In this cognitive critique, I start out with a description of the instruction. This includes an overview of the school and the students, followed by a narrative of the lesson presentation. The narrative is description of the events in the lesson presentation, rather than an actual transcript of a lesson. I am describing, rather than transcribing, to avoid all the technical jargon. After which I provide an analysis of the lesson from a cognitive point of view. I close with my recommendation of ways to improve, based on theories of cognition and instruction

Background: The School and the Class

For this cognitive critique I draw on my experience as an instructor in the electronic engineering technology program at Denver Technical College. Here the students are working towards an associate of applied science degree in electronics. The program includes classes in algebra, trigonometry, basic electronic circuit analysis, digital and solid state electronics and several other non-electronics classes that are normally found in the typical associate level degree program. The students are predominantly working adults, male and female from a variety of ethnic backgrounds.

The subject of the class that I have based my cognitive critique on is solid state electronics, in other words, the study of transistors. The students in the class I am critiquing are halfway through the second year of the program. They already have had classes in algebra and trigonometry, so they have the math background for the material I am teaching. They have completed classes in analog circuit analysis (AC and DC electronics, resistors, capacitors, and inductors.) They have also completed two quarters of solid state electronics study and two quarters of digital electronics theory. All the students have the correct prerequisites to be in the class. I have taught all of the students several of their classes over the past year and a half, so I have the learned a lot about the students and their approach to learning the material.

The Lesson

This lesson in transistor theory is a split between theory and laboratory. Total session time for a class is two hours, with forty percent of the time spent in a lecture and the remainder spent in the laboratory. Typically, the approach is to introduce a transistor circuit, discuss circuit aspects, and then go into the detailed circuit analysis. A circuit analysis consists of as detailed mathematical analysis of the voltages and currents found at various points in the circuit. The students apply electronic formulas comprised of several equations to solve the circuit analysis The objective for the student is "Given a transistor circuit and component values, the student will be able to calculate the critical voltages and currents." To reinforce the classroom understanding, the student is expected to build the circuit in a laboratory situation. The student will then complete a mathematical analysis of the circuit they have constructed and document their solutions. Then the student will measure the critical voltages and currents and compare their measured results to their calculated results.

At the start of class I take roll, because students are expected to have a minimum number of hours of classroom time to receive credit for the class. While I am doing this I talk with the students about thing other than the topic of the upcoming class. I am trying to put them at ease and establish rapport. They have either just made the commute from work or come from another stressful class and I want them to put that aside and give me their attention.

After I have finished roll, I start to review with my students about what we were discussing the last time we met. I try to get them involved in this discussion, having them remind me of what we were covering in the last class. I like to get the students involved in the review process, rather than just telling them what we have covered. While I usually prompt the students, I am careful about calling on anyone in particular. The purpose of this little review is to get them in a proper frame of mind for the upcoming lesson, not to put some one on the spot. Once I finish this phase, I go on to tell them where today's class will take us. In this case I tell the students that we are going to learn about the common emitter amplifier. I tell them that this amplifier configuration is very similar to the amplifier we have been learning in the past two class periods and that they will see this amplifier configuration in many practical applications in the electronics industry. I preview the lesson by telling them that they will learn the use of the amplifier and its basic characteristics. I go on to tell them that we will discuss the process one goes through during the mathematical analysis.

I start my presentation by showing the students the schematic diagram of the amplifier circuit and point out the distinguishing features. I point out the biasing resistors and explain their purpose. I compare the circuit to the circuits we have previously discussed. I explain the features of the circuit, where the input is applied and where the output is developed, and discuss the gain and phase relationship between input and output.

Then we get started in the mathematical analysis of the circuit. I ask the students to just watch the analysis unfold, as I develop the process on the white board. First we go through a static analysis, analysis of the voltages and current throughout the circuit before an input voltage is applied. This is referred to as the direct current analysis. Then I apply an input voltage and we conduct a dynamic analysis, otherwise known as an alternating current analysis. All the while I am explaining, I am answering questions as they arise. I am also asking the students to explain what they think should be done next. Remember, in this case the students have already performed circuit analyses on several other transistor amplifier circuits.

After we have been through the process once, I provide each of the students with a handout that includes a drawing of the circuit, distinguishing features and a step-by-step process of circuit analysis. In this case there is a specific algorithm that must be followed to conduct the circuit analysis. I continue the instruction by working several more problems (with different circuit component values) on the white board. I start the first problem by explaining each step as I go. As we do more problems, I finish the exercise with the students telling me the steps that are necessary.

I then assign the students one more problem to work on their own. I expect the students to work the problems by themselves. I encourage them to ask questions if they are having difficulty. While they are doing this individual exercise I move around the class, offering assistance where needed. Most of the troubles I find the students having are not following the solution process in the prescribed sequence. After all the students are finished, we work through the problem on the board so that all can check their own analysis. We discuss any difficulties they may have had and resolve problems with their analysis.

To finish the classroom portion of the lesson, I go through what I call an up-down exercise. This is where I want the students to think about the amplifier in macro terms. Up until now they have been doing circuit analysis with a calculator, coming up with precise answers. Answers in the millionth of an amp range. Now I want them to attempt to apply some of their new analytical skills in broader terms. I want them to think about what happens to the output of the amplifier if I change the input bias or signal, or change the value of a circuit parameter. For example, if the voltage at the input increases, does the voltage at the output increase, decrease or remain the same? I want the student to describe in their own words (rather than in mathematical equations) what is happening to the voltages and currents in the circuit. Although this exercise does not directly relate to the learning objective for the class, I feel that by requiring the students to think in these terms, they are developing and demonstrating deeper understanding of the circuit analysis. Before I let the students take a break, I briefly recap the circuit analysis procedure for the common emitter transistor amplifier and answer any questions that may come up.

After the students return from break, they are ready to start the laboratory portion of the lesson. I start out by explaining the expectations of the lab exercise. I point out that the circuit design is the same as we have been analyzing. The lab worksheet has them conduct a circuit analysis for five circuits. Each circuit is a slight variation of the original. The intent is to allow them to see the effect of changing circuit conditions. Students are paired up for the lab classes. After conducting the circuit analysis and documenting their results, I review the students' calculated answers. At this point I have them build the circuit and apply power. They then use test equipment (voltmeter, ammeter, and oscilloscope) to take measurements at various points in the circuit. These measurements are also documented and compared to the calculated results.

Sometimes the students have difficulty realizing that the measured values may be a little different than the calculated results. I then explain that calculated circuit analysis doesn't account for variations in the tolerances of transistors and other circuit components or the variations in the calibration of the test equipment they are using. This is important for them to come to understand, because the world of electronics isn't always so neat and precise as it appears on paper.

While the groups are working on their lab exercise I move about the room answering questions and giving the students pointers. I don't always answer their questions directly, unless it is to clarify instruction in the lab worksheet. I want the students to develop solutions to their own problems. If the experiment isn't going the way it should I expect them to apply some of the analytical and troubleshooting skills they have been developing during the course of the class. Quite often the problem lies in incorrectly constructing the circuit or even a bad transistor. These student-inserted problems are easy to make, but they provide real problems for them to troubleshoot. I could find the problems for them, but the student will learn more from the exercise if they find the problem themselves.

As each group completes their work, I discuss the results of the experiment with them. Not all groups are able to complete the lab exercise in the allotted class time. This is okay because they can complete the lab exercises on their own before the next class meeting. However, when I see this situation developing I make sure I know where they are and make sure they aren't simply stumped. I also make sure they understand what they need to do to complete the lab. As class draws to a close, I summarize the intent of the lab exercise.

Cognitive Analysis

The teacher must create a supportive environment by organizing and managing the classroom as an effective learning environment. (Brophy 1987)

My efforts during class roll and introduction to the lesson help establish a supportive learning environment by establishing rapport and making the students feel comfortable about taking some risks and getting involved in the classroom discussions.

In order to motivate the students to learn , the teacher must both help them appreciate the value of academic activities andmake sure they can achieve success on these activities if they apply a reasonable effort. (Brophy 1987)

This is the basis of the "expectancy x value" theory. I emphasize the value of the lesson by telling the student that this amplifier configuration is found in many practical applications in the electronics industry. By telling the students that this amplifier configuration is very similar to the amplifiers they have been learning, I am increasing their confidence in their ability to successfully complete the circuit analysis.

Meaningful learning occurs when the learner selects relevant information, organizes that information into a coherent whole and integrates that information with appropriate existing knowledge. (Mayer 1992)

In the introduction to my lesson, I provide the learner with a schematic diagram of the amplifier circuit we will analyze. I also point out the distinguishing features and relate it to previously studied amplifiers.

Instead of over emphasizing the product of problem solving, cognitive theory suggest including an emphasis on the process of

problem solving. (Mayer 1992)

As part of the lesson, I provide the students with a handout that describes the problem solving process in a step by step fashion. Also my up-down exercise tends to de-emphasize the answer and places the focus on the individual steps of the process.

Concerning algorithm automaticity: Once a problem is represented and a solution is devised the problem solver must carry out the necessary operations - such as arithmetic computations. (Mayer 1987)

I am helping the student develop algorithm automaticity by giving them a handout that provides a solution strategy. Also by having the students involved in working the problems on the board, I am further developing their automaticity.

We should try to teach experts' conceptual understandings, not just formulas and equations, and along with this content we should try to teach students how to reason scientifically. (Bruer 1993)

By involving the students in my "up-down exercise" I am trying to get them to think in terms of what is happening to the voltages and currents inside the circuit. And more importantly, I am trying to get the students to grasp the concept of cause and effect when it relates to changing circuit conditions.

Coaching consists of observing students while they carry out a task and offering hints, scaffolding, feedback, modeling, reminders, and new tasks aimed at bringing their performance closer to expert performance. (Collins, Brown and Holum 1991)

In addition to my approach to lab problems, I also provide coaching while the students are working through the circuit analysis process during the classroom portion of the lesson.

Focusing on strategies is an attitude that teachers need to develop. (Willis 1991)

When the students explain their circuit analysis to me, they are revealing their thought processes. This, along with participation in my "up-down" exercises, shifts the focus from getting the right answer to learning the problem solving process.

