Review of Educational Research

This paper examines reports of empirical research on Feuerstein’s “Instrumental Enrichment” (FIE) as a method of teaching thinking skills and asks what can be concluded from these reports with respect to the following: (a) the nature and statistical reliability of observed FIE effects and, for those effects that are statistically reliable, (b) the “amount” of FIE that appears to be required for these effects to appear.

Although cognitive psychology currently represents the mainstream of psychological and educational thinking, it is only recently that much concern has been shown for learning as such — that is, concern for the factors and/or variables that influence changes in human performance, knowledge structures, and/or conceptions. This article examines current thinking about learning within the framework of cognitive psychology and how a new, cognitive conception of learning can guide future research on both learning and instruction. Similarities and, differences between behavioral and cognitive conceptions of learning are discussed, along with issues such as the active (rather than passive) nature of learning, the concern for understanding (i.e., comprehension), the role of prior knowledge, the cumulative nature of most forms of human learning, and the role played by cognitive analyses of performance. Several cognitive theories of learning are presented as examples of how cognitive psychology has influenced research on learning.

This paper reviews instructional theory and research relating to three design criteria: (a) the order of presentation of instruction (sequencing), (b) the kinds of content relationships that should be taught, and (c) the way content relationships should be taught (synthesis). With respect to sequencing, theory and research on the following are reviewed: scrambled versus logical sequences; micro level sequences such as rule-example versus example-rule and the order of instances in the form of examples or practice; and macro level sequences such as Bruner’s spiral approach, Ausubel’s general-to-detailed sequence based on “progressive differentiation,” Gagne’s hierarchical sequence for intellectual skills, the “shortest path” sequence for teaching complex procedures advocated by P. Merrill, Scandura, and others, and the Elaboration Theory’s three simple-to-complex sequences proposed by Reigeluth. With respect to synthesis, theory and research are reviewed on Ausubel’s advance organizers, Dansereau’s networking, Anderson’s mapping, Novak’s concept mapping, and the Elaboration Theory’s synthesizers. Also, research on the relations between sequencing and synthesis is reviewed. A variety of recommendations for future research are provided, and the importance of model building and theory construction are emphasized.

Theoretical views regarding the cognitive processes of summarization are reviewed and some of the specific cognitive operations involved in summarization are considered. In particular, we argue that the cognitive demands of summarization are dependent upon the qualities of the text to be summarized, the whereabouts of the text during summarization, and the type of summary to be produced. To this latter point, a distinction is made between a summary written for oneself (writer-based) and a summary written for others (reader-based). Developmental differences among summarizers are then described in terms of awareness of task demands, sensitivity to importance, and ability to condense material and select and create topic sentences. Finally, instructional suggestions are made for how the beginning summarizer might be taught to produce more sophisticated summaries.

The application of item response theory (IRT) methodology to test equating has been a research topic of considerable interest in the past 2 decades. Despite the volume of research, it has been difficult to draw conclusions and make generalizations because different studies have used different types of tests, different types of samples, and different methods for assessing the accuracy of equating results. The purpose of this paper is threefold: (a) to review some of the major studies thus far and synthesize their results, (b) to discuss what questions are as yet unanswered and what problems exist with research methodology, and (c) to provide direction for future research. Whereas earlier research focused on comparing equating methods and IRT models, recent research has addressed such statistical concerns as standard errors of equating, parameter stability, and robustness of IRT models to violations of their assumptions. A major finding from the research so far is that it is unreasonable to expect a single equating method to provide the best results for equating all types of tests. Future research must determine how conditions, such as multidimensionality and test content, affect IRT equating.