Tag Archives: wary student

The Wary Student, Part 11: Bibliography

Works alphabetically beginning with “A” above the fold. Everyone else below:

Alford, J. & Hibbing, J. (2004) .The Origin of Politics: An Evolutionary Theory of Political Behavior. Perspectives on Politics, 2(4), 707-723.
Alford, J. , & Hibbing, J. (2006a). The Neural Basis of Representative Democracy. Paper presented at the Hendricks Conference on Biology, Evolution, and Political Behavior.
Alford, J., & Hibbing, J. (2006b). Could Political Attitudes Be Shaped by Evolution Working Through Genes? Tidsskriftet Politik: August 2006 edition.
Ariely, D. (2000). Controlling the information flow: Effects on consumer’s decision making and preferences. The Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 233-248.


Bannert, M. (2002). Managing cognitive load – recent trends in cognitive load theory. Learning and Instruction, 12, 139-146.
Barrett, H. C., Frederick, D. A., Haselton, M. G. & Kurzban, R. (2006). Can manipulations of cognitive load be used to test evolutionary hypotheses? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3), 513-518.
Bazerman, M.H., White, S.B., & Lowenstein, G.F. (1995). Perceptions of fairness in interpersonal and individual choice situations. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 4(2), 39-43.
Benjamin, D. J., Brown, S. A., & Shapiro, J. M. (2006). Who is ‘behavioral’? Cognitive ability and anomalous preferences. Unpublished manuscript. Available online: http://www.dklevine.com/archive/refs4122247000000001334.pdf.
Benton, S.L., Kiewra, K.A., Whitfil, J.M., & Dennison, R. (1993). Encoding and external-storage effects on writing processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 267-280.
Bethwaite, J. & Tompkinson, P. (1996). The ultimatum game and non-selfish utility functions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17(2), 259-271.
Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1999). Is equality passe? Boston Review, 23(6). Retrieved online http://bostonreview.net/BR23.6/bowles.html.
Bruning, R. (2004). Technological contexts for cognitive growth. Chapter 10 in R. Bruning, G. Schraw, M. Norby, & R. Ronning. Cognitive psychology and instruction (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Bjorklund, D. F., & Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). The origins of human nature: Evolutionary developmental psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Carter, R.M., Hofstotter, C., Tsuchiya, N., & Koch, Christof. (2003). Working memory and fear conditioning. PNAS, 100(3), 1399-1404.
Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.
Cramton, C.D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequence for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346-371.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. HarperCollins: New York.
Copeland, W.D. (1980). Teaching-learning behaviors and the demands of the classroom environment. The Elementary School Journal, 80(4), 163-177.
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2004). Knowing thyself: The evolutionary psychology of moral reasoning and moral sentiments. In R. E. Freeman & P. Werhane (Eds.), Business, science, and ethics: The Ruffin series (No. 4, pp. 93–128). Charlottesville, VA: Society for Business Ethics.

Dempsey, M.S., PytlikZillig, L.M., & Bruning, R. (2005). Building writing assessment skills using web-based cognitive support features, in Lisa M. PytlikZillig, Mary Bodvarrson, & Roger Bruning, Eds. (pp. 83-106). Technology-based education: Brining researchers and practitioners together. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
DeSteno, D., Bartlett, M., Braverman, J., & Salovey, P. (2002). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolutionary mechanism or artifact of measurement? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1103-1116.
Dhar, R., Nowlis, S.M., & Sherman, S.J. (2000). Trying hard or hardly trying: An analysis of context effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(4), 189-200.
Dillenbourg, P. & Schneider, D. (1995). Mediating the mechanisms which make collaborative learning sometimes effective. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 131-146.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999) What do you mean by collaborative learning?. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed) Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. (pp.1-19). Oxford: Elsevier.
Doyle, W. (1979). Classroom effects. Theory into Practice, 18(3), 138-144.
Drolet, A. & Luce, M.F. (2004). The rationalizing effects of cognitive load on emotion-based trade-off avoidance. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 63-77.