Modeling involves an expert's performing a task so that the students can observe and build a conceptual model of the processes that are required to accomplish it. (Collins, Brown and Holum 1991)

When I first introduce the circuit analysis process, I model it for the students on the white board. I ask them to observe the analysis process so that they might become familiar with the steps involved. My explanation of the analysis models my expert performance for the student.

Articulation involves any method of getting students to articulate their knowledge, reasoning or problem solving processes. (Collins, Brown and Holum 1991)

I encourage articulation when I have the students explain the circuit analysis process during the white board exercises. Here they are explaining the process to solve the circuit analysis. Also the students are involved in articulation during the "up-down" exercises.

Greater emphasis should be given to the relationship between what is learned in the classroom, and what is needed outside of the classroom. (Anderson, Reder and Simon 1996) A critical element of fostering learning is to have students carry out tasks and solve problems in an environment that reflects multiple uses to which their knowledge will be put to use in the future. (Collins, Brown and Holum 1991)

The lab portion of the lesson provides the student with a more realistic approach to studying transistors. Here they move from paper and theory to a hands-on experience with the circuit. They are using tools of the trade to measure circuit parameters and draw conclusions about the circuit's operation.

Coaches need to monitor and regulate students attempts at problem solving so they don't go to far into the wrong solution yet have the opportunity to experience complex processes and emotions of real problem solving. (Bransford and Nye)

Recall my approach to dealing with students who are having problems in the lab. Rather than telling them how to correct their problem or not telling them anything at all, I work them in the right direction. I make sure they aren't off on a tangent so they don't waste their time yet they get to experience solving a problem on their own.

By allowing students to generate their own solution paths, it helps make them creative members of their culture. (Brown, Collins and Duguid 1989)

When the students become electronics technicians, they will seldom have clear-cut troubleshooting schemes available. So if they start applying problem solving skills in the lab, these skills will evolve into effective troubleshooting skills in the future.

Recommendations

Students who are taught individually rather than collaboratively can fail to develop skills needed for collaborative work. If people are going to learn and work in conjunction with others, they must be given the situated opportunity to develop these skills. (Brown, Collins and Duguid 1989)

While the students are allowed to work together during the lab, I didn't allow collaborative work during the circuit analysis problem solving during the theory portion of the class. In the future the students should be permitted and encouraged to work in groups in both the lab and classroom exercises.

Providing students with a goal of learning to solve problems enhances their self-efficacy, skill, motivation and task goal orientation and that these achievement outcomes also are promoted by allowing students to evaluate their performance capabilities or progress in skill acquisition. (Schunk 1996)

While my lesson has a focus on process rather than just the answer, my approach does not show the students how to evaluate their progress. After each learning objective the students should be asked to evaluate how much they feel they have learned compared with how they started out.

A reduction in cognitive load because of worked examples rather than conventional problems not only facilitates schema acquisition but also increases problem-solving flexibility by speeding up the essential process of automation. (Sweller 1989)

My lesson depends on the students working through many circuit analysis problems both in class and as homework assignments. This situation could be improved through the use of worked examples. The handout provided the students should be expanded to include several worked examples of the circuit analysis process.

Anderson, J.R., Reder, L.M., & Simon, H.A. (1996, May). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher. 5-11

Bransford, J.D., & Vye, N.J. A perspective on cognitive research and its implications for instruction. In L.B. Resnick and L.E. Klopfer (Eds.) Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Brophy, J. (1987, October). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational Leadership, 40-48.

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1) 32-42.

Bruer, J.T., (1993). The mind's journey from novice to expert. American Educator, 6-15, 38-46.

Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Holum, A. (1991, Winter). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 6-11, 38-46.

Sweller, J. (1989). Cognitive technology: Some procedures for facilitating learning and problem solving in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4) 457-466.

Mayer, R.E. (1987). Learnable aspects of problem solving. Some examples. In D.E.Berger, K. Pezdek, and W.P. Brooks (Eds.), Applications of cognitive psychology: Problem solving, education, and computing. (109-122). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Mayer, R.E. (1992). Cognition and instruction: Their historic meeting within educational psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 405-412.

Schunk, D.H. (1996, Summer). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children's cognitive skill learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 359-382.

Willis, S. (1991, September). The complex art of motivating students. ASCD Update, 1, 4-5.

The national Department of Education in Washington, D.C. (1994) provides a dramatic introduction to this cognitive study:

Each year, an estimated 50,000 to 70,000 Americans sustain head injuries serious enough to leave significant residual impairments. More than a million individuals in the United States are estimated to have continuing symptoms from their traumatic brain injuries (TBI), including interference with basic activities of daily living. The highest incidence is among young people between the ages of 15 and 24, and two-thirds to three-fourths of those injured are male. Approximately one-half of these traumas are caused by motor vehicle accidents, including motorcycles.

Medical Background

In 1992, my client, Robin, at the age of 23, became one of these statistics. He was hit by a car and knocked from his motorcycle onto another car. Wearing no helmet, his head injuries were severe. Not withstanding the fact that he almost died, he emerged from a long coma with major alterations to his physical and mental functioning. He now has a plate permanently imbedded in the top of his head to provide the protection that part of a missing skull would normally give. He suffered major trauma to the right frontal lobe of the brain, the neo-cortex. Additionally, he lost partial use of his right side, including some sight in his right eye and he experiences balance problems. His additional language and social impairments common to many TBI patients will be discussed throughout this paper.

Social/Cultural Background Prior to the Accident

Since these two factors are difficult to separate, they will be explored simultaneously. Robin's life before the accident has had a major impact on his ability to adapt to his life since the accident. Following in the footsteps of two parents who were substance abusers, Robin learned at an early age to cope with life's obstacles through the use of drugs and alcohol. At the age of twelve, he became a drug user. During his early teens, he also was a successful drug dealer and thief. He did spend some time in jail, but learned little from these episodes, except how to lie and manipulate with an uncanny facility.

Kreutzer, Witol and Marwitz (1996) discovered a tragic correlation between individuals with this background and susceptibility to brain injury. They discovered substance abusers are more likely than the normal population to sustain a brain injury. 73% of those in their study of brain injured were substance abusers, 51% reported their prior abuse to be moderate to severe. Additionally, a U.S. Department of Education study (1994) found that in the younger population, a brain injury is often less severe, but because of "high risk, high speed activity" in the late teens and early twenties, the likelihood of injury is more severe and the recovery of functions less likely. His age, his sex, and his predisposition to substance abuse made Robin a likely candidate for a severe brain injury. To this day his drug habit and propensity for high risk dramatically impacts his ability to recover. More frightening, these lifestyle choices place him at a much higher risk for another severe brain injury.

Drug Abuse

Several factors need to be explored when discussing the relationship between drug abuse, TBI and cognition. With brain injured, the time immediately after the injury is usually followed by massive doses of drugs to ward off infection and fight pain. For the substance abuse TBI patient, this is just a continuation of their normal abusive activity. Weaning them from the painkillers is a difficult if not impossible task. The initial year back in the community usually results in a decrease in use of the drug they conventionally abused due to factors such as accessibility, finances, transportation and harmful interactions with the doctor-prescribed drugs. After the first year, however, substance abuse tends to increase as all these obstacles are eliminated. (Kreutzer, Witol, Marwitz, 1996) In Making Connections (1994) Caine and Caine stress the adverse impact many drugs can have on brain function and learning. In Robin's case, residual brain functioning is severely reduced when he has been using/abusing drugs.

Further, this young man's early abuse fits in with what Belenky, Clinchy and Goldberger (1986) discovered in their studies of women. Abuse can cause differing patterns of cognition, one of which is reliance on received knowledge. "They learn by listening...Believing that truth comes from others, they still their own voices to hear the voices of others." In Robin's case, this adaptive technique was learned early on. His current ability to discern patterns of right and wrong, especially when he is high, comes from his reliance on belief systems of other drug users in his home community of capital hill. This method of reacting may be exacerbated by the location of his brain injury, as a good part of the brain where the ability to process information and form appropriate responses is missing or impaired. Robin appears stuck in a stage the neo-piagetians might term conventional morality, that is "group-dependent, social-dependent morality (LeBouvie-Vief, 1992). He is often at the mercy of those "friends" who appear when his social security payment comes in. Being unable to discern friend from foe, and desperate for companionship, he provides food and drugs to anyone who will spend time with him.

Communication Disorders

As mentioned before, the drugs only worsen other functional difficulties Robin encounters as a result of his injuries. As with many brain- injured patients, isolating exact communication disorders, much less identifying the cause is difficult. Robin has great difficulty with short- term memory and this impacts his narrative skills. His conversations are based in large part on past information acquired prior to the accident. As Biddle, McCabe and Bliss (1996) found when studying brain-injured patients, the ability to retell an incident was cohesive. However, when asked to create a spontaneous narrative, there was a dramatic reduction in cohesion. Upon closer scrutiny, they found:

The individuals with TBI in this study did not produce poorly formed sentences, nor did they appear to have lost the basic structure for a narrative. In other words, their deficits appeared less related to basic language skill deficits than to impairments in higher order processes required for the planning and organization of language.

They discovered In spontaneous discourse that significant facts to explain the narration were missing. Numerous repetitions occurred indicating an insufficient monitoring ability or an elaboration strategy developed to supplement an inability to organize and produce additional information.

With the loss of part of his prefrontal cortex, Robin is missing that part of his brain that provides "adaptive behaviors...These include planning, analysis, sequencing, and learning from errors, as well as the inhibition of inappropriate responses and the capacity for abstraction." (Caine and Caine, 1991) He has intact long-term memory, but lacks short-term memory. A normal conversation with Robin follows very routine patterns when one is familiar with his discourse. (This conversation took place in my restaurant, while Robin waited for me to get off work. My explanations are in parentheses):

Robin: I think we should get the boys (he has two illegitimate sons) the Gameboy© for $50 instead of the game you found for $9.95. I talked with Colleen (his sister) and she wants to get them a cartridge for Gameboy© for Christmas, so does Grammy (his maternal grandmother).

Maureen: I thought we agreed on the cheaper games?

Robin: Did you bring the coupon for the $9.95 game? Oh, alright, I talked with my Grandmother (his paternal grandmother) today and she thinks my hair looks alright. Want to know what I have in my pocket? A brush to brush my hair after the haircut so I can get it right.

