Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement Into Practice

Cognitive Science

Volumn 42, Issue 6, 2018, Pages 1777-1832

  Chi, Michelene T H ^a   Adams, Joshua ^a   Bogusch, Emily B ^b   Bruchok, Christiana ^a   Kang, Seokmin ^c   Lancaster, Matthew ^d   Levy, Roy ^c   Li, Na ^e   McEldoon, Katherine L ^f   Stump, Glenda S ^g   Wylie, Ruth ^c   Xu, Dongchen ^h   Yaghmourian, David L ^c  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Phoenix Union School District   (United States)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Lourdes College   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f Tennessee State Board of Education   (United States)

^g MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^h WORLD WILDLIFE FUND   (United States)

Author keywords

Active learning; Co constructive learning; Cognitive engagement; Collaborative learning; Constructive learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 85051736513     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: 15516709     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12626     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Aleven, V., McLaren, B., Roll, I., & Koedinger, K. (2006). Toward meta-cognitive tutoring: A model of help seeking with a cognitive tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16, 101–128.
2. Alibali, M. W., & DiRusso, A. A. (1999). The function of gesture in learning to count: More than keeping track. Cognitive Development, 14, 37–56.
3. Anderson, J. R., & Reder, L. M. (1979). An elaborative processing explanation of depth of processing. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 385–403). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1986). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York: Warbel and Peck. (original work published in 1978)
5. Bajak, A. (2014). Lectures aren't just boring, they're ineffective too, study finds. Science. Retrieved October 17, 2016, from: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/05/lectures-arent-just-boring-theyre-ineffective-too-study-finds
6. Baker, R. S. (2016). Stupid tutoring systems, intelligent humans. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26, 600–614.
7. Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., Schwartz, D., & Vye, N., & The Teachable Agents Group at Vanderbilt (2005). Learning by teaching: A new agent paradigm for educational software. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19, 363–392.
8. Broughton, S. H., Sinatra, G. M., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2013). “Pluto has been a planet my whole life!” Emotions, attitudes, and conceptual change in elementary students’ learning about Pluto's reclassification. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 529–550.
9. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
10. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21–32.
11. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children's mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 499–531.
12. Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.
13. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.
14. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.
15. Chi, M. T. H., & Menekse, M. (2015). Dialogue patterns that promote learning. In L. B. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (Ch. 21, pp. 263–274). New York: Routledge.
16. Chi, M. T. H., Roy, M., & Hausmann, R. G. M. (2008). Observing tutoring collaboratively: Insights about tutoring effectiveness from vicarious learning. Cognitive Science, 32, 301–341.
17. Chi, M. T. H., & VanLehn, K. (2012). Seeing deep structure from the interactions of surface features. Educational Psychologist, 47, 177–188.
18. Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49, 219–243.
19. Cohn, D. A., Ghahramani, Z., & Jordan, M. I. (1996). Active learning with statistical models. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 4, 129–145.
20. Conati, C., & VanLehn, K. (2000). Toward computer-based support of meta-cognitive skills: A computational framework to coach self-explanation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 389–415.
21. Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.
22. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69, 970–977.
23. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Motivation and creativity: Toward a synthesis of structural and energistic approaches to cognition. New Ideas in Psychology, 6(2), 159–176.
24. Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: The untapped potential. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 5, 331–343.
25. Dawson, I. (2004). Time for chronology? Ideas for developing chronological understanding. Teaching History, 117, 14–24.
26. De Temple, J., & Snow, C. E. (2003). Learning words from books. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents and teachers (pp. 16–36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199.
28. Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332, 862–864.
29. Dinsmore, D. L., & Alexander, P. A. (2012). A critical discussion of deep and surface processing: What it means, how it is measured, the role of context, and model specification. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 499–567.
30. D'Mello, S., Olney, A., Williams, C., & Hays, P. (2012). Gaze tutor: A gaze-reactive intelligent tutoring system. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70, 377–398.
31. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040.
32. Fonseca, B., & Chi, M. T. H. (2011). The self-explanation effect: A constructive learning activity. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), The handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 296–321). New York: Routledge.
33. Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., & Fennema, E. (2001). Capturing teachers’ generative change: A follow-up study of professional development in mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 653–689.
34. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
35. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 8410–8415.
36. Gobert, J. D., Baker, R. S., & Wixon, M. B. (2015). Operationalizing and detecting disengagement within online science microworlds. Educational Psychologist, 50, 43–57.
37. Gobert, J. D., & Sao Pedro, M. A. (2017). Digital assessment environments for scientific inquiry practices. In A. A. Rupp & J. P. Leighton (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of cognition and assessment frameworks, methodologies, and applications (pp. 508–534). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
38. Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning: A definition. ALT-J, 3(2), 5–34.
39. Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104–137.
40. Greene, B. A. (2010). Teacher quality and student success: Testing the K20 Science Professional Development Model (K20 Science) for Rural Science Teachers. NSF Final Report, Award No. 0634070.