Fiske, S.T. (2000). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination at the seam between the centuries: Evolution, culture, mind, and brain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(3), 299-322.
Friedrich, H.F., Hron, A., & Hesse, F.W. (2001). A framework for designing and evaluating virtual seminars. European Journal of Education, 36(2), 157-174.

Gardner, H. (1998). Extraordinary minds. Basic Books: New York, NY.
Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrabone, R. (2004). Designing instructional examples to reduce intrinsic cognitive load: Moral versus modular presentation of solution procedures. Instructional Science, 32, 33-58.
Gold, L.J., Darley, J.M., Hilton, J.L., & Zanna, M.P. (1984). Children’s perceptions of procedural justice. Child Development, 55(5), 1752-1759.
Gowdy, J., Iorgulescu, R., & Onyeiwu, S. (2003). Fairness and retaliation in a rural Nigerian village. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 52(4), 469-479.

Harper, G.F., Guidubaldi, J., & Kehle, T.J. (1978). Is academic achievement related to classroom behavior? The Elementary School Journal, 78(3), 202-207.
Harsanyi, J.C. (1961). On the Rationality Postulates Underlying the Theory of Cooperative Games. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 5(2): 179-196.
Henrich, J., et al. (2005). ‘Economic man’ in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies.. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(6), 795-855.
Hewstone, M., Hantzi, A., & Johnston, L. (1991). Social categorization and person memory: The pervasiveness of race as an organizing principle. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21(6), 517-528.
Hibbing, J. & Alford, J.. (2004). Accepting Authoritative Decisions: Humans as Wary Cooperators. American Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 62-76.
Hibbing, J.R. & Thiess-Morse, E. (2001). Process preferences and American politics: What the people want the government to be. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 145-153.
Horn, C.A. PytlikZillig, L.M., Bruning, R., & Kauffman, D.F. (2003). At risk in cyberspace, in Roger Bruning, Christy A. Horn, & Lisa M. PytlikZillig, Eds. (pp. 129-152). Web-based learning: What do we know? Where do we go? Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Hron, A. & Friedrich, H.F. (2003). A review of web-based collaborative learning: factors beyond technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 70-79.

Igo, L.B., Bruning, R., McCrudden, M.T., & Kauffman, D.F. (2003). InfoGatherer: A tool for gathering and organizing information from the web, in Roger Bruning, Christy A. Horn, & Lisa M. PytlikZillig, Eds. (pp. 57-78). Web-based learning: What do we know? Where do we go? Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Igo, L.B., Bruning, R., & McCrudden, M.T. (2005a). Exploring differences in students’ copy-and-paste decision making and processing. A mixed-methods study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 103-116.
Igo, L.B., Bruning, R., & McCrudden, M.T. (2005b). Encoding disruption associated with copy and paste note taking, in Lisa M. PutlikZillig, Mary Bodvarrson, & Roger Bruning, Eds. (pp. 107-120). Technology-based education: Brining researchers and practitioners together. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697-720.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 126-136.
Kay, A.C., Wheeler, S.C., Bargh, J.A., & Ross, L. (2004). Material priming: The influence of mundane physical objects on situational construal and competitive behavioral choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95(1), 83-96.
Kiewra, K.. (1994). A Slice of Advice. Educational Researcher, 23(3), 31-33.
Klein, S.S. (1971). Student influence on teacher behavior. American Educational Research Journal, 8(3), 403-421.
Knowles, E.D., Morris, M.W., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (2001). Culture and the process of person perception: Evidence for automaticity among East Asians in correcting for situational influences on behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1344-1356.
Kurzban, R., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2001). Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization. PNAS 98(26):15387-15392.