Maureen: You never like the way the barber leaves it, do you?

Robin: I went to church today to pray that Sudan(sic) Hussein doesn't start war with the U.N. and the U.S., so Colleen doesn't have to go to war. She has already put in for vacation, so I think no matter what she will come for Christmas.

Maureen: Robin, sometimes war can make people lose their vacation if they are in the armed forces like Colleen.

Robin: Last war she was left here instead of going to Iraq. I bet she has it all set up the same. Want to hear my poem? Suddam Hussein is very insane! ha, ha, ha, ha, that's pretty good, huh? You want to see a fake pumpkin?

Maureen: Do you have one in your pocket?

Robin: No, it is right there on the counter behind you. Your brother told me one has a face that is painted on.

Maureen: I just have to get these two customers to pay and then we can get your haircut.

Robin: Oh, alright, I talked with Scott (his brother). He didn't work today because of the snow.

Maureen: I thought you told me Scott quit his job.

Robin: Yeah, you know Scott is a liar. I don't believe anything he says. His new boss and him are working on a roof in Winter Park and his boss has 35 free tickets to ski. Scott said anytime I wanted I could go skiing with him.

Maureen: That would be great. Do you really think that will happen?

Robin: I don't believe anything Scott tells me. Yeah, Scott lies a lot.

Robin skips from that which is familiar, buying Christmas presents, what is happening with his relatives, or something that happened to him when he was young, to his only source of spontaneous narration, what he reads in the paper or sees on TV. He does demonstrate some ability to draw his own conclusions but having done so, always checks that my impressions are the same.

While following a conversation with Robin is hard, a clinical assessment of his language impairments has proven even more difficult. It is hard to determine whether Robin's lack of sequence in conversation is tied to the loss of higher order processing or due to his extreme difficulty remembering what was just discussed, i.e. poor short-term memory. This is constantly a challenge with TBI. As Biddle, McCabe and Bliss (1996) noted, traditional language measures are not adequate because with brain-injured persons, formal language testing often can give the injured person clues as to how to answer the question, thus skewing or inflating the results. Upon dismissal from Craig Hospital, all formal retraining of Robin, including both occupational and physical therapy have been discontinued.

Employment Prospects

Drug use and language deficits are only a small portion of factors that keep Robin in the ranks of unemployed. He often reverts to childish responses when threatened. This is described by Cain and Cain (1991) as the R-complex and Limbic areas of the brain, which appear intact in Robin. What he lacks is the executive or controlling function. When threatened with a change in his ordered world, Robin quickly downshifts to these more animalistic behaviors. So often in the few jobs he has held, the first occurrence of confrontation with anyone results in his walking off the job.

Also, he is typical in his inability to recognize the completeness of his disabilities after the accident. George Prigatano (1993) clearly illustrates this same phenomenon with one of his clients whose injury appears similar to Robin's:

He continues to report failures in maintaining various jobs but has minimal insight into his contribution to these failures. This person is adequately motivated to work. On his own, he has sought out a dozen jobs in the last four years, including new vocational training. With each new failure, he externalizes the blame and then attempts a new task. This person, who has a severe bilateral cerebral injury with extensive right hemisphere damage, is a classic example of how impaired awareness of residual strengths and limitations after brain injury results in failure to maintain employment. Despite repeated efforts to improve his social and self-awareness, no substantial change has occurred.

At least once a week, Robin recontacts his ex-boss, a roofing contractor, to see about openings. Though he is always reminded that the risks to him of returning as a roofer would be too great, he continues to believe he will work there again. Also, as a graduate in aerotech repair just prior to the accident, he still believes he can repair airplane engines. He frequently calls an aerotech engineering school to discuss enrollment and scholarships. A major sore point between Robin and his grandmother is her confiscation of his power tools, which she did for his own safety.

Ongoing Rehabilitation

While most support services for Robin have been discontinued, my job is to train him in financial responsibility and work with him on some life skills. I meet with him twice weekly and provide support and advice by phone continuously. Due to the lack of processing ability, Robin's life is set up in routines and we use memory aids. The introduction of aids has been a challenge in itself. Just training in the regular use of a calendar has taken about nine months. Robin just doesn't remember to consult the memory aids. Learning any new task, no matter how simple it seems, takes a tremendous amount of time as Mateer, Kerns and Eso (1996) point out.

Not surprisingly, there is absolutely no transfer of knowledge. Even though Robin is trained in context, in his home community, every task must be approached as completely new. Since there are no available processing functions to retrieve long-term memory cues into the working memory, the cues must be provided externally. Bransford and Vye (1989) urge teachers to transform declarative knowledge into procedural knowledge. With Robin, establishing heuristics must be approached differently. Incapable of drawing inferences or debugging (Bransford and Vye, 1989) any errors, all new knowledge must be given directly and then Robin writes it down or we practice multiple times to imprint it. Even then it takes months and even years for new skills to become routine. "Direct Instruction" or "Errorless Learning" (Mateer, Kerns & Eso 1996) have proven useful styles of teaching. While not advocated in any of our class readings, for this client the more unambiguous the instruction the better.

From the cognitive apprenticeship reading, I have learned a new technique. I like the idea of modeling, supporting and verbalizing then fading (Collins and Brown 1991). I think Robin might be ready for this process as we have been practicing price comparison for a couple of years. Hopefully we can work on this for several months before something at the store changes. The one thing that really throws Robin is when the grocery is out of an item. He cannot figure out what to do next!

I have been trying to introduce the idea of a hobby. Robin is very bored as he has no job and little to occupy him each day. This has been unsuccessful as his childhood was void of such interests. He loves cars but I cannot interest him in building models or perhaps finding work at a garage. He feels these are childish compared to what he did before the accident. He will read for a short time but loses interest quickly. Again, I think reading was never stressed as pleasurable when he was young and he cannot find pleasure in it now. He does read the paper but concentrates on the ads and classifieds. I have convinced him that a regular walking program is healthful and he does walk a great deal. Also, his maternal grandmother was placed in an assisted living facility. He spends some days a week visiting her and helping her in many small ways. This gives him purpose. I am saddened by the prospect of his life after she passes on but hope we can find someone else for him to visit.

I have not emphasized job placement. We have had little success and each time he loses a job there is major trauma. He begins by lying about still working until I or someone in his family figures out the true status and confronting the situation. As is natural, his self-esteem is badly damaged and his drug use soars. He is always relieved not to have to lie anymore but the cycle repeats itself with every placement.

Robin has been lucky that his brain injury has not changed his personality for the worse. He is a personable fellow, religious and thoughtful. He has many individuals in his community who are patient and look out for him. His landlord, his neighbors, even his drug buddies have formed a caring base for him to live in. Day to day there is very little progress or improvement in his skills. If I were tied to progress as an intrinsic motivator for continuing to work with Robin, I would be gone by now. However, Robin brings a reality to my world that teaches me to live life as it comes. From minute to minute with him something is different, new or exciting. He finds wonder in so many daily activities that it is a joy to be with him when he is straight. He has a wicked sense of humor, which is refreshing. Tremmel (1993) advocates teaching teachers to "reflect in action." Robin challenges me at every encounter to be creative in my roles and responses, "to reach into the center of confusing situations, to shift the base of operations or pull up stakes altogether and follow the flow of action." (Tremmel 1993) I would recommend anyone seeking to be mindful of the moment to work with a brain-injured client. While sometimes frustrating, always unique and never dull, the encounter is nevertheless very worthwhile.

I can reach very few conclusions about the cognitive functions of Robin. In fact, I come up with even more questions. Am I creating new knowledge after years of practice or am I just assisting Robin in locating some lost long term memory? If the working memory is gone, can any new long term memory be formed? Does information have to be processed through working memory before it becomes long term? If so, how long does this process take? Why did the brain decide Robin would only remember events from 1.5 years before his injury? Why not three years or six months? How does he remember everything prior to this but not much after the accident? I think if anyone had the answers to these questions, work with TBI patients would be more effective. Hopefully, some day new insight will enable Robin to recover more of the functions he lost and provide him a better chance to overcome obstacles that now seem insurmountable.

Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R. & Taryle, J.M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. New York: Basic Books. Chapters 1 and 2.

Biddle, K.R., McCabe, A., Bliss, L.S. (1996). Narrative skills following traumatic brain injury in children and adults. Journal of Communicative Disorders, 29, 447-469.

Bransford, J.D. & Vye, N.J. (1989). A perspective on cognitive research and its implications for instruction. In L.B. Resnick & L.E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Caine, R.N. & Caine, G. (1994). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. (2nd ed.)._Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Cohen, N.J., & Squire, L.R. (1980). Preserved learning and retention of pattern - Analyzing skill in amnesia: Dissociation of knowing how and knowing that. Science, 210, 207-209.

Collins, A., Brown, J.S. & Holum, A. (1991, Winter). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 6-11, 38-46.

Kreutzer, J.S., Witol, A.D., Marwitz, J.H. (1996). Alcohol and drug use among young persons with traumatic brain injury. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 643-651.

LaBouvie-Vief, (citation unknown, no response from Elizabeth as of 11/20/97).

Mateer, C.A., Kerns, K.A., & Eso, K.L. (1996). Management of attention and memory disorders following traumatic brain injury. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 618-632.

National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. (1994). REHAB BRIEF: Community integration of individuals with traumatic brain injury. (USGPO Publication No. 1994--387-892/00001). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Norman, D., Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. (1976). Comments on learning schemata and memory representation. [excerpt]. In D. Klahr (Ed.), Cognition and instruction. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Thomas, D.F. et al. (1993). Community-based employment following traumatic brain injury. Menomonie, WI.: University of Wisconsin-Stout.

Tremmel, R. (1993). Zen and the art of reflective practice in teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 63, 434-458.

I. Narrative description of my class

I teach three sections of the Principles of Accounting course for Metropolitan State College. This is the first of two Principles courses the Metro School of Business requires of all its majors. Typically no more than ten per cent of the students in a Principles class want to major in Accounting. The remaining ninety per cent want to get through the course so that they can fulfill their graduation agreements. The Principles classes are viewed as a hurdle that students must clear, not as a path that students can travel to reach valuable information.

