Contextualization in Perspective

Son, Ji Y.; Goldstone, Robert L.

doi:10.1080/07370000802584539

Cited by 50 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 88 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with this movement, literature has witnessed a switch of focus away from the static, monolithic concept of 'context' towards the dynamic notion of 'contextualization' which gives further prominence to the salience of learner engagement (Baker, 2006). Aiming toward providing better conditions for effective, meaningful learning (Son & Goldstone, 2009), contextualization attracted considerable attention as one of the most extensively invoked processes of language teaching (Bax, 2003). This typical trend is defined in a number of rather distinct ways.…”

Section: Contextualizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextualization-Emotionalization Interface: A Case of Teacher Effectiveness

Pishghadam

Shayesteh

Rahmani

2016

RIMCIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the prominence of cognitive and affective factors in teacher effectiveness, this study intends to look at the issue from a different perspective and examine the roles of contextualization and emotionalization in teacher success. In so doing, 305 English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners rated their English teachers to determine the extent to which they contextualize and emotionalize their instructions. During the first phase of the study, a pair of scales were constructed and substantiated via Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to serve the abovementioned purpose. As for the second phase, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was utilized to shed light on any probable relationships among the independent variables and teacher success. The results indicated that, teachers who contextualize and emotionalize their instructional practices, enjoy an enhanced level of success. Moreover, it was revealed that, in the close competition between contextualization and emotionalization, contextualization was identified as a slightly better predictor of teacher success. Building upon the rather strong links between the sub-construct of contextualization and emotionalization, it was further inferred that, mutual juxtaposition of the two concepts contribute to teacher success. In the end, the results were discussed in the realm of English language education.

show abstract

Section: Contextualizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextualization-Emotionalization Interface: A Case of Teacher Effectiveness

Pishghadam

Shayesteh

Rahmani

2016

RIMCIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research in other domains has found that learning with concrete, familiar situations can hinder transfer (Goldstone & Sakamoto, 2003;Kaminski, Sloutsky, & Heckler, 2008). We have explored the impact of different levels of contextualization, personalization, and familiarity in learning SDT in another line of experiments (Son & Goldstone, 2009). This work has confirmed that more familiar, personally relevant scenarios produce less robust transfer than more distant, generic scenarios.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Do Words Promote Analogical Transfer?

Son¹,

Doumas²,

Goldstone³

2010

The Journal of Problem Solving

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The purpose of this paper is to explore how and when verbal labels facilitate relational reasoning and transfer. We review the research and theory behind two ways words might direct attention to relational information: (1) words generically invite people to compare and thus highlight relations (the Generic Tokens [GT] hypothesis), and/or (2) words carry semantic cues to common structure (the Cues to Specific Meaning [CSM] hypothesis). Four experiments examined whether learning Signal Detection Theory (SDT) with relational words fostered better transfer than learning without relational words in easily alignable and less alignable situations (testing the GT hypothesis) as well as when the relational words matched and mismatched the semantics of the learning situation (testing the CSM hypothesis). The results of the experiments found support for the GT hypothesis because the presence of relational labels produced better transfer when two situations were alignable. Although the CSM hypothesis does not explain how words facilitate transfer, we found that mismatches between words and their labeled referents can produce a situation where words hinder relational learning.

show abstract

“…This work adds to a growing body of research that points to weaknesses in the pedagogical assumption that making materials as concrete and real-world as possible will automatically increase student learning. Research on text-based interest (Harp & Mayer, 1998), perceptual richness (Sloutsky, Kaminski, & Heckler, 2005;McNeil, Uttal, Jarvin, & Sternberg, 2009) and narrative voice (Son & Goldstone, 2009b) have all pointed to the limitations of such a view. In many of these cases, manipulations are made to instructional materials and the effect on student learning is observed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This view is consistent with research on text processing, which has found that more engaging materials direct attention to more abstract, comprehension-related cognitive processes, while less engaging materials keep attention focused on more perceptual-level details, such as features of the font and spelling (McDaniel, Waddill, Finstad, & Bourg, 2000). There is also evidence that students interested in developing a deep understanding of a topic or who already have some domain knowledge are harmed by interventions aimed to make the materials more attractive (Durik & Harackiewicz, 2007), while those who are not interested do benefit from such interventions (Durik & Harackiewicz, 2007;Son & Goldstone, 2009b) and from more exploratory, open-ended and self-guided instructional methods (Belenky & Nokes, 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The relevant features that are key to deep understanding may be less salient. Moreover, the concrete details may distract students from these features (Harp & Mayer, 1998;Son & Goldstone, 2009b). It appears that there are open questions as to the best way to use concrete materials in learning and whether learning with them is different than learning with more abstract materials.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Examining the Role of Manipulatives and Metacognition on Engagement, Learning, and Transfer

Belenky¹,

Nokes²

2009

The Journal of Problem Solving

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does the type of learning material impact what is learned? The current research investigates the nature of students' learning of math concepts when using manipulatives (Uttal, Scudder, & DeLoache, 1997). We examined how the type of manipulative (concrete, abstract, none) and problem-solving prompt (metacognitive or problem-focused) affect student learning, engagement, and knowledge transfer. Students who were given concrete manipulatives with metacognitive prompts showed better transfer of a procedural skill than students given abstract manipulatives or those given concrete manipulatives with problem-focused prompts. Overall, students who reported low levels of engagement showed better learning and transfer when getting metacognitive prompts, whereas students who reported high levels of engagement showed better learning and transfer when getting the problem-focused prompts. The results are discussed in regards to their implications for education and instruction. Keywords learning, engagement, transfer, problem solving, manipulatives, metacognition Examining the Role of Manipulatives and Metacognition 103• volume 2, no. 2 (Fall 2009) Learning math can be hard. One way educators try to aid in math learning is by teaching new concepts using concrete examples. This has been hypothesized to be an effective instructional tactic because it reduces memory load (Sweller, 2006;Sweller, Merrienboer, & Paas, 1998), facilitates understanding by grounding new information in meaningful prior knowledge (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989), and may increase students' motivation to learn and understand the instruction, task, or problem (Cordova & Lepper, 1996;Schraw, Flowerday, & Lehman, 2001). However, there are also potential downsides to this pedagogical strategy. Using highly realistic situations and materials may cause the knowledge to be tied to the particulars of that scenario, making transfer to other scenarios or into abstract terms more difficult (Goldstone & Sakamoto, 2003;Son & Goldstone, 2009a). The relevant features that are key to deep understanding may be less salient. Moreover, the concrete details may distract students from these features (Harp & Mayer, 1998;Son & Goldstone, 2009b). It appears that there are open questions as to the best way to use concrete materials in learning and whether learning with them is different than learning with more abstract materials. A second way in which teachers try to aid in math learning is by having students engage in valuable and productive activities with the learning materials. This sometimes manifests itself as students being "active" with the materials (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989), such as giving students manipulatives so that they can get "hands-on" experience (Fuson & Briars, 1990). Manipulatives are physical objects that are supposed to help the student concretize his or her knowledge by expressing concepts and performing problem-solving steps with them. It has been hypothesized that being "active" facilitates learning by doing (Anzai & Simon, 1979) and i...

show abstract

Contextualization in Perspective

Cited by 50 publications

References 88 publications

Contextualization-Emotionalization Interface: A Case of Teacher Effectiveness

Contextualization-Emotionalization Interface: A Case of Teacher Effectiveness

When Do Words Promote Analogical Transfer?

Examining the Role of Manipulatives and Metacognition on Engagement, Learning, and Transfer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About