NAMA : Aris Ramadani Pratama

KELAS : PKn 2018 B

NIM : 1807056

PRELIMINARY

Researchers who are confused about instructional strategy-learning

problems They accept two different sides of the problem through cognitive
questions, such as: What are effective learning strategies, and what are the
strategic components and learning processes that underlie effective strategies? The
second side includes metacognitive questions, such as: What should be
understood by a student to memil ih and use learning strategies in self ? It
is thought that this will be difficult to solve at this time and metacognitive aspects
as two "wheels" of learning-learning strategies .   

For that e mpat principle ko gnitif this from learning instruction strategies

proposed. This principle asks strategy researchers to: (a) develop learning
strategies in accordance with one's desired cognitive outcomes, (b) perform
routine components . There is no analysis of both the teaching strategy of teaching
and the learning process, (c) calculating the compatibility between specific
learning strategies and learner learning special knowledge and skills, and (d)
conducting empirically controlled validation of the effectiveness
of learning strategies . A    The initial model that distinguishes between
the processes of understanding, remembering, and applying is presented
to me, explaining the first cognitive principle. 
 

CONTENT

COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE 1: DIFFERENT LEARNING STRATEGIES

SERVE DIFFERENT COGNITIVE GOALS 

In the context of reading comprehension, for example, the popular

strategies include activating prior knowledge of students through the use of
advance or o ganisator or analogy, a cursory read, ask questions, map out and
solicit work, paraphrasing, imaging, recording, reviewing and summarizing. But
besides determining that students use all of these strategies. Several studies have
been carried out optimally with the designed version of the strategy just
mentioned being pitted against each other. However, even if such would be held,
it was a con -  to  - con . C onOne argue that no single strategy yan g will emerge
as "winners " . An effectiveness comparison strategy must be made with reference
to the two different types of text that is, the text is different in content
structure and format , as well as the different types of learning outcomes in each
type of text. The order of effectiveness of strategies tends to change dramatically
from one context of learning prose to the next.        

Levin argues that the prosarected learning strategy, especially in the

structure of parts or top-level organizations will not be expected to be optimally
suitable to take certain excerpts and details. Likewise, Levin argues that certain
prose learning strategies are better suited for increasing prehension student
competence than what they read (referred to here as understanding), while other
strategies are more suitable for improving students' memory of what they
read before, namely remembering . In the following discussion, Levin broadens
the difference in prose-learning between Bering's understanding and memories to
include creative problem solving, or students' ability to transfer prose concepts
that have been learned previously to new situations (application).  

Pressley, Rork Owl, and Schneider recently analyzed the component

selection strategies for efficient students and used them in what they call the
" good strategy user" model . Their emphasis now on Understanding,
Remembering, and Implementing as examples of different learning strategies for
different purposes is " well endorsed by the model in what I refer to as " Good
User Strategies (URA). " In this simplified URA framework , understanding is
considered a component of information processing, it becomes evident when a
person learns the body of information , whereas remembering and applying both
are referred to as the information-retrieval component, manifested when
someone invokes aspects of that information.    

COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE 2: EFFECTIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES

MUST HAVE IDENTIFICATION COMPONENTS 

This principle is directly related to the first. To choose the best strategy u ntuk
specific learning outcomes, one should compare the diversity of the strengths and
weaknesses of various strategies. So, while the first principle j ika strategies-are
concerned with what strategy, this strategy refers to analyze why and how .   
Basically there are two aspects to this principle of component analysis. The first is
that if everything except the kitchen sink is thrown into a certain strategy and if
the strategy is successful, people will not be able to say much about what made it
work . Even worse, if the strategy is ineffective, someone might throw the baby in
bath water. A strategy is designed to enhance student learning about original
text technology . Strategy, as conceptualized by the author, has four
main components, which from the description include at least follow-
up subcomponents: skimming, imaging, drawing, elaborating,
paragraph phrases , mnemonics, summarizing, prior knowledge, analogy, and
review   