Larrick, R.P. & Blount, S. (1997). The claiming effect: Why players are more generous in social dilemmas than in ultimatum games. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(4), 810-825.
Lehman, S., Bruning, R., & Horn, C.A. (2003). ThinkAboutIt! A web-based tool for improving critical thinking, in Roger Bruning, Christy A. Horn, & Lisa M. PytlikZillig, Eds. (pp. 79-104). Web-based learning: What do we know? Where do we go? Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Lieberman, M. D., Gaunt, R., Gilbert, D. T., & Trope, Y. (2002). Reflection and reflexion: A social cognitive neuroscience approach to attributional inference. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 199-249.
Lusk, J.L., & Hudson, D. (2004). Effects of monitor-subject cheap talk on ultimatum game offers. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 54(3), 439-443.

Mann, B.L. (2005). Testing the validity of Post and Vote Web-based peer assessment, In David Williams. Scott Howell and Mary Hricko (Eds.). Online Assessment, Measurement and Evaluation: Emerging Practices (pp. 132-153) Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in learning. In Bruning, C. Horn, and L. PytlikZillig (Eds). Web-based learning: What do we know? Where do we go? (pp. 23-44). Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.
Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychology Review, 101(2), 343-352.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R.E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 117-125.
Moshman, David. (2005). Adolescent Psychological Development (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mwangi, W. & Sweller, J. (1998). Learning to solve compare word problems: The effect of example format and generating self-explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 173-199.

Nowak, M.A., Page, K.M., & Sigmund, K. (2000). Fairness versus reason in the ultimatum game. Science, 289(5485), 1772-1775.

Oxoby, R.J. (2001). A monopoly classroom experiment. The Journal of Economic Education, 32(2), 160-168.
Paas, F.G.W.C. & Kester, L. (2006). Learner and information characteristics in the design of powerful learning environments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 281-285.

Paas, F.G.W.C. & van Merrienboer, J.J.G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 351-371,
Paulsel, M.L. & Chory-Assad, R.M. (2005). Perceptions of instructor interactional justice as a predictor of student resistance. Communication Research Reports, 22(4), 283-291.
PytlikZillig, L.M., Horn, C.A., & White, M.J. (2003). Teachers, technology, and students at risk, in Roger Bruning, Christy A. Horn, & Lisa M. PytlikZillig, Eds. (pp. 57-78). Web-based learning: What do we know? Where do we go? Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
PytlikZillig, L.M., Bruning, R., Horn, C.A., & Bodvarsson, M. (2005). Using technology to implement case studies in preservice teacher education courses, in Lisa M. PutlikZillig, Mary Bodvarrson, & Roger Bruning, Eds. (pp. 39-62). Technology-based education: Brining researchers and practitioners together. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Raghubir, P. & Krishna, A. (1996). As the crow flies: Bias in consumers’ map-based distance judgements. The Journal of Consumer Research, 23(1), 26-39.
Robert, C. & Carnevale, P.J. (1997). Group choice in ultimatum bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72(2), 256-279.
Ronen, M. & Langley, D. (2004). Scaffolding complex tasks by open online submission: emerging patterns and profiles. JALN, 8(4), 39-61.

Shiv, B. & Fedorikhin, A. (2002). Spontaneous versus controlled influences of stimulus-based affect on choice behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(2), 342-370.
Slonim, R. & Roth, A.E. (1998). Learning in high stakes ultimatum games: An experiment in the Slovak Republic. Econometrica, 66(3), 569-596.
Smith, K. (2006) Representational altruism: The wary cooperator as authoritative decision maker. American Journal of Political Science, 50(4), 1013-1022.
Sonnenschein, S. (1982). The effects of redundant communications on listeners. When more is less. Child Development, 53(3), 717-729.
Stanley, T.D. & Tran, U. (1998). Economic students need not be greedy: Fairness and the ultimatum game. Journal of Socio-Economics, 27(6), 657-664.
Stevenson, D.L. (1991). Deviant students as a collective resource in classroom control. Sociology of Education, 64(2), 127-133.
Stodder, J. (1998). Experimental moralities: Ethics in classroom experiments. The Journal of Economics Education, 29(2), 127-138.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
Sweller, J. & Chandler, P. (1991). Evidence for Cognitive Load Theory. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 351-362.
Sweller, J. & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185-233.
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J.J.G., & Paas, F.G.W.C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
Sweller, J. (2004). Instruction design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32(1-2), 9-31.
Sweller, J. (2006). Discussion of ’emerging topics in cognitive load research: Using learner and information characteristics in the design of powerful learning environments.’ Applied Cognitive Psychology 20(3), 353-357.