Sometimes I begin my classes with a humorous anecdote. On this morning, November 13, 1997, I told them a brief story of an exchange between Disraeli and Gladstone in a parliamentary debate. After the students demonstrated a discouraging lack of appreciation for my sense of humor, we began working homework problems from chapter nine, "Inventories." I teach accounting as I was taught, a brief lecture explaining the rules, principles, and issues discussed in the chapter, then homework problems. I use the homework to illustrate the application of the rules to a problem.. The problems are academic exercises that have no relevance to actual business situations. As we work the problems I call on students to solve them for the class. An exchange might go this way:

HN: Denis, we have to find ending inventory using FIFO. What does FIFO mean?

D: First In, First Out.

HN: And what does that mean?

D: We assign the first costs (the oldest costs) to ending inventory.

HN: No. FIFO refers to what we are selling, so what we assign to ending inventory is the newest (the most recent) costs. Let's figure out how many units we have for sale.

D: Well, we have 21,800 units.

HN: How much do they cost?

D: They cost $779,500.

HN: O.K. So, how do we value ending inventory?

D: The latest costs.

HN: Right. Now, we have 6000 units in ending inventory.

D: So, we take 4500 units at $45.00 and 4800 units at $40.00.

HN: Wait. How many units are in ending inventory?

D: 6000.

HN: Right. We used up 4500 units in the most recent layer. How many units in ending inventory still need to be accounted for?

D: 1500?

HN: Right. So what do we price them at?

D: $40.00?

HN: Good. We used up all of the newest layer. Next we move to the next most recent layer. Does it have enough to cover 1500 units?

D: Yes. It has 4800 units in its pool.

HN: Good. So what is the value of ending inventory?

D: 4500 units at $45.00 and 1500 units at $40.00.

HN: Right.

The problem also asks us to compute ending inventory using LIFO (Last In, First Out), and weighted average, and to determine cost-of-goods sold under each inventory method. As Denis is answering the exercise, I am exposing the results on an overhead projector. Once Denis is finished with FIFO I move to the next student who will answer the LIFO part of the question. Only a few students have completed the homework exercises. For many of them this is the first time they have seen the questions. For this reason and because I want to de-emphasize answers and stress the thought process that leads to the answers, I try to make it clear in my tone of voice and body language that there is no pressure. Often when students say they are completely lost, I ask "How many others are lost?" Typically, half the class will raise their hands.

After finishing the homework, we move on to the next chapter, "Plant and Equipment." As I indicated earlier, before we start with homework exercises I lecture about the rules, principles, and accounts associated with plant and equipment. As I discus an asset's cost, howl long the business might use the asset, what its trade-in value might be, I try to keep the students engaged by asking them questions such as "Isn't it reasonable to assume that a business would estimate how long a piece of equipment might last before it wears out or becomes obsolete?" As I look out at the students while I am lecturing, some are paying close attention, others are not. One or two are dozing. I continue for about fifteen minutes and actually have time to do a couple of short problems before class is over.

This class I have described is fairly typical. I lecture on the chapter's issues. We do homework in class, homework the students should have done before class so that the class work simply reinforces what they have already done or explains exercises they had trouble with. Usually fewer than half the students have done the homework. Accounting is a rules-based discipline. Students must have repeated practice applying these rules in a variety of realistic situations. Not doing homework deprives them of necessary repeated practice, even if it is not in realistic business situations. To compound the problem with rules, each chapter introduces new rules. No sooner do students reach a tenuous comfort level with one set of rules, but they must move to the next chapter with its new set. Forgetting the previous chapter's rules is a natural consequence.

Grades are based primarily on three tests and a comprehensive final, although homework and four one page papers account for approximately one hundred points. It is not unusual for about fifty per cent of the class to drop the course. Those who drop have not kept up with the homework and , consequently, have done poorly on tests.

II. Cognitive Critique

As I critique my November 13, 1997 Principles of Accounting class, I will separate it into three areas: the Student; Learning: Novice to Expert; and Knowledge Transmission. These are artificial boundaries, but I hope they suffice as a means of separating various authors contributions to the critique.

While this paper examines a specific Principles class, it is a critique of accounting courses generally. In 1990 in Issues in Accounting Education (Fall, 1990) the Accounting Education Change Commission published "Objectives of Education for Accountants: Position Statement Number One". This statement is designed to set the tone for Accounting programs in higher education. Fundamentally, accounting graduates should be taught how to learn. Students in Accounting programs need to be active learners and know how to learn on their own.

I will examine my class first from the students' perspective. Cognitive theory encompasses several schools of thought. Behaviorism has something to say regarding students motivation. In my three sections I have had attrition rates of about fifty percent. In the four years that I have taught this is about average. Restructuring the total points for the course might help.. Currently most of the points are in the three tests and the final exam. Redefining the learning and performance outcomes that give students goals with specific performance standards that are relatively short-term and of moderate difficulty might improve students' self-efficacy (Schunk, 1996). Their intrinsic motivation to succeed in a course like this is vital to success in their major. Jere Brophy's (1987) concept of expectancy X value would suggest that as a student's expectancy for success or their recognition of value or reward from the Principles course rises, their chances of doing well in the course rise correspondingly. With more frequent, lower point accumulating grading opportunities available , the students self-regulating responsibilities will manifest themselves. Students need to be able to observe their class performance, judge their quality of contribution, and alter their performance as necessary (Schunk, 1996).

The second perspective from which to critique my class is from the learning perspective. Richard Mayer (1992) posits three metaphors for learning. Behaviorism spawns response acquisition. Successful responses, for example the correct answers in my dialogue with Denis, are strengthened. Unsuccessful responses are discouraged. This is why students do not want to volunteer answers to questions. This model nourishes a passive learner who listens to a lecture. Instructors use the drill and practice method, with the teacher as the active dispenser of knowledge. By focusing on how much is learned the instructor's task becomes one of shaping correct responses. Mayer's second metaphor is knowledge acquisition. The learner is the processor of information which the teacher dispenses. The curriculum becomes the focus of instruction. The Accounting class must cover twelve chapters in sixteen weeks. The third metaphor is that learners construct knowledge. Learning occurs by interpreting information. Instruction is geared toward helping students develop learning and thinking strategies appropriate for a specific subject domain.

John Bruer (1993) writes "Learning is the process by which novices become experts." (Bruer, p.9, 1993) In this information processing model of brain cognition, Bruer discusses Palincsar's and Brown's experiments with reciprocal teaching. Their research suggests what I must do to help students master metacognitive strategies:1. Make the strategy overt, explicit and concrete by modeling the thought process.2. To make sure students use the strategy, teachers should link it to contexts in which they are to be used and teach the strategy as a functioning group.3. Students must know why the strategy works.4. Students need to realize the strategy works, no matter what their current level of performance is.5. In order that the student can become a spontaneous strategy user, the teacher must transfer responsibility to the student.

John Bransford and Nancy Vye ( 1994) caution that this knowledge transfer does not just simply take place. Meaningful learning occurs at the level of concept acquisition and conceptual change. New knowledge must be actively constructed by learners. Sitting in a chair and working non-contextual homework problems will not transmit to students the secrets of expertise. Students must have the opportunity to actively use this information themselves. If they can not use it the knowledge only exists in a narrow context and remains inert. Memorized knowledge, such as accounting rules, remains inert even though it is relevant to new situations. Meaningful learning transfers knowledge from memory to action. Declarative knowledge becomes procedural knowledge (Bransford and Vye, 1989).

David Berliner (1986) outlines for me what characteristics experts, in general, possess. Experts develop inferences based on their domain knowledge. Experts use higher -order criteria to categorize problems. Experts chunk. They see patterns of information, not single pieces. Experts take longer in the initial phases of problem solving to build internal representations. Experts are sensitive to the tasks and social structure of a work environment. Experts develop metacognitive ability. Experts develop automaticity. I do not specifically talk about expertness in accounting or business. It is something students need to be aware of.

The final category for my cognitive critique is knowledge transmission. Our perspective on this is that teacher, student, and knowledge are three separate entities. The student and the teacher are independent of each other. The teacher is responsible for transmitting this third corporeal object, knowledge, to the student. Davis and Sumara (1997) argue that this is a subverted perspective, a "monologic" belief that assumes a solitary truth-transmitting authority. This duality of teacher /student allows cognition to exist within the cognizing agents that exist isolated from each other. Instead of this concept, think of cognition as existing at "the interstices" of interactions between agents. Knowledge is constructed in the interactions between cognizing agents in the culture and society in which they live. Davis' and Sumara's Enactivist Theory of Cognition is based on the "assertion that each of us is, in the words of Merleau-Ponty (1962), a `complex fabric of relations', fundamentally and inextricably intertwined with all others."(Davis and Sumara, 1997) "Like any social event, learning is a complex phenomenon; it resists the linear and causal reductions that are often imposed in misguided efforts to control it. From this perspective, learning should not be understood in terms of a sequence of actions, but in terms of an ongoing structural dance - a complex choreography - of events..."(Davis, Sumara, and Kieren, 1996)

In this cognitive critique of Principles of Accounting 201 I have covered learning theory ground from behaviorism to information processing to connectionism. All have strong arguments to put forward to explain the interaction that takes place in a teacher/student learning environment. I think it is my responsibility to synthesize the best elements of these diverse and twentieth century-spanning psychological models to explain what happened and what could happen in Accounting 201.

Accounting Education Change Commission (1990, Fall). Issues in Accounting Education (pp.307-312).

Berliner, D.C.(1986, August/September). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 5-13.

Bransford, J.D. & Vye, N.J. (1989). A perspective on cognitive research and its implications for instruction. In L.B. Resnick & L.E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Brophy, J. (1987, October). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational Leadership, 40-48.

Bruer, J.T. (1993, Summer). The mind's journey from novice to expert. American Educator, 6-46.

Davis, B., Sumara, D.J. (1997). Cognition, complexity, and teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 105-125.

Davis, A.B., Sumara, D.J., Kieren, T.E.(1996). Cognition, co-emergence, curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28, no.2, 151-169.

Mayer, R.E. (1992). Cognition and instruction: Their historic meeting within educational psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, no. 4, 405-412.

