Effects of cooperative learning on performance,attitude, and group behaviors in a technical team environment

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of cooperative learning strategies on performance, attitude toward working in teams, and group interaction behaviors in a technical training context. Participants were 274 engineering employees enrolled in a required training class that focused on communicating technical procedures in plant operations. Participants were divided into small groups and cooperative teams. Instruction was the same for all participants. Only the practice portion of the lesson reflected cooperative strategies versus no process direction. Results indicated that the practice conducted in a cooperative manner had a significant effect on performance and group behaviors. Participants in the cooperative teams performed better on the posttest, enjoyed working in teams, perceived more accomplishment, and displayed higher levels of social and cognitive interaction than participants who worked in unstructured small groups. Implications for integrating cooperative strategies into technical team training are provided.     

The spectrum of school–university partnerships: A typology of organizational learning systems

School–university partnerships are not uni-dimensional projects. Success in these partnerships can be found in loosely-coupled systems such as client–server partnerships and in more tightly-coupled systems such as collaborative development centers. Using a comparative case study approach, we explore two school–university partnership case studies and propose a framework for identifying and evaluating partnerships as learning systems. The structure of the partnership has implications for the focus of organizational learning initiatives that can form the foundation of sustained, systemic internal evaluation.     

A Family Focused Intervention Influences Hippocampal-Prefrontal Connectivity Through Gains in Self-Regulation

The stressors associated with poverty increase the risks for externalizing psychopathology; however, specific patterns of neurobiology and higher self-regulation may buffer against these effects. This study leveraged a randomized control trial, aimed at increasing self-regulation at ~11 years of age. As adults, these same individuals completed functional MRI scanning (M_age = 24.88 years; intervention n = 44; control n = 49). Functional connectivity between the hippocampus and ventromedial prefrontal cortex was examined in relation to the intervention, gains in self-regulation, and present-day externalizing symptoms. Increased connectivity between these brain areas was noted in the intervention group compared to controls. Furthermore, individual gains in self-regulation, instilled by the intervention, statistically explained this brain difference. These results begin to connect neurobiological and psychosocial markers of risk and resiliency.     

Communication in Mind,Brain, and Education: Making Disciplinary Differences Explicit

Difficulties in communication within Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE) can arise from several sources. One source is differences in orientation among the areas of research, policy, and practice. Another source is lack of understanding of the entrenched and unspoken differences across research disciplines in MBE—that is, recognition that research in MBE comes from many diverse disciplines, rather than some monolithic entity. A third challenge to communication in MBE arises from the nature of studying the mind and brain; we address the different levels of analysis in mind–brain research. Throughout our article, we emphasize that recognizing these differences—across areas (research, practice, and policy), disciplines, and levels of analysis—and making them explicit can facilitate effective communication in MBE. We illustrate these concepts with examples from the study of reading disorders across several disciplines.     

Two thinking skills assessment approaches: “Assessment of Pupils’ Thinking Skills” and “Individual Thinking Skills Assessments”

This paper is linked to a previous paper outlining an evaluation of a thinking skills intervention (Burke & Williams, 2008). Following extensive requests for the assessment tools used in the intervention, this short paper presents the development and potential uses of two thinking skills assessment tools. The aim of the paper is simply to make these measures available for other researchers to use, adapt and extend them in future research. The Assessment of Pupils Thinking Skills (APTS) measure is a 14-item measure of a range of thinking skills and metacognition. The assessment can be used to provide a comparative measure across thinking skills or to provide a sum score of thinking skills and raise metacognitive awareness of thinking skills. It can be used to assess thinking skills interventions and to monitor change in thinking skills over time among 9 to 12-year-olds. The Individual Thinking Skills Assessments (ITSA) are six more in-depth measures of specific thinking skills that can be used before, during or after interventions to provide more detailed information on children's individual thinking skills. The APTS and the ITSA can be used separately or in conjunction to assess thinking skills and change in thinking skills among older children.     

Creating an Instrument to Measure Social and Cultural Self-efficacy Indicators for Persistence of HBCU Undergraduates in STEM

Research in Science Education - This study is part of a larger research that explores the creation of an instrument to capture the social and cultural factors that affect Black students’...     

Communication,Communication, Communication! Growth through Laboratory Instructing

This study examined gains undergraduate students made in their communication and collaboration skills when they served as peer teachers, i.e., laboratory instructors (LIs), for a General Psychology laboratory. Self-ratings of communication and collaboration skills were completed before and after teaching the laboratory. When compared to before the teaching experience, the students rated their skills significantly higher in written expression, oral expression, and participation skills. They also rated themselves significantly higher in written comprehension and expression skills than did a comparison group of non-LIs. Results from interviews also revealed beliefs that their communication and collaboration skills had substantially increased.