Tang, T.L., Tang, D.S., & Tang, C.S. (2000). Factors related to university president’s pay: An examination of private colleges and universities. Higher Education, 39(4), 393-415.
tdaxp & Johnson, C.J. (2007). In search of the wary guerrilla: Political aspects of extreme punishers. Unpublished manuscript.
Titsworth, B.S., & Kiewra, K.A. (2004). Spoken organizational lecture cues and student notetaking as facilitators of student learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(4), 447-461.
Todd, P.A. & Benbasat, I. (1994). The influence of decision aids on choice strategies under conditions of high cognitive load. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 24(4), 537-541.
Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology, in The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (David M. Buss, Ed.). New York: Wiley.
van Merrienboer, J.J.G. & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147-177.

Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., & Knight, S. (2006). Police officers’, social workers’, teachers’ and the general public’s beliefs about deception in children, adolescents and adults. Legal and Crminological Psychology, 11(2), 297-312.
Vrij, A., Semin, G.R., & Bull, R. (1996). Insight into behavior displayed during deception. Human Communication Research, 22(4), 544-562.

Ward, A. & Mann, T. (2000). Don’t mind if I do: Disinhibited eating under cognitive load. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 753-763.
Ward, M., & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition and Instruction, 7(1), 1-39.
Weisberg, Robert W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the Myth of Genius. W.H. Freeman & Company: New York, NY.


The Wary Student, a tdaxp research project
1. Abstract
2. Cognitive Load
3. Cooperative Behavior
4. Method
5. The Experiments
6. Hypotheses
7. Main-Effect Results
8. Interaction-Effect Results
9. Discussion
10. Future Research
11. Bibliography

In Search Of… The Wary Student, Part III: Experiments

Pack your bags, look to the stars, and prepare to go in search of…

THE WARY STUDENT.

These experiments will be described: one to measure positive cooperation (where the subject of the beneficance is is absolutely helped) in educational settings, one to measure neutral cooperation (where the subjectneither helped nor harmed), and one to measure negative cooperation (where the subject is absolutely harmed by the altruistic behavior).

Two games were studied as part of this research. Participants played an ultimatum game very similar to the one presented in The Wary Guerrilla and a cooperation game inspired by Alford & Hibbing (2006a). Before they played these games, subjects were randomly assigned into a high-cognitive load or a low-cognitive load condition. The experiment differed from both The Wary Guerrilla and Alford & Hibbing (2006a) in that the tasks were framed as part of a group project, instead of as an economic game. Framing effects have been observed before (Larrick & Blount, 1997), and may have their effect, because ultimatum game performance chances depending on the norms of a people (Henrich, et al., 2005) or a workplace (Kay, Wheeler, Bagh, & Ross, 2004).

Participants were seated at computers and told they were testing new interfaces for distance education. They were told that their actions in the first part of the experiment will only effect the grades of other students. However, they will have an opportunity to gain additional extra credit at a later part of the task. The participants were instructed that the students they were assisting was at another university institution, and that it was unlikely they would interact in daily life. After a structured introduction, the students were given a series of mathematical problems to solve both for themselves and for the other students. Which problem would help which student was clearly labeled.

The students were then informed that their task was over. They were informed that another portion of the experiment was to measure cooperative behavior in distance education classes. Unbeknownst to the student, the second portion of the experiment would be an ultimatum game, “where one of the players can firmly commit himself in advance under a heavy penalty that he will insist under all conditions upon a certain specified demand (which is called his ultimatum)” (Harsanyi, 1961, 190).

The participant was then informed that the other student was given the opportunity to split extra credit points with the participant. These extra credit points were designed to reward cooperative students. The participant was informed that the other student believed that a 4-to-1split of extra points was fair. If this was accepted, the other student’s point total would be raised by 4 extra credit points while the participant’s score would be raised by only one. Alternatively if the participant refused, neither would gain these additional extra credit points.

