Explicating and Exemplifying Empiricist and Cognitivist Paradigms in the Study of Human Learning

Loughlin, Sandra M.; Alexander, Patricia A.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0914-4_15

Cited by 8 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These two goals will hopefully help determine more fruitful frameworks for investigating strategic processing moving forward. As Loughlin and Alexander (2012) pointed out, without conceptual clarity there exists definitional, conceptual, and methodological confusion which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to interpret the disparate findings from multiple lines of inquiry.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a Dynamic, Multidimensional Research Framework for Strategic Processing

Dinsmore

2017

Educ Psychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the empirical literature on strategic processing is vast, understanding how and why certain strategies work for certain learners is far from clear. The purpose of this review is to systematically examine the theoretical and empirical literature on strategic process to parse out current conceptual and methodological progress to inform new conceptual and methodological approaches to investigating strategic processing. From a PsycINFO search from 2011 to 2016, a pool of 134 studies was tabled with regard to key conceptual and methodological characteristics along with salient findings. These conceptual and methodological findings were then synthesized to examine how development, three aspects of strategic processing, and personal and environmental factors explained the relation between strategic processing and performance in academic domains. Three major findings emerged: less is known empirically about the developmental nature of strategic processing; quality and conditional use explain performance more consistently than simply frequency of strategy use; and, numerous person and environmental factors shape the degree to which certain strategies are effective for certain learners. A framework for future research based on these three findings is presented.If you're looking at a structural protein in the wing of a fruit fly and say we understand the damage and that we're going to correct that error in that protein and that gene. Turns out that same protein and gene early on in the development of that fruit fly plays a key developmental role and it's just later in a fruit fly life it ends up a structural protein in the wing. So, assuming a gene only has a single function is probably the fastest road to hell in genomics. So we need to understand all the functions of genes and how changing them will alter other genes, other biological functions in humans. We're not simple linear creatures and we have to understand how changing one note changes the entire orchestra… (Venter 2016, April 29) Educ Psychol RevThe field of genomics has undergone a revolution in terms of how the functions of individual genes and the development of the human genome (i.e., a complete set of DNA within a single cell) is understood. Rather than a gene-centric view of the world where changes in genetic code (i.e., genotype) necessarily change a visible or expressed trait (i.e., phenotype), genomics by contrast focuses on the varied interactions between many genes within a genome as well as other biological factors that may moderate changes from genotype to phenotype (Noble 2011). Similarly, views of human learning and development are starting to shift away from explanations of discrete phenomena causing discrete changes in human functioning toward more multidimensional and dynamic views (e.g., Molenaar et al. 2014) of both motivation (e.g., Kaplan, Katz and Flum 2012) and cognition (e.g., Dinsmore 2014).One possible reason for the seemingly mixed findings in the strategic processing literature, with some studies finding strong relations between...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a Dynamic, Multidimensional Research Framework for Strategic Processing

Dinsmore

2017

Educ Psychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Specifically, the TSC framework (Loughlin, 2013;Loughlin & Alexander, 2012) brings together research and theory from a variety of disciplines (i.e., educational and cognitive psychology, linguistics, museum education, aesthetic philosophy, and cognitive neuroscience) in identifying two broad categories of comprehension processes: trans-symbolic and symbol-specific processes.…”

Section: The Tsc Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The TSC framework (Loughlin, 2013;Loughlin & Alexander, 2012) predicts that general, trans-symbolic comprehension processes are required for both text and painting comprehension. In line with this prediction, students' think-aloud transcripts suggest that there are processes shared by text and painting comprehension.…”

Section: Question Two: Trans-symbolic Comprehension Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The TSC framework (Loughlin, 2013;Loughlin & Alexander, 2012) also predicts that painting comprehension entails processes that are particular to understanding paintings. In keeping with this prediction, we found evidence of six potentially symbol-specific processes in the analysis of students' think-aloud transcripts, namely, observing agent or object, observing location, observing characteristics, observing action, and observing visual elements, and interpreting from visual elements.…”

Section: Question Three: Painting-specific Comprehension Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…LOUGHLIN, GROSSNICKLE, DINSMORE, AND ALEXANDER 2013; Loughlin & Alexander, 2012). From these data, we draw conclusions about the relation between painting and text comprehension processes and the potential for theoretically grounded, art-based reading comprehension interventions for elementary and middle school students.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

See 2 more Smart Citations

“Reading” Paintings: Evidence for Trans-Symbolic and Symbol-Specific Comprehension Processes

Loughlin

Grossnickle

Dinsmore

et al. 2015

Cognition and Instruction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Paradigms in Theory Construction

Guerra¹,

Capitelli²,

Longo³

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this edited volume is to expand on an early classifi cation of paradigms, theories, and models from a variety of contributors dedicated to each paradigm (L'Abate, 2009). Each contributor, in expanding on his/her favorite paradigm, implies or emphasizes her or his theoretical allegiance to the hegemonic importance of that paradigm over others. However, the wide range of paradigm available raises serious questions of whether one single paradigm can achieve such a superior position over others. Consequently, the major issue faced by such an embarrassment of paradigms raises the question on how one can choose one paradigm over others.In a previous publication (L'Abate, 2009) I discussed the role of paradigms, theories, and models trying to make sense of a confusing, uncritical matching of paradigms with theories, paradigms with models, and theories with models. From this publication came forth a classifi cation of paradigms that to my knowledge has not been attempted before, at least in psychology but, as we shall see, attempted frequently in other social science disciplines.Paradigms include theories. Theories include models. Models include dimensions, according to a hierarchical framework. However, what is a paradigm? Many defi nitions equate a paradigm with a model, making it very diffi cult to differentiate among the different components of the proposed classifi cation. Eventually, the best way I could defi ne a paradigm was as "one way to look at reality." Or "a systematic system of values." This way of looking consists of different components chosen to perceive reality according to individual criteria. Different value systems for different individuals. Whether there is a unique, supra-ordinate paradigm, besides evolution, is a question that remains to be answered by most contributors. Is there a supra-ordinate paradigm, and if there is one, how would that supra-ordinate paradigm be chosen?This classifi cation, therefore, begs the question: Which rules, if any, control, govern, or link one paradigm with a theory? Thus far, as far as I know, the only rule relating to the link between a paradigm and a theory, has been by proclamation: a theorist would swear allegiance to a particular paradigm. However, how a particular paradigm was chosen seems by personal preferences of the theorist. Could any other paradigm be chosen instead? Why one particular paradigm instead of another? One

show abstract

Explicating and Exemplifying Empiricist and Cognitivist Paradigms in the Study of Human Learning

Cited by 8 publications

References 26 publications

Toward a Dynamic, Multidimensional Research Framework for Strategic Processing

Toward a Dynamic, Multidimensional Research Framework for Strategic Processing

“Reading” Paintings: Evidence for Trans-Symbolic and Symbol-Specific Comprehension Processes

Paradigms in Theory Construction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About