Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement Into Practice
ICAP is a theory of active learning that differentiates students’ engagement based on their behaviors. ICAP postulates that Interactive engagement, demonstrated by co‐generative collaborative behaviors, is superior for learning to Constructive engagement, indicated by generative behaviors. Both kind...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Cognitive science 2018-08, Vol.42 (6), p.1777-1832 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1832 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 1777 |
| container_title | Cognitive science |
| container_volume | 42 |
| creator | Chi, Michelene T. H. Adams, Joshua Bogusch, Emily B. Bruchok, Christiana Kang, Seokmin Lancaster, Matthew Levy, Roy Li, Na McEldoon, Katherine L. Stump, Glenda S. Wylie, Ruth Xu, Dongchen Yaghmourian, David L. |
| description | ICAP is a theory of active learning that differentiates students’ engagement based on their behaviors. ICAP postulates that Interactive engagement, demonstrated by co‐generative collaborative behaviors, is superior for learning to Constructive engagement, indicated by generative behaviors. Both kinds of engagement exceed the benefits of Active or Passive engagement, marked by manipulative and attentive behaviors, respectively. This paper discusses a 5‐year project that attempted to translate ICAP into a theory of instruction using five successive measures: (a) teachers’ understanding of ICAP after completing an online module, (b) their success at designing lesson plans using different ICAP modes, (c) fidelity of teachers’ classroom implementation, (d) modes of students’ enacted behaviors, and (e) students’ learning outcomes. Although teachers had minimal success in designing Constructive and Interactive activities, students nevertheless learned significantly more in the context of Constructive than Active activities. We discuss reasons for teachers’ overall difficulty in designing and eliciting Interactive engagement. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/cogs.12626 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_eric_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_eric_primary_ED598474</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>ED598474</ericid><sourcerecordid>2062832134</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4146-49c3aa60a1c9afc473be3a58e42774faf320f7024d49aa219c594f47a9ebdec03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM9PwjAUgBujEUQvno1Z4sWYDPtr3XokiGhCAol4Xkp5GyNjxXbT8N9bHHLw4Lv08L58ffkQuia4T_w8apO7PqGCihPUJVFEQhFjeYq6mAkeYkpYB104t8YYC8HkOepQKSOOedJFg7lVlStVXVR5UK8geB0OZsF8BcbuApMFQ5NXRV18QjCqcpXDBqo6eK1qE8ys0nWh4RKdZap0cHV4e-j9eTQfvoST6djLJqHmhIuQS82UElgRLVWmecwWwFSUAKdxzDOVMYqzGFO-5FIpSqSOJM94rCQslqAx66Gb1gu20OnWFhtld-noKZIJj7lf37frrTUfDbg63RROQ1mqCkzjUooFTZhvsUfv_qBr09jKH-8piSMuGRWeemgpbY1zFrLjnwSn--7pvnv6093Dtwdls9jA8oj-hvYAaYGvooTdP6p0OB2_tdJv2yqKWg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2090549326</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement Into Practice</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Journals</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Backfiles</source><source>ERIC - Full Text Only (Discovery)</source><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><creator>Chi, Michelene T. H. ; Adams, Joshua ; Bogusch, Emily B. ; Bruchok, Christiana ; Kang, Seokmin ; Lancaster, Matthew ; Levy, Roy ; Li, Na ; McEldoon, Katherine L. ; Stump, Glenda S. ; Wylie, Ruth ; Xu, Dongchen ; Yaghmourian, David L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Chi, Michelene T. H. ; Adams, Joshua ; Bogusch, Emily B. ; Bruchok, Christiana ; Kang, Seokmin ; Lancaster, Matthew ; Levy, Roy ; Li, Na ; McEldoon, Katherine L. ; Stump, Glenda S. ; Wylie, Ruth ; Xu, Dongchen ; Yaghmourian, David L.</creatorcontrib><description>ICAP is a theory of active learning that differentiates students’ engagement based on their behaviors. ICAP postulates that Interactive engagement, demonstrated by co‐generative collaborative behaviors, is superior for learning to Constructive engagement, indicated by generative behaviors. Both kinds of engagement exceed the benefits of Active or Passive engagement, marked by manipulative and attentive behaviors, respectively. This paper discusses a 5‐year project that attempted to translate ICAP into a theory of instruction using five successive measures: (a) teachers’ understanding of ICAP after completing an online module, (b) their success at designing lesson plans using different ICAP modes, (c) fidelity of teachers’ classroom implementation, (d) modes of students’ enacted behaviors, and (e) students’ learning outcomes. Although teachers had minimal success in designing Constructive and Interactive activities, students nevertheless learned significantly more in the context of Constructive than Active activities. We discuss reasons for teachers’ overall difficulty in designing and eliciting Interactive engagement.