              The second aspect of the principle of component analysis is that

effective learning strategies do not work miraculously, nor do they succeed
because the challenges are not attested to them (for example, students "build
taxonomies," "paraphrases ," or "used images"). On the contrary, every learning
strategy activity needs to be accounted for in terms of variables and operations
that are relevant to processing (for example, prior knowledge, meaningfulness,
organization, repetition, feedback, concrete, elaboration, gesture taking). That is,
besides trying to localize the effects of the strategy with respect to facilitated
understanding, ory members , or transfers (as in the previous section), component
analysis requires forming an assessment of the causes of
the facilitation. Examples of formed assessments include: "Concrete organizers
facilitate students' understanding of complex concepts unknown through
connections made with familiar concrete ones." Mnemonic techniques
facilitate student memory for specific information through the provision of
both elaboration coding and direct retrieval pathways. Researchers suggest
learning strategies to conduct routine components of analysis with respect to the
specific strategy they are investigating .    

COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE 3: LEARNING STRATEGY MUST BE

CONSIDERED WITH RELATIONSHIP WITH STUDENTS
AND SKILLS KNOWLEDGE 

The third cognitive principle of instructional learning strategies is that there

must be a "match" between strategy and student characteristics (see also
Bransforti, 1979). Strategies must be designed with students' specific skills and
competencies in mind. If not, the best that can be expected is that the strategy will
be effective only for a few students; at worst, it would be effective not to exist. In
research- learning strategies they have done over the years, fundamental
assumptions that belong to students of processing capacity are important factors
that must be considered when prescribing learning strategies (for example,
Ghatala & Levin, 1976; Levin, 1976; Levin & Pressley, 1985 ). That is, certain
strategies suitable for adults may not be suitable for children; or strategies that can
be implemented by older children effectively cannot be effectively implemented
by young children. Often adult versions of certain strategies can be adapted for
use by children through simplification, concretization, broad encouragement, and
practice (see, for example, Pressley, 1983)               

COGNITIVE PRINCIPLE 4: LEARNING MIND INTO AN EFFECTIVE

STRATEGY NEEDS EMPIRICAL VALIDATION 

There are two different aspects of this principle. First, people often

prescribe strategies based on their own personal experience, intuition,
and ordinary folklore, rather than from the more scientific
perspective attached. Second, people rarely consider the complexity and
complexity that arise from applying strategy in practice, in contrast to the nature
that flows smoothly in their imagination .   

Regarding the first point, in a series of investigations that Levin undertook with

Michael Presley and Elizabeth Ghatala, they were surprised to find that
both milllenial students and less sophisticated students believed that a levial
strategy was effective only because it was commonly used or Scribed (IdcGivern,
Levin , Ghatala, & Pressley, in print media; Pressley, Levin, & Ghatala,
1984; Pressley, Ross, Levin, & Ghatala, 1984). In addition, for example trust is
difficult to eradicate even in the face of Dence's highly contradictory
evidence. For example, even though there is a lot of conflicting research evidence,
if not, researchers and educators who are knowledgeable still hold fast to the
belief that semantic-based strategies are effective given the facilitator's vocabulary
(Imin & Pressley, 1985; Pressley, Levin, & McDaniel, in the media
print). Likewise, Barbara Moely's article on this issue documents that the
readiness of teachers' judgments about good and bad strategies is not always
true; moreover, even though kamulative practice is cited as a suitable strategy for
children remembering serial dren, it must be shown that the mnemonic story,
pegword, and locus method (for example, Bellezza, 1981) are even more suitable
for the task .        
Let's pay attention to the second point, which is that the strategy is
interrupted when someone moves from imagining what works to judging what
works. One very prominent example comes from the domain of the mnemonic
strategy of instruction, where it was found that sets of materials were
commercially available because remembering their states and capitals (Lucas,
1978) did not succeed at all as intended when subjected to empirical testing
(Levin, Berry, Miller, & Bartell, 1982). The problem in this particular case turned
out to be the special strategy that was produced by Lucas, as well as the
complexity of that strategy when targeted at elementary school children .  

CONCLUSION

The cognitive principles of learning strategies are divided into four with each
principle having its strengths and weaknesses respectively. The first cognitive
principle is focused on students knowing in advance what they want to learn. The
second cognitive principle refers to analyzing why and how. The third cognitive
principle focuses on coordinating learning strategies and student
characteristics. Finally, the fourth cognitive principle is to refer more to empirical
strategies for effective learning strategies.