Schunk, D.H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative iInfluences during children's cognitive skill learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33, no. 2, 359-382.

This paper analyzes a guide developed to assist instructors in teaching new employees to perform complex, technically-oriented tasks. From a cognitive perspective, the Guide is successful in avoiding the three most pressing dangers of the training: a) lack of motivation on the part of the learners, b) cognitive overload, and c) the potential for the knowledge to be inert.

The Situation

This paper focuses on a Training Facilitator Guide in progress, written by me (a content developer) for a client, a telephone company. The training is to be led by an instructor, who will teach from the Guide. The goal of the training Guide is to train employees to be effective in their job as "TC-Screeners." The most difficult teaching dilemma was how to present the myriad of technical concepts.

The job of a TC-Screener entails analyzing many different computerized data systems, using a computerized testing system, and talking to customers to determine the trouble with a customer's phone line. For example, let us say a phone wire has been damaged. The customer either loses phone service altogether, or experiences difficulties with the phone. The customer calls. The call will reach a TC-Screener only if the problem is one that is difficult to solve. The TC-Screener will conduct research, gather information, and route the Trouble Report to a technician in the field who needs to repair the damaged wiring.

The ultimate goal of most of the problems a TC-Screener has to solve is to route the Trouble Report to the appropriate department, and to give that department the information it needs to fix the problem effectively and efficiently. The position is most like an investigator researching a crime or a doctor diagnosing an illness and then sending a patient to a Specialist. The position is a difficult and complex one, and involves much judgment and experience on the part of the employee. Further, there is a huge amount of information that the employee needs to know to do a good job. While writing Facilitator Guides, my colleagues and I wondered how anyone could retain even one tenth of the information presented. It takes years for a TC-Screener to become an expert. The training provides exposure for the new TC-Screener to what they need to know on the job. This paper focuses on MLT training, which is just a piece of the TC-Screener training.

A few things that affect the critique of this lesson are:

The lesson content was generally a single-handed process (rather than a team effort); the format was a team effort

The entire training program was broken up into parts, and is to be taught in parts until the end when two lessons integrate all of the tools the learners have learned; MLT is one tool of many

The MLT lesson is one of the last tools taught before the integrating lessons (mentioned above) teach students the whole picture; the learners have basic knowledge of how phones and electricity work before reaching the MLT lesson

Training Guides are meant to cover 80% of what the learner needs to know to do the job

The Learning Setting

The learning setting is one step removed from the development of this training. The Facilitator Guide gives recommendations to the instructor, but the instructor and the client will determine much of the learning setting as well as how to use the Facilitator Guide.

MLT training is almost always done with computer terminals so that learners can see the screens as they will on the job. The Facilitator Guides, however, could not assume the presence of computers. Learners normally sit at desks during training with the Instructor at the head of the class or walking around the room helping learners. Classes are usually less than 20 learners. Instructors often complain about lack of teaching aids (such as TVs) and lack of in-house support for training.

The Characters

Learners are largely women who have an average of ten years as employees of the client, so we can assume a certain knowledge of client procedures. Because the TC-Screener position is seen as well-paying and complex, learners are often successful employees interested in a new challenge. Classes are diverse, however. Instructors note that some classes have interested and enthusiastic participants, while other classes seem uninterested and difficult to energize. Learners are often bored and overwhelmed by the material.

Approach

This approach of this cognitive critique is first to choose examples from the lesson that illustrated teaching methods. Second, from these examples, to develop a list of primary learning challenges I had been attempting to solve. Third, to analyze the methods I chose from one or more cognitive learning points of view. Fourth, I asked what could have been done better and if there were any issues that my knowledge of cognitive theories could not address.

I chose examples of learning tools or learning influences within a portion of the text of the MLT Facilitator Guide. In the Guide (see Attachment A) are numbers. Throughout this text are numbers which correspond to numbers written next to applicable portions of the Guide. To avoid having to look back and forth from the Guide to this text too often, included in this text are some exerpts from the Guide.

Primary Learning Challenges

The goals of the training were to have students:

a) read and understand the material,
b) assimilate and remember the information, and

c) use the new knowledge while on the job.

Related to these goals were the following concerns involved with the MLT training:

Student motivation to learn the material

Information overload - too much material

Technical nature of information - difficult to understand

Transfer of classroom learning to the real world

Motivating Learners to Want to Learn

Informing students why the learning is valuable

"Knowing the types of Faults enables you to identify which of these problems is causing line trouble." (19)

Learner motivation is key to learning the material in this training. I assume that learners will want to be well-informed when they start their new job. Each chapter in the lessons developed for this training incorporates motivations at the start. Motivation is to perform well on the job. Cognitive Constructivists stress the importance of motivation. Brophy's (1987) Expectancy x Value theory was applied to this training. People learn things better when they have a reason to learn and they can see this reason clearly. True learner motivations, especially the internal drives and interests, which are most effective, are unknown for this training. The instructor who uses the Guide is in a much better position to provide more personalized motivations based on specific audiences and individuals. I could have done a better job at encouraging the instructor to find out individual motives and interests.

External Incentives

"Have some small prizes ready for the activities that come up throughout the lesson. Candy, and small prizes given out for activities or good questions help keep the class interested and involved." (5)

I provide external motivation for learners who ask good questions. This is mostly to make learning more fun and keep learners interested. However, as many Cognitive theorists suggest (Willis 1991) this approach could backfire. It can give the message that the learning is not important in and of itself. In this case, it could also give the message that the information is trivial. I use this method to break things up, and to bring some fun to an otherwise dry lesson.

Preventing Learning from Being Inert

One problem with some training programs is that they do not connect with what learner does or will do on the job (Rossett 1997). This problem is not a downfall of this training program. This training teaches exactly what learners will do on the job. What may be a related downfall is that the learner is taught in the abstract. Will their new knowledge transfer to the job. There is a risk in the this training, of allowing the new knowledge to remain inert which Bransford and Vye (1989) warn against. The Guide attempts to avoid this risk as discussed below.

Visuals

"Make overheads for some of the Figures in the lesson. Have some colored markers on hand to point out different fields. Arrange to have an Overhead projector in the room." (6)

Overheads are provided to make the learning more visual. I encourage the instructor to use visual aids, especially with colors to help more visual learners with otherwise verbal information. This is a good method for this training because the job the students are training for is very visual (on the computer).

Screen Captures

I attempt to make learning life-like at certain points by showing the computer screen as it will appear (26). I encourage the instructor to use computers as much as possible. The computer, a visual and partially kinesthetic device, joined with the verbal and written instruction should provide students with three senses with which to learn, thus enabling better, more resilient learning. In addition, the computer screen shots help the learner transfer knowledge to the job setting. The screen shots are an attempt to make learning as situated as possible. According to some Cognitive theorists, situated and contextual learning is more effective and lasting than formal and abstract learning (Anderson, Reder, and Simon 1996). Normally, the learners are on the computer receiving their situated training. The screen shots provide a link from the text to the screen to the job.

Analogies

"...For example, if you were a doctor trying to cure a patient, what would you need to do first? Diagnose. What would you use to diagnose? You might find data about the patient. You would also listen closely to the symptons thepatient reports. You might also send the patient to a specialist for more detailed analysis...."

At the beginning of many chapters, I ask the instructor to make analogies. Analogies are used to help relate topics to knowledge learners already have. One analogy is that the TC-Screener job is like being a detective/private investigator or a doctor. Although it is difficult for a new learner to relate to and understand a TC-Screener job, most students can relate to what a doctor or private investigator does. As Venville and Treagust (1997) explain, analogies can:

- Help learners make sense of new material
- Serve as a memory aid
- Enhance self-efficacy or confidence in the ability to learn new material (linked to Motivation). Venville and Treagust ( ) claim that the effectiveness of the analogy is determined by:

- The nature or difficulty of the material

- Teacher style and audience interaction

- Previous learner knowledge

- Students ability to think in the abstract

- Learning environment (is the purpose to memorize or understand?)

One problem might be for the learners to actually apply the analogy to their job, because I do not consistently apply the analogy along the way. Consistent application would improve use of the analogy. In addition, the material may be too difficult and overwhelming for the student to apply the analogy appropriately. However, I do think the analogy can help learners better understand and appreciate their job.

Instructor Stories

The Guide encourages instructors to use stories to illustrate how the information is used on the job (23). Stories situate the learners new knowledge into the real world (Andersen, Reder, and Simon 1996), thus increasing learning. An additional benefit of the instructor stories is they increase the learners perceived value of learning the material. Brophy (1987) claims this value is crucial to the learning process.

The Bigger Picture

"Start out the chapter by telling learners there are many types possible damage to customer phone lines. During a storm, wires can break, causing an Open on a line. Water can seep into cable, causing GroundsÖ" (15)

(also 2, 24)

Throughout the training I provide the bigger picture for learners. It is important for learners to understand where this piece of training fits into the larger scheme. This helps the training program become integrated. Davis and Sumara (1997) would agree with the importance of providing this kind of more whole vision for the learners. Not only does this method provide a schema in which to fit the information, it may also help visualize why their role is important in the scheme of things, how they need to cooperate with other employees, and that their jobs connect with real world problems. The latter idea may be especially important when the TC-Screener works at a computer, far away from these problems.

Questions as Learning Method

"Before taking about the preliminary test, show learners the MSCR mask they will pull up on the job. Ask the student to name the fields in the Trouble Report. Ask learners:

- What they think VER means

- What the TROUBLE description is

- What kind of information is in these fields

- Who or what entered these fields" (25)

Questions asked of learners should get them thinking logically about the process they are learning and making judgments based on what they already know. It helps learners articulate what they know, and then accommodate and assimilate their existing schema. Both Rao (1995) and Cardellichio (1997) recommend learner-initiated questions as an effective way to teach. Rao (1995) claims that we learn by doing and asking questions. Cardellichio (1997) claims that having students ask questions and begin answering them increases neural branching, thereby increasing the chances the learner will remember the material.

If learners are coming up with appropriate, relevant questions, it means they are probably learning more.

