract

No abstract