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0364-0213</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1551-6709</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12626</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29954048</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Active Learning ; Cognitive ability ; Cognitive engagement ; Collaborative learning ; Constructive learning ; Co‐constructive learning ; Learner Engagement ; Learning ; Learning Theories ; Lesson Plans ; Outcomes of Education ; Student Behavior ; Students</subject><ispartof>Cognitive science, 2018-08, Vol.42 (6), p.1777-1832</ispartof><rights>2018 Cognitive Science Society, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018 Cognitive Science Society, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4146-49c3aa60a1c9afc473be3a58e42774faf320f7024d49aa219c594f47a9ebdec03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4146-49c3aa60a1c9afc473be3a58e42774faf320f7024d49aa219c594f47a9ebdec03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fcogs.12626$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fcogs.12626$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,687,776,780,881,1411,1427,27901,27902,45550,45551,46384,46808</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29954048$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED598474$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chi, Michelene T. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adams, Joshua</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bogusch, Emily B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruchok, Christiana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kang, Seokmin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lancaster, Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Levy, Roy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Na</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McEldoon, Katherine L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stump, Glenda S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wylie, Ruth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, Dongchen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yaghmourian, David L.</creatorcontrib><title>Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement Into Practice</title><title>Cognitive science</title><addtitle>Cogn Sci</addtitle><description>ICAP is a theory of active learning that differentiates students’ engagement based on their behaviors. ICAP postulates that Interactive engagement, demonstrated by co‐generative collaborative behaviors, is superior for learning to Constructive engagement, indicated by generative behaviors. Both kinds of engagement exceed the benefits of Active or Passive engagement, marked by manipulative and attentive behaviors, respectively. This paper discusses a 5‐year project that attempted to translate ICAP into a theory of instruction using five successive measures: (a) teachers’ understanding of ICAP after completing an online module, (b) their success at designing lesson plans using different ICAP modes, (c) fidelity of teachers’ classroom implementation, (d) modes of students’ enacted behaviors, and (e) students’ learning outcomes. Although teachers had minimal success in designing Constructive and Interactive activities, students nevertheless learned significantly more in the context of Constructive than Active activities. We discuss reasons for teachers’ overall difficulty in designing and eliciting Interactive engagement.</description><subject>Active Learning</subject><subject>Cognitive ability</subject><subject>Cognitive engagement</subject><subject>Collaborative learning</subject><subject>Constructive learning</subject><subject>Co‐constructive learning</subject><subject>Learner Engagement</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Learning Theories</subject><subject>Lesson Plans</subject><subject>Outcomes of Education</subject><subject>Student Behavior</subject><subject>Students</subject><issn>0364-0213</issn><issn>1551-6709</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>GA5</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM9PwjAUgBujEUQvno1Z4sWYDPtr3XokiGhCAol4Xkp5GyNjxXbT8N9bHHLw4Lv08L58ffkQuia4T_w8apO7PqGCihPUJVFEQhFjeYq6mAkeYkpYB104t8YYC8HkOepQKSOOedJFg7lVlStVXVR5UK8geB0OZsF8BcbuApMFQ5NXRV18QjCqcpXDBqo6eK1qE8ys0nWh4RKdZap0cHV4e-j9eTQfvoST6djLJqHmhIuQS82UElgRLVWmecwWwFSUAKdxzDOVMYqzGFO-5FIpSqSOJM94rCQslqAx66Gb1gu20OnWFhtld-noKZIJj7lf37frrTUfDbg63RROQ1mqCkzjUooFTZhvsUfv_qBr09jKH-8piSMuGRWeemgpbY1zFrLjnwSn--7pvnv6093Dtwdls9jA8oj-hvYAaYGvooTdP6p0OB2_tdJv2yqKWg</recordid><startdate>201808</startdate><enddate>201808</enddate><creator>Chi, Michelene T. H.</creator><creator>Adams, Joshua</creator><creator>Bogusch, Emily B.</creator><creator>Bruchok, Christiana</creator><creator>Kang, Seokmin</creator><creator>Lancaster, Matthew</creator><creator>Levy, Roy</creator><creator>Li, Na</creator><creator>McEldoon, Katherine L.</creator><creator>Stump, Glenda S.</creator><creator>Wylie, Ruth</creator><creator>Xu, Dongchen</creator><creator>Yaghmourian, David L.