|
What are the findings or theories from your area of expertise that we could apply to higher education? Our research has involved developing computer-based tutors to mathematics. Our tutors are currently in use by about 100,000 students around the country. They use a cognitive model of student problem solving that is capable of solving the problems in the same way students do and making the same errors. We use these models to interpret student behavior and provide instructions appropriate to where the student is in the problem-solving situation. They are also used to implement a mastery-based system whereby students are promoted through the material as they master it. This has produced significant achievement gains. A similar approach could be taken to instruction in higher education and indeed a little of this is already done in my courses at CMU. What are the (most important) unsolved problems? What should be included in an agenda for research? To be able to apply this approach it is necessary to precisely define what the goals of a course are and do a cognitive task analysis of the competences involved. This is very time consuming and is only practical when the cost of the effort can be amortized over the benefit to many students. Developing efficient cognitive task analysis is a major problem. What prototypes can you point us toward where principles from the science of learning are already being applied (e.g., activities, courses, fields of study, degree programs, or entire systems)? There are the math tutors (see http://carnegielearning.com) and at CMU we have tutors for programming an beginning parts of cognitive modeling. What are the major problems with or barriers to redesigning higher education? Do you have any ideas for overcoming them? I think a significant problem is coming to consensus on the goals. There was an effort in Britain to deliver computer-based instruction in psychology. I do not know the ultimate outcome (I could find out) but I do know that they suffered enormous problems because psychology faculty could not agree on the objectives (or how to measure them) for basic courses What additional questions should we be asking? How can we be precise in formulating our goals. Your current web site speaks of "maximizing transfer to the real world", "enhancing critical thinking abilities", "encouraging the habit of life-long learning" and so does everyone else. One would think psychologists would bring some definition to these apple-pie goals. What do we need to do so that one outcome of the retreat is to effect change (in ways that we want)? There are numerous efforts afoot to reform education involving things such as new technology or new theories of instruction and curriculum. These efforts are largely devoid of any concern with psychological theory or good empirical assessment of outcomes. Given that these efforts have large constituencies and can command large amounts of funding, I think it becomes important to figure out how we can get psychological concerns represented at these tables.
|