Questions help learners create their own meaning, and help them feel more in control of their learning. Some Cognitive theorists would say the best way to learn is through questions. I believe the material in the lesson does not lend itself well to an all-questions environment. Learning needs to happen fairly quickly and the material is too new and technical to predict accurately at many points. In addition, learners would need the context in which to ask questions. Learners need to know enough to ask the right questions. In additions, the effectiveness of encouraging questions requires students to feel safe asking questions.

Amount and Technical Nature of Information

The client required the inclusion all the information in the training piece. As a consequence, the training runs the risk of bombarding learners with too much new information to learn. This could lead to downshifting (Caine and Caine 1991).

Seven plus or minus two pieces of information is as much as we can hold in working memory according to Information Processing theorists (Sweller). This training was designed with that in mind. Information mapping was used to develop the design and content layout of the Guide. Where ever possible, I kept tabled information to 7 pieces of information, grouping them into categories so that learners could chunk the information, and therefore learn more content. (20)

Format and Basics

The format of the Guide is open. There is not too much on any one page. Pages packed with material are threatening and may induce "downshifting." (Caine and Caine 1991) The method is also in line with Sweller's idea of avoiding cognitive overload, especially of short-term memory.

Overview and Objectives

Each chapter begins with an Overview and the Objectives. This "introduction" also serves to outline and provide a framework in which the student can begin placing information. Advanced organizers (Brophy 1987) help learners connect their learning into a framework, and help them to self-regulate. Self-regulation is linked to better performance. (Schunk 1996) Since we store things in connected webs, this framework helps student link together their knowledge. This linking helps learners remember the information. I also tried to provide learners with a hierarchy of what is really important for them to learn (13) in hopes that this would reduce the effects of cognitive overload (Sweller).

Memorization tricks

" The lesson involves memorization. Tell this to the class up front. Ask the learners how they memorize tnew phone numbers or birthdays. They can use these same techniques to memorize the material in this lesson.Techniques can be visual or auditory..." (7)

The Guide uses cognitive tools (Norman 1993) that individuals have developed to memorize things. This method draws upon individual learning styles and chunking methods (Sweller).

Everyday memorizing, like birthdays and phone numbers, also makes the task of learning difficult material seem less threatening. In this lesson, there is a risk of learners downshifting due to the volume as well as very technical nature of the information. According to Cognitive theory, material should be challenging yet within the learner's reach. The Guide is at risk of overwhelming the learner. The memorization tricks may also help bridge the gap between natural knowledge (Caine and Caine 1991) and the formal training.

Self Check

I used Expectancy x Value (Brophy 1987) when designing the Self-Check questions. I did not want the learner to downshift and become frustrated with all of the information to learn. However, I did not want the questions to be too easy either because I wanted to make sure the Instructor could gauge how much the learners were grasping. The Self-Check also serves as a gauge to the learner. No one is going to grade or share the results of the Self-Check so they allow the learners to self-regulate and reflect on how they are doing or what they need to review. As Schunk (1996) found in his research, this ability and opportunity to self-regulate and self-observe can be a key to better learning.

More Effective Methods

Despite the positive learning aspects of the Guide, I believe that due to the approach to the TC-Screener overall training program, the learners will transfer little of the material to their new job. The reasons for this are cognitive overload, and the fact that the learners have no experience to which to apply their learning. A better approach would be to set up an apprentice system, mentor system, or coaching system where the coaches would receive some training and the new employees would receive some overview training once a week. After struggling through a couple of days on the job, learners will have a much greater appreciation of the job and the value of the learning. As it is now, learners end up learning on the job from peers, and often learn to do things the wrong way.

The overall approach is a one shot fix which is the traditional way to train but not necessarily and effective way to learn (Gill, 1995). I do not believe this is the way to teach this particular information. A situated learning and Cognitive apprenticeship mix with conceptual, overview classes and a mentor/ coaching (ask me) system along the way would be my preferred method. The approach to the training is also very piecemeal. Despite some attempts to bring in the bigger picture, each one of the employee's tools is taught separately and then brought together at the end. In reality, all of the tools must be used interactively to solve problems. I feel that despite some good elements, the overall strategy of the training may fail the learner.

As Rao (1995) says, "Learning happens best, Shank says, when people want to do something and get the information they need to accomplish their purposes." Applying this to the lesson, a more effective approach might be to throw learners into the work scene either looking over an expert's shoulder or trying to accomplish the job themselves. Learners would then enter the training with an understanding of how important it is to learn the material. There is a chance here that learners would be overwhelmed by the job. In the case of the training, however, it would be difficult to overwhelm any learners more than they are with the current training method.

The Guide includes many instructionally sound methods from a cognitive perspective. Elements of the Guide incorporated mostly cognitively sound methods of overcoming the largest hurdles of the content: a) the overwhelming amount and complexity of the material, b) the difficulty of inducing transfer from the formal training to on the job performance, and c) students possible lack of motivation. The Guide most closely resembles Brophy's theories and methods on how effective learning takes place. Despite the many positive reviews of specific elements of the Guide, because the approach to the learner's entire training program is segmented and done in a one-shot fashion, the learners may be left in a state of cognitive overload and unmotivated to learn.

Andersen, J. R., Reder, & L. M., Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25, 4, 5-11.

Bransford, J. D. & Vye, N. J. (1989) A perspective on cognitive research and its implications for instruction. In L.B Resnick & L.E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp 173-205). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Brophy, J, (1987) Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational Leadership, October 1997, 40-48.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-42.

Caine, R. N.,& Caine, G. (1991). Making connections. New York: Innovative Learning Publications.

Cardellichio, T. & Field, W. (1997 March) Seven strategies that encourage neural branching Educational Leadership 33-36.

The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, (1997) Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19 (6) 2-10.

Davis, B. & Sumara, D. J. (1997) Cognition, complexity, and teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 1, 105-125.

Gill, S. J. (1995, May) Shifting Gears for High Performance. Training and Development, 25-31.

Janov, J. E. (1995, May) Creating meaning: the heart of learning communities. Training and Development, 53-58.

Norman, D. (1993). Things that make us smart. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Norman, D, Gentner, D., & Stevens, A.(1976) Comments on learning schemata and memory representation. In D. Klahr (Ed.) Cognition and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Rao, S. (1995, August) Putting Fun Back into Learning. Training, 44-48.

Rossett, A. (1997, July) That was a great class, butÖ Training and Development, 19-24.

Schunk, D. H. (1996) Goal and self-evaluative influences during children's cognitive skill learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33 (2) 359-382.

Venville, G.J. and Treagust, D.F. (1997) The role of analogies in promoting conceptual change in biology. The American Biology Teacherr, 59 (5) 282-288.

Voss, F.F., and Silfies, L.N. (1996) Learning from history text: the interaction of knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 45-68.

Willis (1991) The complex art of motivating students. ASCD Update, 33 (6) 3-5.

The Overview

I recently attended what was to be a five day seminar entitled "Managing the Training Function" which was developed and delivered by the American Management Association. This seminar was designed to give training managers the tools needed to become effective leaders of the corporate training function. My critique contains a look at three segments of the program and offers a cognitive analysis on each.

The session was held at a hotel on La Jolla Shores beach. The banquet room was small and intimate with three round tables. The standard fare of coffee, juice and water were available. In the background, classical music was playing softly on a portable stereo system controlled by the instructor. Colorful welcome posters with seminar information were stationed throughout the room including phone and fax numbers for incoming office messages, scheduled break times, etc. They also included statements about training such as "I can't be creative when I'm presenting technical training", "Upper management never understands the value of training and development", and other similar comments.

The class numbered thirteen and was composed of directors and managers of training from various industries throughout the U.S. All participants were interested in learning how to effectively merge what senior management, line managers and trainees want from the learning and development function. How did we know that's what we were all there to learn?

The Action We were asked to visually review the colorful and eye-catching three posters that contained the question to kicked off the session. Each poster identified a different audience: what does senior management want from training, what do line managers want from training and what do trainees want from training? We were asked to reflect on our experiences, then write our thoughts either directly on the posters, or on any of the various sized Post-It notes on each table and affix them to the posters. There were numerous colorful and varied pencils, pens and markers available. This was to be completed within about ten minutes and done quitely. Soft classical music was gradually faded in during the work time and was faded out when the time was up. After each participant contributed a thought or two on the poster for each audience, the instructor resumed the program discussion.

As each contribution was read, the author was asked to identify themselves and tell more about their answer. In this context, additional questions were posed by the instructor including the nature of their position and the industry of their company. Additionally, the instructor challenged those responding, as well as the rest of the group to make analogies and to link the actions and reactions of the one audience with the actions and reactions of both of the other audiences (top management, line managers and trainees).

The Reaction Many seminars begin with logistical information sharing such as location of restrooms, emergency exits, break times and often ground rules. In this session, however, none of these typical topics were verbally addressed. Some information was located throughout the room on posters which further encouraged participants to scope out all the posters for other information. While this satisfied most of the questions, other answers were left to the participants to discover. When it became apparent that general introductory comments were not forthcoming, participants shared with each other the answers gained from either observing the posted information (phone numbers and break times), or discovered information (location of restrooms and emergency stairs). Although the instructor was available for questions, she immediately began a discussion on the seminar topics which limited the questions on logistical topics. It took a few minutes for participants to become acclimated to this style of presentation as surprised looks were being exchanged among the group. However, when the discussion of what the three audiences want from the training function concluded, and the floor was opened for discussion on this style, participants spoke out overwhelmingly in favor of it.

There was a gradual movement from resistance to acceptance of this type of group activity. The participants commented how, once they broke out of the expectations of the traditional warm-up/opening activities, they were able to concentrate more fully on the work at hand and the learning that would take place. For example, several people agreed that this type of "getting started" exercise minimized, if not eliminated, the anxiety of thinking about what they would say to the group when it came time for their own personal introductions. By the time the group recognized what was going on, a relaxed and comfortable atmosphere had been established. All of this contributed to setting the stage for maximizing learning potential.

The Critique Several cognitive principles were displayed in these early seminar events. Motivation is always a high priority when setting the tone for a multi-day learning opportunity. The strategies demonstrated included several of the many techniques identified by educational researchers. This includes creating a supportive environment, selecting meaningful learning objectives, and providing opportunities to interact with peers (Brophy, 1987).