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>GA5</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201808</creationdate><title>Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement Into Practice</title><author>Chi, Michelene T. H. ; Adams, Joshua ; Bogusch, Emily B. ; Bruchok, Christiana ; Kang, Seokmin ; Lancaster, Matthew ; Levy, Roy ; Li, Na ; McEldoon, Katherine L. ; Stump, Glenda S. ; Wylie, Ruth ; Xu, Dongchen ; Yaghmourian, David L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4146-49c3aa60a1c9afc473be3a58e42774faf320f7024d49aa219c594f47a9ebdec03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Active Learning</topic><topic>Cognitive ability</topic><topic>Cognitive engagement</topic><topic>Collaborative learning</topic><topic>Constructive learning</topic><topic>Co‐constructive learning</topic><topic>Learner Engagement</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Learning Theories</topic><topic>Lesson Plans</topic><topic>Outcomes of Education</topic><topic>Student Behavior</topic><topic>Students</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chi, Michelene T. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adams, Joshua</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bogusch, Emily B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruchok, Christiana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kang, Seokmin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lancaster, Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Levy, Roy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Na</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McEldoon, Katherine L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stump, Glenda S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wylie, Ruth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, Dongchen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yaghmourian, David L.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC - Full Text Only (Discovery)</collection><jtitle>Cognitive science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chi, Michelene T. H.</au><au>Adams, Joshua</au><au>Bogusch, Emily B.</au><au>Bruchok, Christiana</au><au>Kang, Seokmin</au><au>Lancaster, Matthew</au><au>Levy, Roy</au><au>Li, Na</au><au>McEldoon, Katherine L.</au><au>Stump, Glenda S.</au><au>Wylie, Ruth</au><au>Xu, Dongchen</au><au>Yaghmourian, David L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>ED598474</ericid><atitle>Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement Into Practice</atitle><jtitle>Cognitive science</jtitle><addtitle>Cogn Sci</addtitle><date>2018-08</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1777</spage><epage>1832</epage><pages>1777-1832</pages><issn>0364-0213</issn><eissn>1551-6709</eissn><abstract>ICAP is a theory of active learning that differentiates students’ engagement based on their behaviors. ICAP postulates that Interactive engagement, demonstrated by co‐generative collaborative behaviors, is superior for learning to Constructive engagement, indicated by generative behaviors. Both kinds of engagement exceed the benefits of Active or Passive engagement, marked by manipulative and attentive behaviors, respectively. This paper discusses a 5‐year project that attempted to translate ICAP into a theory of instruction using five successive measures: (a) teachers’ understanding of ICAP after completing an online module, (b) their success at designing lesson plans using different ICAP modes, (c) fidelity of teachers’ classroom implementation, (d) modes of students’ enacted behaviors, and (e) students’ learning outcomes. Although teachers had minimal success in designing Constructive and Interactive activities, students nevertheless learned significantly more in the context of Constructive than Active activities. We discuss reasons for teachers’ overall difficulty in designing and eliciting Interactive engagement.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>29954048</pmid><doi>10.1111/cogs.12626</doi><tpages>56</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0364-0213 |
| ispartof | Cognitive science, 2018-08, Vol.42 (6), p.1777-1832 |
| issn | 0364-0213 1551-6709 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_eric_primary_ED598474 |
| source | Wiley-Blackwell Journals; Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Backfiles; ERIC - Full Text Only (Discovery); EBSCOhost Education Source |
| subjects | Active Learning Cognitive ability Cognitive engagement Collaborative learning Constructive learning Co‐constructive learning Learner Engagement Learning Learning Theories Lesson Plans Outcomes of Education Student Behavior Students |
| title | Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement Into Practice |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T10%3A10%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_eric_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Translating%20the%20ICAP%20Theory%20of%20Cognitive%20Engagement%20Into%20Practice&rft.jtitle=Cognitive%20science&rft.au=Chi,%20Michelene%20T.%20H.&rft.date=2018-08&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1777&rft.epage=1832&rft.pages=1777-1832&rft.issn=0364-0213&rft.eissn=1551-6709&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/cogs.12626&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_eric_%3E2062832134%3C/proquest_eric_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2090549326&rft_id=info:pmid/29954048&rft_ericid=ED598474&rfr_iscdi=true |