Next, participants were informed they would be able to “punish” the other student if they felt the other student had not behaved appropriately for any reason. (This behavior was discussed at length in The Wary Guerrilla).


In Search Of, a tdaxp series
1. Educational Psychology
2. Load and Behavior
3. Experiments
4. Conclusions
5. Bibliography

In Search Of… The Wary Student, Part IV: Conclusions

Pack your bags, look to the stars, and prepare to go in search of…

THE WARY STUDENT.

The first, and most important, result of this experiment will be…

… Nobel Prizes in Peace and Economics. However, until that happens…

Findings are expected to be as they are expected to be. If the results of my previous experiment are any guide, what I will actually find is something entirely different.

Rational behavior in the ultimatum game, which is the basic of the wary guerrilla categorization, can be taught. Either prior knowledge (Lusk & Hudson, 2004), repeated tries (Slonim & Roth, 1998) or group deliberation (Robert & Carnevale, 1997) results in more rational behavior. It would be interesting and useful to see if similarly “rational” group behavior can be taught. Tuovinen & Paas (2004) give a quantitative description of teaching efficiency that could show how cognitive load interferes with learning correct decision-making strategies. Likewise, research that shows that self-explanations improve understanding (Chi, de Leeuw, Chiu, & LaVancher, 1994; de Leeuew & Chi, 2003) may be combined with research on rational and moral development (for example, Moshman, 2005) and how technology can be used to increase critical thinking (Dempsey, PytlikZillig, & Bruning, 2005).

Similarly, dynamic task selection allows training to vary by cognitive ability of the learner (Salden, et al., 2004). One could apply cognitive load training to group work and the wary guerrilla game, and discover the best way to train students to interact with one another. This could be combined with variations of the ultimatum game, such as where a third player is absolutely helpless (Oppewal & Tougareva, 1992) or the participant should shrink the size of the pie while still accepting (Andreoni, Castillo, & Petrie, 2003). Besides being intellectually interesting in themselves, these twists provide room for developing ultimatum game expertise within the time constraints of running of an experiment on volunteer undergraduates.

Another question to be asked is how technology can be altered to increase a sense of community. Community-building is a recommended feature of online courses (Horn, PytlikZillig, Bruning, & Kauffman, 2003), and public goods contribution has been found to be positively impacted by video (Kurzban, 2001) and possibly increased by pictorial (Fulwider & Saferstein, 2007) representations. A resource allowing the testing of pictorial representations is readily available at no charge (Minear & Park, 2004), and could easily be added to the experimental design. The author is at an institution which has studied computer-mediated v. face-to-face interaction via commonly used educational software (PytlikZillig, Bruning, Horn, & Bodvarsson, 2005), thus such a study would fit well into the current research.

In The Wary Guerrilla‘s original research on the wary guerrilla, the subject of cultural variability was brought up. Cognitive load effects social behavior in different groups differently, apparently because levels of social automaticity vary by culture (Knowles, Morris, Chiu, & Hong, 2001). Further experimentation has only emphasized the need for such a study. Either work in a foreign country, or with international students at a local university, would be insightful.

Well?


In Search Of, a tdaxp series
1. Educational Psychology
2. Load and Behavior
3. Experiments
4. Conclusions
5. Bibliography

In Search Of… The Wary Student, Part II: Load and Behavior

Pack your bags, look to the stars, and prepare to go in search of…

THE WARY STUDENT.

This post will began by describing Cognitive Load, and continue by refreshing the viewr on Cooperative Behavior (previously discussed in The Wary Guerrilla). Last, today’s contribution will discuss how these concepts work in the mind and, more important, in the classroom.

