PRELIM EXAM

Principles of Teaching 1

Ludy May D. Mondejar TCP-A Aug. 23, 2019

1. Explain. How physical environment and psychological atmosphere

or the socio-emotional climate effect learning?
Support your answer/s with learning theories.

There are three fundamental ideas from the environmental psychology of

teaching and learning according to Graetz (2006). First, all learning takes place
in a physical environment with quantifiable and perceptible physical
characteristics. Whether sitting in a large lecture hall, underneath a tree, or in
front of a computer screen, students are engulfed by environmental information.
Specific targets within the environment draw the students' attention, such as
armchairs, scarves, and teacups, and they continuously monitor the ambient
properties such as the light of the lamps, the smell of the kettle, and the warmth
of the fire. In any learning environment students are awash in environmental
information, only a small fraction of which constitutes the sights and sounds of
instruction.

Second, students do not touch, see, or hear passively; they feel, look, and
listen actively. Students cannot attend to all the environmental information
bombarding them at any given time; their ability to gather and understand
incoming information is limited. Through automatic and controlled processes,
students select information for consideration. They try to understand what they
are sensing by piecing bits of information together from the bottom up and by
applying existing thoughts and preconceptions from the top down. A classroom
with circular tables and comfortable armchairs may look strange because it
deviates from expectations formed through prior experience. Students may direct
their attention to particular targets in the learning environment that they find
more interesting, important, or unfamiliar than others. For some, it might be the
instructor's engaging chemistry demonstration. For others, it may be the silvery
crystal ball on the shelf. In any learning environment, students manage their
limited cognitive resources by actively selecting environmental information for
further consideration and by using existing knowledge structures to interpret
this information in ways that have worked previously.

Third, the physical characteristics of learning environments can affect

learners emotionally, with important cognitive and behavioral consequences.
Although emotional reactions to environmental stimuli have been shown to vary
widely across individuals and activities, most students would probably find
learning difficult in a classroom that is stiflingly warm. Conversely, environments
that elicit positive emotional responses may lead not only to enhanced learning
but also to a powerful, emotional attachment to that space. It may become a
place where students love to learn, a place they seek out when they wish to learn,
and a place they remember fondly when they reflect on their learning
experiences. In any learning environment, physical characteristics that cause
discomfort can be expected to interfere with learning; environments that produce
positive emotional states can be expected to facilitate learning and the
development of place attachment.

Meanwhile, previous research on the effects of such environmental

variables as light, temperature, and noise on learning has yielded some
predictable results that are addressed through traditional classroom design.
Learning appears to be affected adversely by inadequate light, extreme
temperatures, and loud noises—variables maintained within acceptable ranges
in most college classrooms. Other results, however, reflect the often complex,
subtle, and surprising interplay between the learner and the learning
environment. Years of research on the impact of environmental variables on
human thoughts, feelings, and behaviors indicate that other variables often
moderate the effects of environmental variables (Graetz, 2006).

However, in a summary of the research on educational environments,

Weinstein (1979) concluded that environmental variables can impact learners
indirectly and that the effects of different physical settings often depend on the
nature of the task and the learner. For example, according to Jennings R. et al
(1988) distracting noises appear to slow reaction time and degrade performance
to a greater degree in older versus younger adults.

2. Explain. What are the implication/s to the learner/s when the

teacher has only achieved the development of COGNITIVE ASPECTS
of learning?
Support your answer with findings, studies by of the subject.

Some of the most distinctive methods of teaching based on a cognitive

perspective on learning base on the study of Kaya Yilmaz (2011) on Teaching
Methods Based on Some Principles of Cognitive Learning Theory are the
following:
Cognitive apprenticeship is a method of helping students grasp
concepts and procedures under the guidance of an expert such as
the teacher. This approach to instruction is marked by the following
phases of instruction. • Modeling: The teacher performs a task or
explains a process for students to observe, which helps them
understand what it takes to accomplish the learning task. Modeling
provides students with the opportunity to generate conditionalized
knowledge (i.e., when, where, and how to use knowledge to solve
problems of different kinds). • Coaching: While students do the same
task, the teacher observes students and provides hints, cues,
feedback, and help, if needed. • Articulation: Students are asked to
think out loud about how they performed the task and offer reasons
for the strategies that they used. Having students articulate their
implicit knowledge and strategies makes them explicit. The teacher
can detect whether students have any misconceptions or use
improper and inadequate strategies. • Reflection: Students
retrospectively think of their performance on completing the task
and compare their actions with the teacher’s or other students’
actions. • Exploration: The teacher urges students to identify a
problem, formulate a hypothesis, and seek needed information to
solve it. Students look at the different aspects of the problem from
different perspectives on their own. This strategy is intended to
promote students’ ability to think independently (Collins, Brown,
and Newman 1989, 481–82; Wilson and Cole 1991; Wilson,
Jonassen, and Cole 1993).

