Advanced Cognition

PSYCH 516

Iowa State University

Spring 2006

Instructor: Anne M. Cleary, Ph.D.

Class Meets: Tuesdays & Thursdays (3:40pm – 5:00pm) in Lagomarcino, Rm. W162

Office Hours: Tuesdays, 9:00AM – 10:30AM; Wednesdays, 1:00 – 2:30PM.

Office Location: Science Hall, Rm. 375A

Office Phone: (515) 294-7453

Email: acleary@iastate.edu

Webpage: http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/acleary/homepage.htm

Course Description:

This is a graduate-level course on cognitive psychology. There will be two major components to this course: A content component and a critical thinking component. The primary focus of the content component will be on major empirical findings and theories in cognitive psychology, including methodology. The primary focus of the critical thinking component will be on refining your critical thinking skills through active engagement in debates on major issues in cognitive psychology.

Course Objectives:

Students completing this course should:

1. become intimately familiar with the various scientific approaches to studying human cognition

2. come to understand current knowledge of human cognition based on important research findings in the different areas of cognitive psychology.

3. develop an understanding of different theoretical approaches taken within the various areas of cognitive psychology

4. improve critical thinking skills through active engagement in debates on major issues or controversies within cognitive psychology.

Text: Sternberg, R. J. (1999). The Nature of Cognition. MIT Press.

Format of the Class:

This class will be largely centered on the themes presented in Sternberg’s book, “The Nature of Cognition.” A central theme in this book is the notion of the dialectical approach toward the study of cognition. The basic idea stems from Georg Hegel’s argument that knowledge progresses by the presentation of a thesis, subsequent antithesis, and final synthesis. The idea is that through the pitting together of opposing viewpoints/arguments, we grow one step closer to the truth: That which is true will be able to stand the test of opposition, challenge, and debate. In general, this is the approach taken by scientists--including cognitive scientists. When one makes a theoretical claim, that claim is then open to challenge by others in the scientific community. It is through such challenge that weaknesses of the claim are revealed. In the face of new evidence, the theory is either modified or discarded.

The general format of the class will be as follows. Each week there will be a content component, in which major empirical findings and theoretical approaches in a particular area are reviewed and discussed. Following the content component, there will be an in class debate session, in which different students are assigned to take different sides on an important issue in cognitive psychology (which will usually relate to the preceding content material). In general, the content coverage will tend to happen on Tuesdays of each week, and the debate sessions on Thursdays (see the schedule below). Each debate session will have two debate leaders, one on each side of the issue. The leader is responsible for researching the issue at hand and collecting evidence/formulating arguments to make the case for the assigned side of the issue. The leader will also be responsible for making a hand-out for the rest of the class that outlines the case being made. Each leader will be partnered with a “discussant.” The discussant’s role is to assist the debate leader in researching the issue and preparing to make the case for a particular side. In addition, the discussant should also be prepared to assist the leader during the in-class session as well.

When you are assigned to debate leader or discussant, you will not get to pick which side to take, but rather, will have to make the case for the side that you are given. One of the best ways to learn something is to explain it to other people. Therefore, if the position you are assigned to lead is a stance that you already agree with, it will force you to articulate and defend your reasons for taking that position, and to explain these reasons to others (helping you to better understand the basis of your position). Better yet, if it is a stance that you disagree with, it will force you to better understand the opposing viewpoint (even if from a “know thine enemy” perspective). Assignment of students to issues will take place during the first week of class.

Grading:

The exam: There will be one exam in this class—a take-home final exam on the content material covered in the class. This exam will be worth 50% of your grade in the course. The remaining assessment of your performance will be based on the quality of your leadership in the debates, your contribution as a discussant, your handouts for the debates that you lead, your general participation during the in-class debates on a week-to-week basis, and your reaction papers to the in-class debates.

The readings: Each week, there will be a reading related to the content material for that week and to the scheduled debate session for that week. Most often, the assigned reading will be a chapter from the Sternberg text. However, occasionally there will be supplemental reading material (articles or other book chapters). The content material covered in class will often expound on the readings, supplement them or even in some cases explain them.

Leading debates: Leading each side of the in-class debates will be a debate leader. The debate leader should prepare a 15-20 minute presentation for the class in which they make the case for a particular side of the issue at hand. Prior to the scheduled debate session, the leader and discussant should each “do their homework” on the issue at hand. This means doing research. In nearly all cases, I will be able to recommend good papers on the issues at hand. One can also look up the references cited in these and other readings to gather more information. As graduate students, you should all be accustomed to the process of researching a particular area using such tools as PsychINFO, other online resources, and the library by now. In addition to preparing for the debate and for the presentation, the debate leader will need to prepare a hand-out for the rest of the class. A really good debate leader can put together a case that the other side cannot “shoot down.” In other words, a good debater can put together a case that has no holes in it. Moreover, a good debate leader can anticipate the arguments of the opposition and address them head-on.