Cognitive load is composed of the the “the number and nature of component skills involved.. and the complexity of the goal hierarchy” (Paas & van Merrienboer, 1994, 355). Two aspects of cognitive load are the the split-attention effect (where information is physically separated on a page) and redundancy effect (where information is repeated in different media) (Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller, 2000). While discovered in their contemporary form in the 1980s and 1990s (Sweller & Chandler, 1991), they have been observed for generations (Miller, 1937; Sonneschein, 1982 Sweller & Chandler, 1994) across many domains of knowledge (Mwangi & Sweller, 1998).

This study rejects the notion, found in some academic literature (Dixon, 1991; Goldman, 1991), that cognitive load theory is impractical. Instead, this research seeks cognitive load as an necessary part of instructional design. By establishing how wary student behavior is effected by cognitive load, this paper continues the work of uniting motivational and cognitive psychology (Sherman & Sherman, 1999) and, more importantly, allows students to do and learn more in educational settings.

The wary student is a pro-social, cooperative individual driven by a distaste for unfairness as much as a desire for personal gain. He helps those who have unjust difficulty in completing work, though goes out of his way to cause trouble for cheaters who try to take advantage of others.

Cooperative Behavior is hypothesized to be an instinctual reaction to group life, while self-interested behavior is presumed to be the product of reflection and reationality. Therefore, this research will increase the subjects’ cognitive load in order to deter them from reflecting on their actions — the assumption is that this increased load will increase cooperative behavior.

All research faces the “so what? question, and here the answer is obvious: cooperation is sometimes very good, sometimes very bad, but always very important in a classroom. Cooperation means peer-on-peer tutoring, but it also means peer-on-peer cheating and peer-on-peer revenge. If manipulating cognitive load effects these actions, the ability to alter such load becomes an important tool for teachers.

Alford & Hibbing noted that, as humans, “we have an innate inclination to cooperate, particularly within defined group boundaries, but we are also highly sensitive to selfish actions on the part of other group members” (2004, 709). This is a foundation for the theory of wary cooperatives, people who often display “two, often competing desire: They want a reputation as a fair, desirable, possibly generous, but certainly not foolish person [but also] worry about members oft the group who would take advantage of others if given the chance” (Hibbing & Alford, 2004, 65) Wary cooperators are “inherently disposed to be group oriented, high sensitive to be taken advantage of, and willing to incur costs to punish others who are perceived as putting themselves above the group” (Smith, 2006, 1013).

Related to the concept of the wary cooperator is the wary guerrilla. As outlined by The Wary Guerrilla, the wary guerrilla is a type of cooperator who accepts an absolute reduction in welfare to punish unjust partners. Wary Guerrillas would rather they end up worse than they began as long as the unfair person did not escape punishment. More information on the details of this experiment appear later in this paper.


In Search Of, a tdaxp series
1. Educational Psychology
2. Load and Behavior
3. Experiments
4. Conclusions
5. Bibliography

In Search Of… The Wary Student, Part I: Educational Psychology

Pack your bags, look to the stars, and prepare to go in search of…

THE WARY STUDENT.

Scientific psychology began with behaviorism, an attempt to explain all responses in terms of stimuli. Cognitivism broadened the realm of scientific endevour by theorizing mental states that can be systematically examined. From this comes modern educational psychology, which attempts to apply cognitivism to educational settings.

Beharioism was mindless, in that it rejected the notion of a “mind.” Starting from the reasonable hypothesis that all variation in dependent variables are explained by indepenent variables, the behaviorists rejected mental states are either controlled or controlling factors. Pavlov’s experiments with his dogs, where salivation was explained in terms of bells, is the defining exmplar of this paradigm.

Nowadays, though, the mind is considered important, and it is explored as if it were an unknown computer. The computer’s limitations are the most interesting things about it. Limited capacity theory is a building-block of information-processing psychology (Lord & Maher, 1990). From Miller (1956)’s “seven, plus or minus two “ to today’s theory of cognitive load (Sweller, 1988) and its evolutionary study (Sweller, 2006), the realization that students have limited mental capacity allows educators to teach more efficiently and more effectively.