Cardellichio and Field (1997) encourage providing a strategy to overcome the brain's natural tendency to do "neural pruning" where the brain is selective, accepting mental limitations. They promote the notion that teaching students to think effectively and divergently can be stimulated by asking for analogies, forcing learners to look for correspondences.

Sharing experiences between the participants allowed for exchanges about successfully interacting with the various audiences identified (top management, line management and trainees). Important and spontaneous dialogues occurred concerning how various participants had handled typical problem areas under discussion. Certain experienced participants were able to describe their understanding of these issues and their resolution of them. This allowed for less experienced ones to query their conclusions and actions.

In his writings on expert pedagogues, Berliner (1986) identifies experts as ones who "categorize problems to be solved at some kind of higher level" which leads them to different conclusions and actions than novices who "classify problems to be solved by the surface characteristics". Allowing this kind of interaction opened the way for offline discussions to seek out more information, reinforcing the strategies to maximize the potential for learning during this seminar.

The Action Another segment of the seminar included a special review of the previous day's materials for an individual who had been called back to the office to handle an onsite visit by government auditors. The instructor used this opportunity to allow this gentleman to connect with the class again by requesting the class to present the significant learnings of the previous day to this individual. She divided the previous day's class contents into three segments and assigned each team/table one segment. The instructions were to take twenty minutes, brainstorm the subject matter within the teams, and develop a presentation of the material. Each team was to then present their subject to this individual who had been called away as well as the rest of the class. Creativity was encouraged and presentations were to be visually represented as well as verbally explained. As work began, the instructor played classical music which was faded in as the work session began and faded out when the time for that activity was to end.

Each team took approximately ten minutes to present their material. After each presentation, there was a debriefing with the entire class soliciting reactions to the presentation, questions, or additional input of material not covered. The individual who had been called away was asked for specific reactions to the presentations including asking him to identify any points covered from each presentation that stood out to him. After he had identified these significant points, the rest of the class was solicited for like comments. During this portion of the exchange, participants were asked which of the points they would be able to put into immediate use upon their return to the office. As ones were expressing their back home applications, comments were invited to further discuss or clarify as desired.

The Reaction The participant who had been called away began the day by making an apology to the entire class for his absence the previous day, even though he had warned the group at the beginning of the seminar that there was some possibility he may have to miss some of the sessions. It was evident that there was a general feeling of support for his situation as many expressed having experienced similar situations and feelings of frustration.

The instructor capitalized on this support and encouraged using novelty and a variety of elements within our instruction/presentation. This closely aligns to a motivational strategy identified by Brophy (1986) that each activity should include something new.

There was no hesitation on the part of any of the teams, nor on the material they had been assigned to develop and present. Compassion for this individual having to learn under the allotted time constraint kept the teams from overloading their presentations with too much detail. It also aided in the use of simplicity and creativity.

The Critique Brophy (1987) promotes use of remedial socialization as a strategy to help students who get discouraged. In this case, the learner's own statements to the class confirmed his obvious frustration from missing out. But how could he catch up and without becoming overwhelmed?

Instructional implications as identified by Wilson and Cole (1996) of the cognitive load theory suggest that the limitations of human memory require certain strategies to overcome these constraints. By breaking the previous day's key knowledge deliveries into three topics, the prospective learner is allowed to chunk the information down into meaningful units, thereby increasing his ability to digest the information. Wilson and Cole (1996) suggest that presenting simple content can withstand less than exceptional instructional methods. This would cover the unknown styles of three teams who just heard the material for the first time the day before.

The teams took vary little time to assemble their plans and to encourage each other to reach out for creative and fun ways to develop the material. These reactions paralleled the finds of Klein and Pridemore (1994) who noted that groups that received intellectual skills practice discussed more content, gave more help to their fellow group members, and exhibited less individual behavior than groups that received verbal information practice.

As recommended by Brophy (1986), incorporating game-like features into exercises, such as the skits, picture representations and demonstrations that were delivered by the teams, provides additional strategies to keep the learner motivated.

Studies of social learning theory (Schunk, 1996) promote the notion that learning goals exceed performance goals in motivation and outcome achievement. In this application, the students were not expecting to have to share what had been discussed the previous day in such a manner. There were no performance expectations per se, but rather the goal of presenting our own learning. The outstanding and creative displays showed that the real learners in this exercise was not our once-absent colleague, but rather those of us who had been there to receive the instruction first hand.

The Action Every participant was keenly aware of the cost of this seminar. What was to be a five day seminar actually was condensed down into four due to previous commitments of the instructor (who was not the usual presenter). But even a four day seminar plus the cost of travel, hotel and meals is very expensive. To help those who approved our attendance know the value of the material presented, and our newly developed abilities to apply it in the workplace, each team was asked to reflect on an assigned topic that had been presented sometime during the course of the seminar. Each team was to silently spend several minutes considering our own view of the value of this topic, then collectively within our teams, develop a visual presentation. This presentation was to be delivered to the rest of the class; however, it was with the specific intent that a repeat performance of this presentation would be conducted back in the office with our senior manager. This was to affect the level and style of our presentation methodology.

The Reaction Amazingly, the teams responded quite differently when asked to develop a presentation that would be delivered to their senior management. The participants' former enthusiasm of sharing learnings appeared to be suppressed. When discussions opened up to explore what we might present to our top management, including the reasons and motives behind the facts that may be revealed, concern for potentially threatening or embarrassing information, the kind that could produce real change, became an overwhelming constraint. In the context of presenting information to senior management, it could also produce criticism and/or defensive posturing. The participants moved more toward the traditional management and subordinate roles, and presentations were dry and dull. Interestingly, the majority of presentations were done using words (no pictures or skits) and single color markers, much unlike the presentation done earlier.

The Critique In order to prepare the presentation, reflection was required. The instruction was to focus our minds on the matters that had been presented. Had we also been encouraged to listen to our own processes of thinking, we would have taken a key step toward the notion of reflective practice. And if we would have been encouraged to pay attention to not only what was going on around us, but also within us, we would have been moving toward the notion of mindfulness. Tremmel (1993) suggests that "to become reflective and mindful practitioners, we need to learn to become aware of the workings of our own minds and, simultaneously, to let go of our thoughts and feelings while plunging ourselves, mind and body, into the center of teaching and learning." Nevertheless, we were encouraged to a certain degree, to consider in a reflective way, the learning we had experienced.

The reaction of the group however, elicited certain individual defensive reasonings that inhibits genuine learning in organizations. Argyris (1994) suggests that new but now familiar techniques of corporate communication (i.e., focus groups, surveys, management- by-walking-around, etc.) can block organizational learning even as they solve certain kinds of problems. He suggests that "what they do not do is get people to reflect on their work and behavior" and that "whenever managers are trying to get at the truth about problems that are embarrassing or threatening, they are likely to stumble into the same set of predictable pitfalls."

In considering the reaction that so dramatically differed from other similar exercises, one was left puzzled as to the true nature of this response. Business and educational interpreters have much to say on management and employee behaviors, including taking to task the many forms of communication between them. Argyris (1994) argues that modern communications (i.e. focus groups, surveys, walk-around management, etc.) "open a door to defensive reasoning - and close one on individual self-awareness - in the way they continuously emphasize extrinsic as opposed to intrinsic motivation."

Perhaps the instruction to present our material as if we were back in the office set this exercise apart. If one had experienced repeated rejection of discoveries, this might contribute to a certain degree of shut down. If, as Argyris (1994) suggests, "employees educate, and managers act", then employees would hardly be motivated to educate, if managers, in fact, did not act on what they learned. All of this would certainly play a role in stifling the potential for real learning to take place.

One could speculate endlessly as to the cause of the negative reaction to this exercise, but it goes without saying that previous learning experiences shape our present and future learning behaviors, either for better or for worse.

Over the years, I have attended many seminars on various topics, some better than others. However, I had actually selected another situation to review in this critique when I was struck with the various cognitive constructs imbedded in this seminar. As each segment was underway, I became as interested in identifying whether we were going down the path of behaviorism, or information processing, or constructivism, or connectionism and the effect that these styles had on learning.

Frankly, the overall content of the seminar did not meet my expectations. However, the structure of the delivery and its effect on learning exceeded my expectations. Perhaps having an instructor who was not originally scheduled contributed to this effect. Nevertheless, being able to identify various applications of cognitive constructs afforded me the opportunity to observe and experience first hand, the effects these have on learning. All of which will impact my own instructional choices.

Argyris, C. (1994, July/August). Good communication that blocks learning. Harvard Business Review, 77-85.

Berliner, D.C. (1986, August/September) In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 5-13.

Brophy, J. (1987, October). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational Leadership, 40-48.

Cardellichio, T. & Field, W. (1997, March). Seven strategies that encourage neural branching. Educational Leadership, 33-36.

Klein, J. D., & Pridemore, D. R. (1994). Effects of orienting activities and practice on achievement, continuing motivation, and student behaviors in a cooperative learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42 (4), 41-54.

Schunk, D. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children's cognitive skill learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 359-382.

Tremmel, T. (1993). Zen and the art of reflective practice in teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 63, 434-458.

Wilson, B., & Cole, P. (1996). Cognitive teaching models. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 601-621). New York: MacMillan.

The rise of computer based learning has been touted as a grand opportunity for instructional design and a new frontier for cognitive research. The ability of computers to simulate, interact, educate and perform complex computations offers a broad array of teaching options for instructors who effectively use this power. However, it is through this use of new technology that conflict has emerged and weaknesses in the implementation of computer based instruction have arisen. Designers of educational software have yet to develop a consistently effective method of delivering their programs so that these learning aids entertain and engross in addition to educating. The result is a relatively small number of educational programs that have been great successes in the competitive software market.