Reciprocal Teaching is based on information processing theory, a

branch of cognitive learning theory. Palincsar (1986), who developed
this method together with Brown, defines it as an instructional
activity in the form of a dialogue happening between teachers and
students about parts of text. The aim is to bring meaning to the text
in question to facilitate learning and understanding. The teacher
incorporates four strategies into the dialogue by asking students to
employ cognitive techniques of summarizing, question generating,
clarifying, and predicting. Reciprocal teaching is composed of
modeling, coaching, scaffolding, and fading to achieve instructional
objectives especially in the area of reading (Palincsar and Brown
1985; Palincsar 1986; Wilson and Cole 1991). This method aims at
promoting the effort between the teacher and students or among
peers of students to make sense of the instructional materials
(Palincsar 1986; Saskatchewan Education 1997). Anchored
Instruction Anchored instruction refers to designing and
implementing instruction around anchors (i.e., cases, stories, or
situations) that involve some kinds of case-study or problem
situation. As its name implies, anchored instruction anchors
teaching and learning in realistic contexts by urging the teachers
and students to formulate and seek answers to questions
(Bransford, Sherwood, Hasselbring, Kinzer, and Williams 1990). It
is essentially problem-based and technology-supported learning in
which interactive videodisc materials serve as anchors for the
subsequent teaching and learning. Technology tools facilitate
students’ exploration of the subject matter. John Bransford is a
pioneer in developing what came to be known as anchored
instruction. The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt
(1993) explains how this method works: The design of these anchors
was quite different from the design of videos that were typically used
in education. . . our goal was to create interesting, realistic contexts
that encouraged the active construction of knowledge by learners.
Our anchors were stories rather than lectures and were designed to
be explored by students and teachers.

Inquiry Learning This teaching method grows out of Piaget’s theory

of cognitive development and resembles the scientific inquiry
method. The primary goal is to help students develop their higher-
order thinking skills by engaging them in a process of either
investigating an issue or formulating and testing a hypothesis in
order to find solutions to a problem (Saskatchewan Education
1997). Three types of reasoning especially underlie this approach.
Learners engage in combinational, propositional, and hypothetical-
deductive reasoning to successfully practice inquiry learning (Gillani
2003). Combinational reasoning involves considering and examining
several different issues simultaneously from different angles in order
to solve a problem. Propositional reasoning entails an examination
of assumption and proposition to solve problems. Hypothetical-
deductive reasoning requires a consideration of different hypotheses
in addressing a problem. Instruction based on inquiry method is
composed of the following five phases: . Phase One: Puzzlement or
intellectual confrontation by presenting students with the problem
to create a state of disequilibrium in their mind. 2. Phase Two:
Students will hypothesize a reason for the puzzlement. 3. Phase
Three: Students will gather new information in regard to the
hypothesis. Then they isolate relevant information and organize it
based on some core concept or theme. 4. Phase Four: Students
analyze the data they have gathered and organized, and they
postulate a possible answer for the hypothesis, which explains the
original puzzlement. 5. Phase Five: Students test their hypothesis as
a possible answer (Gillani 2003, 60–61). While implementing this
method of teaching, the teacher first engenders a state of
disequilibrium in students’ minds by presenting a situation that is
complex and perplexing to students, and then provides students
 with sources in the environment. Next, students are asked to
formulate and test a hypothesis about the intellectual puzzlement
by gathering and analyzing information. Finally, students explain
their answers to the hypothesis. The whole process may take several
days, weeks, or months. Research findings report the effectiveness
of the inquiry approach for both elementary and secondary students
(Gillani 2003).

References:
1. Bransford, J. D., R. D. Sherwood, T. S. Hasselbring, C. K. Kinzer, and S. M.
Williams. 1990. Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can
help. In Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high
technology, ed. D. Nix and R. Sprio, 115–41. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. Collins, A., J. S. Brown, and S. E. Newman. 1989. Cognitive apprenticeship:
Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In Knowing, learning and
instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser, ed. L. B. Resnick, 453–94.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Gillani, B. B. 2003. Learning theories and the design of e-learning environments.
Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
4. Graetz, Ken A. 1992. The Psychology of Learning Environments. Educause
Review, Vol. 41, No. 6: 60–75.
5. Jennings R. et al. 1998. Memory Retrieval in Noise and Psychophysiological
Response in the Young and Old, Psychophysiology vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 633–644.
6. Palincsar, A. S. 1986. Reciprocal teaching: Teaching reading as thinking. Oak
Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
7. Palincsar, A. S. 1998. Social constructivist perspective on teaching and learning.
Annual Review of Psychology 49: 345–75. Palincsar, A. S., and A. L. Brown. 1985.
Reciprocal teaching: Activities to promote reading with your mind. In Reading,
thinking and concept development: Strategies for the classroom, ed. T. L. Harris
and E. J. Cooper, 147–60. New York: The College Board.
8. Saskatchewan Education. 1997. Native studies 30: Canadian studies curriculum
guide. Regina, SK: Saskatchewan Education.
9. Weinstein, C. 1979. The Physical Environment of School: A Review of the
Research. Review of Educational Research, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 577–610.
10. Wilson, B. G., D. H. Jonassen, and P. Cole. 1993. Cognitive approaches to
instructional design. In The ASTD handbook of instructional technology, ed. G.
M. Piskurich, 21.1–21.22. New York: McGraw-Hill.
11. Yilmaz, K. 2011. The Cognitive Perspective on Learning: Its Theoretical
Underpinnings and Implications for Classroom Practices. Taylor & Francis
Group, LLC.