Educational psychologists study behavior because of its impact on performance. Behavior, like intelligence, strongly predicts school performance, and behavior is more amenable to modification than intelligence, at least among elementary scholars (Harper, Guidubaldi, & Kehle, 1978). Similarly, continued and intense practice (behavior) in an area has a great deal of influence on developing expertise (Weisberg, 1993; Kiewra, 1994; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996) – more so than even raw power (intelligence) in that field (Gardner, 1998). Studying behaviors, such as how one copies-and-pastes (Igo, Bruning, McCrudden, & Kauffman, 2003; Igo, Bruning, & McCrudden, 2005a; 2005b) and how one takes notes (Titsworth & Kiewra, 2004; Brenton, Kiewra, Whitfil, & Dennison, 1993), changes comprehension.


In Search Of, a tdaxp series
1. Educational Psychology
2. Load and Behavior
3. Experiments
4. Conclusions
5. Bibliography

In Search Of… The Wary Student, Part V: Bibliography

Pack your bags, look to the stars, and prepare to go in search of…

… THE WARY STUDENT.

According to John of Salisbury (via Wikipedia)

“Bernard of Chartres used to say that we are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness on sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size.”

The same thought was parroted by Niccolo Machiavelli, though perhaps more to please his intended audience:

those who make maps of countries place themselves low down in the plains to study the character of mountains and elevated lands

But regardless of motive, there is truth in this. Science is a collective enterprise, and we would be nowhere without those who have gone before. A list of works cited just in this series is below. A fuller reading list for issues concerning punitive alturism is available in The Wary Guerrilla, Part ?: Bibliography.