In contrast, the entertainment side of the software industry has ridden the technological advancement of computers to phenomenal success. At the top of this market is Myst, a fantasy game that has sold millions of copies and stands as the best-selling CD-ROM game of all time (PC Data 1996). Aside from its breathtaking graphics, haunting music and stunningly realistic sound effects, what makes Myst stand apart is the depth of cognitive effort required to solve its many puzzles. Many cynics would consider the younger generation of computer users to be too experientially-oriented to take the time to think this hard for this long. After all, the game itself can last as long as several weeks or even months, and each of the problems involves multiple related steps, some of which require intense observational and reflective skills. Nevertheless, scores of players continue to become addicted to the world of Myst, and the tests of logic are seen as challenges and puzzles rather than deterrents to having fun. Why is this view not the same with most educational software? Perhaps the designers of educational software have erred in that they have failed to successfully integrate the benefits of both experiential and educational conditions, thus achieving the ideal of authentic learning as discussed by Park and Hannafin (1993). Most learning programs will lean too heavily towards either experiential or reflective cognition. In contrast, Myst succeeds in engrossing its users interest as well as promoting serious cognition through a careful balance of experiential and reflective situations. This successful balance may also be effectively applied to instructional software.

Norman (1993) defines experiential cognition as a mode "in which we perceive and react to the events around us, efficiently and effortlessly." It includes the processing of information that we take in through all five senses and is continuously in operation throughout everyday life. In Myst, the graphics, music and sound effects all provide a rich experiential environment full of patterns and events in which learning and action takes place. Wheels spin, buttons push, levers pull and book pages turn, all providing bits of knowledge that the user can pick up and use as they work their way through this digitized world. Like any other video game, experiential cognition is integral to playing and succeeding at Myst. However, as mentioned before, where Myst stands apart is in the depth of reflective cognition required to win this game. According to Norman, the reflective mode is one of "comparison and contrast, of thought, of decision making." In this mode, meaning is derived through the bits and pieces of information collected through experience. Myst encourages relatively intense reflective thought by requiring the user to assimilate gathered information into solutions to the many puzzles that are threaded throughout the game. Why does the gold plaque on the wall read "7, 3, 2? " Why did Atrus say, "Remember the tower rotation?" Why is there a sunken ship in the birdbath in the courtyard? All of this information is combined and processed in order to unlock doors into new worlds, return home to the world of Myst, and obtain clues to past events so that the game can eventually be won. In this way, this game can almost be seen as a representation of the information processing model of knowledge construction (Mayer 1992). New information is perceived, interpreted and compared with stored information, and new meaning and actions result from this process. If used correctly, this new meaning and action will ultimately achieve the final goal of Myst.

One primary advantage of the successful balance of experiential and reflective modes of cognition in Myst is the building and attainment of an ideal level of "cognitive momentum" throughout the game. This idea grew out of my personal experience and observations, and it utilizes aspects of Normans thoughts on optimal flow as well as current theories of motivation. Optimal flow is the state of being "in the zone," or as Norman puts it, "concentrated experiential cognition orintense, focused reflection upon a problem." This state is the ideal mental mode for learning, and is the ultimate goal of building cognitive momentum. In other words, cognitive momentum climbs and reaches its peak at the level of optimal flow.

The building of cognitive momentum can be illustrated by students entering a new environment or learning subject. When entering a new situation, most learners take a little while before they reach their peak level of cognitive performance. For example, a teachers first few questions to his or her class may be returned only with blank stares and nervous shuffling because the students are either uncomfortable with the subject or with the environment. However, as a few questions begin to find answers and as the students become more comfortable, their cognitive momentum grows. Answers come more quickly, and the thinking processes of the learners progress with greater clarity. Teachers can promote this momentum by establishing a comfortable learning environment, encouraging all ideas, whether right or wrong, and presenting information in contexts that the students enjoy and can relate to. These tactics encourage a state of motivation (Brophy 1987) based on intrinsic values in the students. This type of motivation is integral to the building of cognitive momentum and the attainment of optimal flow. If the students arent intrinsically interested in learning the subject, then these ideal states are next to impossible to achieve.

Myst achieves the building and maintenance of cognitive momentum by integrating the positive aspects of experiential and reflective cognition. For most users, the reflection required to process information and solve difficult problems would not be motivating enough to make this an enjoyable program on its own. However, if solving the problems requires riding in rocketships, finding secret passageways, and striving towards a challenging, but attainable, goal (Schunk 1996), then the problems have meaning, there is fun in the learning journey, and the cognitive momentum builds. Even when stuck on a particularly difficult problem, there are still enough gadgets to play with and sights to see until new information is found so that the cognitive momentum is not lost, and interest in the game persists. Many educational programs are unable to build this momentum, let alone maintain it, because of the lack of adequate experiential situations required to do so. As Norman suggests, if an educational program leans too far in either cognitive direction, the software can either become too experiential and not teach enough, or it can become too reflective and bore the user. By staying somewhere in between and utilizing the strongest characteristics of both modes, Myst controls the pace and level of cognition so that the user maintains interest even after weeks of playing.

A second advantage of balancing experiential and reflective situations in Myst is that this arrangement forms a rich environment in which the puzzles and knowledge of Myst exist. The information in this game lends itself to recall and interpretation because it exists in a virtual context, rather than the flat, isolated bank of buttons and choices that is characteristic of many Hypertext environments. Thus, the player is able to use his/her natural, locale memory system rather than just the data-driven spatial memory system. Caine and Caine (1994) describe the locale system as registering "a continuous story of life experience." This story is constructed of cognitive "maps" that are made up of information reflecting where weve been and what weve done. In this way, the structure of Myst plays right into the format and operation of the locale memory. In the game, taxon information is presented in the form of a story and is immersed in countless pieces of information in the environment around it. According to Ferguson, Bareiss, Birnbaum and Osgood (1992), "an appropriate story told in an appropriate setting not only conveys important information, it provides contextual cues that facilitate recall of that information in situations where it is likely to be applicable." The environment in Myst very effectively achieves this mode of learning. The above "story" context inherent in Myst also integrates well into theories advocating the use of situated learning. According to Winn (1993), a goal of situated learning is to "create an environment from which, through exploration, students construct understanding." This is a very accurate description of Myst. Users of Myst practice Caine and Caines idea of immersion, where knowledge is gained in context through total engagement in a learning environment. Knowledge is "stolen" from the virtual world (Tripp 1993) through first hand experience, and derived meaning is transmitted directly to action and thought within this domain. Although the information in Myst is not particularly applicable to other domains, traditional instruction has proven to translate more effectively into other domains when presented in rich, authentic environments (Park & Hannafin 1993).

One final element of the Myst design that gives the environment meaning and makes all of the experiential and reflective cognition worth the effort is the presence of a worthwhile goal. At the outset of the game, this goal is, in effect, all of the information you have for navigating the worlds of Myst. A man named Atrus has had his wonderful books destroyed. He suspects his sons, but is not sure. You must find out who did the deed. What the books contain, where the sons are now, and why this is such a big deal is not conveyed to you. However, you do know that Atrus is very distressed and that this world is immediately very strange and very exciting. More answers will come to you through experience. And through this experience, the one common thread is that you must obtain the goal and find out what happened to the books. As mentioned above, Schunk defines an ideal goal as being challenging but attainable in order to promote optimum motivation and reflective thought. The object of Myst has both of these characteristics, and is thus a major factor in holding a players interest through weeks of searching and problem solving.

Each of the above cognitive conditions works well for the fantasy game Myst, but how can these same standards be applied to the development of educational software? Designers of this software must keep in mind the value of different, but complementary, modes of learning. Although the object of a program may be to teach addition, most children will be uninterested in the program unless the addition is presented in the context of an interesting and enjoyable situation. For example, perhaps a player must solve addition problems before moving into another fantasy world or entering a castle. Just because an action is not directly applicable to the subject at hand does not mean that the action is not beneficial to learning the intended information. Effectively integrating experiential situations into a reflective program can build and maintain cognitive momentum, increase the use of locale memory, make information more meaningful and generally make learning more fun for a student. In addition to integrating experiential situations, designers of software must also convey an interesting and worthwhile goal to the student. "To learn addition problems" is a goal that will bore the pants off of many youngsters who regularly use the computer for fun activities. However, if the goal is to explore the many worlds of the Pulsar realm and rescue the magic sword from the hands of the evil Dr. Sneer, and you happen to learn addition along the way, then youve got a hit! This type of program appeals to a childs natural instincts to learn and to have fun. With a goal that is this appealing comes motivation and excitement, both of which are essential for achieving optimal levels of cognition in the child. According to Willis (1991), teachers must convey to students the idea that "learning is challenging, but rewarding." I believe that this knowledge is inherent in children, but it is our learning environments that contradict this statement, thus turning our kids away from education. By creating virtual computer environments that are challenging, rewarding, and even a little fun, students will be more accepting of this form of instruction and the programs will do their job more effectively. As stated before, Myst has been an incredible worldwide success and has been able to do what many educational programs have yet to achieve make kids think. As shown above, the design of this game incorporates the tactics of a wide range of cognitive theorists and combines them in a seamless, powerful program. The designers of Myst put trust in the ability of their users to interpret, recall and reflect, and were intuitively able to inject just the right amount of challenge and intrigue into the game to addict millions of users. A small manual that comes with the game states, "if you hit the wallthink about what you know already, and ask yourself what you need to know, collect your thoughts and piece them together. Think of related items or places youve seen, think of information youve been given, pay close attention to everything you see, dont forget anything." As instructional designers, we should be able to apply this advice to every piece of educational software that touches the minds of our children.

Brophy, J. (1997, October). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational Leadership, 40-48.

Caine, R. N. & Caine, G. (1994). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Innovative Learning Publications.

Ferguson, W., Bareiss, R., Birnbaum, L., & Osgood, R. (April 1992) Ask Systems: An approach to the realization of story-based teachers. Northwestern University.

Mayer, R. E. (1992). Cognition and instruction: Their historic meeting within educational psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (4), 405-412.

Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that make us smart. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Park, I. & Hannafin, M. (1993). Empirically-based guidelines for the design of interactive multimedia. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41 (3), 63-84.

PC Data (1996). Audit of software industry.

Schunk, D. H. (1996, Summer). Goal and self-evaluative influences during childrens' cognitive skill learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33 (2), 359-382.

Tripp, S. D. (1993, March). Theories, traditions and situated learning. Educational Technology, 71-77.

Willis, S. (1991, September). The complex art of motivating students. ASCD Update, 33 (6), 3-5.

Winn, W. (1993, March). Instructional design and situated learning: Paradox or partnership? Educational Technology, 16-21.