41. Greene, B. A. (2015). Measuring cognitive engagement with self-report scales: Reflections from over 20 years of research. Educational Psychologist, 50, 14–30.
42. Greene, B. A., & Miller, R. B. (1996). Influences on achievement: Goals, perceived ability, and cognitive engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 181–192.
43. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.
44. Heddy, B. C., & Sinatra, G. M. (2013). Transforming misconceptions: Using transformative experience to promote positive affect and conceptual change in students learning about biological evolution. Science Education, 97, 723–744.
45. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379–432.
46. James, K. H., Humphrey, G. K., Vilis, T., Corrie, B., Baddour, R., & Goodale, M. A. (2002). “Active and “passive” learning of three-dimensional object structure within an immersive virtual reality environment. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 383–390.
47. Katayama, A. D., Shambaugh, R. N., & Doctor, T. (2005). Promoting knowledge transfer with electronic note taking. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 129–131.
48. King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 303–323.
49. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effect of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15, 661–667.
50. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30, 411–433.
51. Legare, C. H., & Lombrozo, T. (2014). Selective effects of explanation on learning during early childhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 126, 198–212.
52. Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153–184.
53. Menekse, M., Stump, G. S., Krause, S., & Chi, M. T. H. (2013). Differentiated overt learning activities for effective instruction in engineering classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 102, 346–374.
54. Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6, 359–377.
55. Mestre, J. P. (2002). Probing adults’ conceptual understanding and transfer of learning via problem posing. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 9–50.
56. Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliverative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable Talk in the classroom and in civic live. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283–297.
57. Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11-39). New York: Teachers College Press.
58. O'Reilly, T., Symons, S., & MacLatchy-Gaudet, H. (1998). Brief research report: A comparison of self-explanation and elaborative interrogation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 434–445.
59. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
60. Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 259–282). New York: Springer.
61. Peterson, P. L., Swing, S. R., Stark, K. D., & Waas, G. A. (1984). Students’ cognitions and time on task during mathematics instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 487–515.
62. Piaget, J. (1930). The child's conception of physical causality. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company.
63. Ravindran, B., Greene, B. A., & DeBacker, T. K. (2005). Predicting preservice teachers’ cognitive engagement with goals and epistemological beliefs. The Journal of Educational Research, 98, 222–233.
64. Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21(1), 1–29.
65. Reschly, A., & Christenson, S. L. (2006). Promoting school completion. In G. Bear & K. Minke (Eds.), Children's needs III: Understanding and addressing the developmental needs of children (pp. 103–113). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
66. Rochelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235–276.
67. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Adaptation and understanding: A case for new cultures of schooling. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 149–163). New York: Routledge.
68. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (2009). Students’ understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 131–166.
69. Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo, M. A., & Chin, D. B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 759–775.
70. Settles, B. (2012). Active learning. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, 6(1), 1–114.
71. Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50, 1–13.
72. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571.
73. Stump, G. S., Li, N., Kang, S., Yaghmourian, D., Xu, D., Adams, J., McEldoon, K., Lancaster, M., & Chi, M. T. H. (2018). Coding dosage of teachers’ implementation of activities using ICAP: A video analysis. In E. Manalo, Y. Uesaka, & C. A. Chinn (Eds.), Promoting spontaneous use of learning and reasoning strategies: Theory, research, and practice for effective transfer (pp. 211–225). New York: Routledge.
74. Trafton, J. G., & Trickett, S. B. (2001). Note-taking for self-explanation and problem solving. Human-Computer Interaction, 16, 1–38.
75. University of California, Berkeley. (2016). WISE-Web-based Inquiry Science Environment [Online Computer Software]. Retrieved October 17, 2016, from: https://wise.berkeley.edu/pages/wise-advantage.html
76. van Driel, J. H., Meirink, J. A., Van Veen, K., & Zwart, R. C. (2012). Current trends and missing links in studies on teacher professional development in science education: A review of design features and quality of research. Studies in Science Education, 48, 129–160.
77. VanLehn, K., Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., & Rose, C. P. (2007). When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading? Cognitive Science, 31, 3–62.
78. Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., De, T., Chan, A. G., Freund, D., Shein, P., & Melkonian, D. K. (2009). “Explain to your partner”: Teachers’ instructional practices and students’ dialogue in small groups. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 49–70.
79. Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Wong, J., Fernandez, C. H., Shin, N., & Turrou, A. C. (2014). Engaging with others’ mathematical ideas: Interrelationships among student participation, teachers’ instructional practices, and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 79–93.
80. Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406.
81. Wehlage, G. G., & Smith, G. A. (1992). Building new programs for students at risk. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 92–118). New York: Teachers College Press.
82. Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York: Macmillan.
83. Winne, P. H. (2010). Improving measurements of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 45, 267–276.
84. Yaron, D., Karabinos, M., Lange, D., Greeno, J. G., & Leinhardt, G. (2010). The ChemCollective – Virtual labs for introductory chemistry courses. Science, 328(5978), 584–585.
85. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: The emergence of a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 173–201.