Alford, J. & Hibbing, J. (2004) .The Origin of Politics: An Evolutionary Theory of Political Behavior. Perspectives on Politics, 2(4), 707-723.
Alford, J. , & Hibbing, J. (2006a). The Neural Basis of Representative Democracy. Paper presented at the Hendricks Conference on Biology, Evolution, and Political Behavior.
Andreoni, J., Castillo, M. & Petrie, R. (2003). What do bargainers’ preferences look like? Experiments with a convex ultimatum game. The American Economic Review, 93(3), 672-685.
Chi, M.T.H., de Leeuw, N., Chui, M, & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
de Leeuw, N., & Chi, M.T.H. (2003). Self-explanation: Enriching a situation model or repairing a domain model. Intentional conceptual change. Ed. G. M. Sinatra; P. R. Pintrich Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 347-374.
Dempsey, M.S., PytlikZillig, L.M., & Bruning, R. (2005). Building writing assessment skills using web-based cognitive support features, in Lisa M. PutlikZillig, Mary Bodvarrson, & Roger Bruning, Eds. (pp. 83-106). Technology-based education: Brining researchers and practitioners together. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Dixon, P. (1991). From research the theory to practice: Commentary on Chandler and Sweller. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 343-350.
Fulwider, J. & Saferstein, R. (2007). In press.
Goldman, S.R. (1991). On the derivation of instructional applications from cognitive theories: commentary on Chandler and Sweller. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 333-342.
Harsanyi, J.C. (1961). On the Rationality Postulates Underlying the Theory of Cooperative Games. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 5(2): 179-196.
Henrich, J., et al. (2005). ‘Economic man’ in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies.. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(6), 795-855.
Hibbing, J. & Alford, J.. (2004). Accepting Authoritative Decisions: Humans as Wary Cooperators. American Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 62-76.
Horn, C.A. PytlikZillig, L.M., Bruning, R., & Kauffman, D.F. (2003). At risk in cyberspace, in Roger Bruning, Christy A. Horn, & Lisa M. PytlikZillig, Eds. (pp. 129-152). Web-based learning: What do we know? Where do we go? Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 126-136.
Kay, A.C., Wheeler, S.C., Bargh, J.A., & Ross, L. (2004). Material priming: The influence of mundane physical objects on situational construal and competitive behavioral choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95(1), 83-96.
Knowles, E.D., Morris, M.W., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (2001). Culture and the process of person perception: Evidence for automaticity among East Asians in correcting for situational influences on behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1344-1356.
Kurzban, R. (2001). The social psychophysics of cooperation: nonverbal communication in a public goods game. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 25(4), 241-259.
Larrick, R.P. & Blount, S. (1997). The claiming effect: Why players are more generous in social dilemmas than in ultimatum games. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(4), 810-825.
Lusk, J.L., & Hudson, D. (2004). Effects of monitor-subject cheap talk on ultimatum game offers. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 54(3), 439-443.
Miller, W. (1937). The picture crutch in reading. Elementary English Review, 14, 263-264.
Minear, M., and Park, D.C. (2004). A lifespan database of adult facial stimuli. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36(4), 630-633.
Moshman, D. (2005). Adolescent Psychological Development (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mwangi, W. & Sweller, J. (1998). Learning to solve compare word problems: The effect of example format and generating self-explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 173-199.
Oppewal, H., & Tougareva, E. (1992). A three-person ultimatum game to investigate effects of differences in need, sharing rules and observability on bargaining behaviour. Experimental Economics, 13(2), 203-213.
Paas, F.G.W.C. & van Merrienboer, J.J.G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 351-371.
PytlikZillig, L.M., Horn, C.A., & White, M.J. (2003). Teachers, technology, and students at risk, in Roger Bruning, Christy A. Horn, & Lisa M. PytlikZillig, Eds. (pp. 57-78). Web-based learning: What do we know? Where do we go? Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Robert, C. & Carnevale, P.J. (1997). Group choice in ultimatum bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72(2), 256-279.
Salden, R.J.C.M., Paas, F., Nroers, N.J., & van Merrienboer, J.J.G. (2004). Mental effort and performance as determinants for the dynamic selection of learning tasks in air traffic control training. Instructional Science, 32, 153-172.
Sherman, S.J. & Sherman, J.W. (1999). Bring the troops back home: Armistice between motivation and cognition. Psychological Inquiry, 10(1), 65-68.
Slonim, R. & Roth, A.E. (1998). Learning in high stakes ultimatum games: An experiment in the Slovak Republic. Econometrica, 66(3), 569-596.
Smith, K. (2006) Representational altruism: The wary cooperator as authoritative decision maker. American Journal of Political Science, 50(4), 1013-1022.
Sonnenschein, S. (1982). The effects of redundant communications on listeners. When more is less. Child Development, 53(3), 717-729
Sweller, J. & Chandler, P. (1991). Evidence for Cognitive Load Theory. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 351-362.
Sweller, J. & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185-233.
Tuovinen, J.E. & Paas, F. (2004). Exploring multimedimensional approaches to the efficiency of instructional conditions. Instructional Science, 32, 133-152.


In Search Of, a tdaxp series
1. Educational Psychology
2. Load and Behavior
3. Experiments
4. Conclusions
5. Bibliography

In Search Of… The Wary Student

Pack your bags, look to the stars, and prepare to go in search of… THE WARY STUDENT

Building off of Alford & Hibbing (2004; 2006a) and The Wary Guerrilla, this study proposes the existence of “wary students” whose default behavior is to help others but also go out of their way to punish perceived injustice. In particular, this paper looks at how issues of technologically-induced cognitive load such as occurs in many distance education settings can exacerbate these traits. To accomplish that this paper also relies on the research programs of John Sweller and Roger Bruning, as well as the other researchers mentioned in the bibliography.

The proposed research extends the findings of The Wary Guerrilla. The series found that there were several different game play types, the most retributatory of which was associated with absolutism and political conservatism. Additionally, the research rejected several more conventional hypothesis of the sort of person who would be a super-punisher. This is what science is: conjecture and refutation.

This series has five parts, besides this introduction. First, I will give an overview of educational psychology and its relation to the rest of the psychological sciences. Next, I tackle cognitive load and cooperative behavior, two elements of an irrational mind. Third, a series of experiments are proposed to determine how load and behavior interact. Last, I predict some of the results and give a bibliography of works cited.


In Search Of, a tdaxp series
1. Educational Psychology
2. Load and Behavior
3. Experiments
4. Conclusions
5. Bibliography