The handouts: The handouts should be prepared by debate leaders and should contain an overview of the case being made by the debate leader. For example, if your debate is “structure vs. process” in semantic priming, and you are assigned to argue for the “structure” side, you would briefly explain each side and present the general arguments of your case (for why one should favor the “structure” side). You might also raise potential objections that you think those on the “process” side of the debate would have, along with your responses to those objections. For example, you might list in your handout “Objection #1:” which could be followed by “Response to Objection #1:” and so on. That is, you can list out anticipated objections to your case and your thought-out responses to those potential objections in your hand-out. The hand-out should be a maximum of 5 pages and distributed to the class on the day of the debate. Your hand-out should contain references, which can go onto a sixth page.

The discussant: The discussant should assist the debate leader in making preparations by coming up with potential arguments for the case, potential counterarguments to be made from the opposing side, and potential references (e.g., “these papers might be useful”. The discussant should email this information to the debate leader (cc’d to the course instructor) on the Friday before the debate session is to take place. This means looking up additional references for empirical findings, existing logical arguments, etc. Keep in mind that the opposing debate leader and discussant will be doing the same! Each side should be prepared to actively debate the issue with the opposing side in a panel discussion format before the class. The class should actively participate in the panel discussion as well.

Participation in debates: You should aim to actively participate in every debate session. While the debaters are engaging in a panel discussion before the class, you should ask questions of the debaters, raise points not mentioned, present counterarguments yourself, etc.

The reaction papers: You will be expected to write a subsequent reaction to each debate session.

In general, the reaction paper should be 1-3 typewritten, single-spaced pages in length. The reaction paper will be due the following class period (after the debate session) and should be your reaction to the debate session and the issues presented. In general, it should address the following points. 1) Was one side more persuasive than the other? If so, which one? Explain. 2) What were the highlights of this debate? 3) Can you think of arguments for one side or the other that were not made? What are they? 4) What stance do you take on the issue? 5) Is this an area in which a synthesis of two viewpoints is in order? Why or why not?

When the debate was one in which you were a leader or a discussant, your reaction paper should be along the following lines: Did your debate go as planned? That is, did you successfully anticipate all of your opponents’ arguments and counterarguments? Were you surprised by anything they came up with? What might you do differently if you had it to do all over again? Did you have an opinion on the issue going into the debate? If so, what was it? Has engaging in the debate influenced that opinion (e.g., reinforced it or changed it)? Reaction papers will be worth 10 points each.

CLASS SCHEDULE & READING LIST

CLASS	TOPIC	READING ASSIGNMENT
Janurary10^th	Introduction. Studying the mind: The history of cognitive psychology The methods of cognitive psychology	Sternberg, Ch. 2: “A Dialectical Basis for Understanding the Study of Cognition.” Miller, G. A. (2003). The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 141-144.
January 17th	Content: Studies on human problem solving, expertise, analogical reasoning, and their involvement in scientific reasoning and the cognitive psychology approach. Also, why do research on the mind? Thursday: Class cancelled—instructor out of town—debate prep time.	The Study of Cognition Holyoak, K. J. & Thagard, P. (1997). The analogical mind. American Psychologist, 52, 35-44. Sternberg, Chapter 12: “Basic versus Applied Research.”
January 24^th	Debate Issue #1: Laboratory vs. Field Research Thursday: Class cancelled—instructor out of town—debate prep time.	Sternberg, Chapter 11: “Laboratory vs. Field Approaches to Cognition.”
January 31^st	Content: Behavioral Methods in Cognitive Psychology vs. Cognitive Neuroscience Methods Debate Issue #2: Brain vs. Behavioral Research	Sternberg, Chapter 9: “ Brain versus Behavioral Studies of Cognition.”
Feb. 7^th	Content: Classic Research on Attention Debate Issue #3: Cause versus Effect in Theories of Attention	Attention Fernandez-Duque, D. & Johnson, M. L. (2002). Cause and effect theories of attention: The role of conceptual metaphors. Review of General Psychology, 6, 153-165.
Feb. 14^th	Content: Knowledge Representation: Single Code vs. Multiple Code Theories Debate Issue #4: Single-code vs. multiple-code	Sternberg Chapter 4: “Single-code versus multiple-code theories in cognition.”
Feb. 21^st	Content: Word Representation Debate Issue #5: Nonword regularity & reading aloud: Dual-route vs. parallel distributed processing approaches.	WORD RECOGNITION: Knowledge Representation McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D.E., & Hinton, G. E. (2004). The appeal of parallel distributed processing. In D. A. Balota & E. J. Marsh (Eds.) Cognitive Psychology: Key Readings Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Visual word recognition. In R.A. Wilson & F. R. Keil’s The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. Grainger, J. & Whitney, C. (2004). “Does the huamn mnid raed wrods as a wlohe? Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
Feb. 28^th	Content: Prototype vs. Exemplar Theories Debate Issue #6: Prototype vs. exemplar models in cognition.	Sterberg Chapter 7: “Prototype versus exemplar models in cognition.”
March 7^th	Content: Semantic Priming Debate Issue #7: Structure vs. Process	Neely (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G.H. Humphreys (Eds.) Basic Processes in Reading: Visual Word Recognition. Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hughes, A. D. & Whittlesea, B.W.A. Long-term semantic transfer: An overlapping-operations account.
March 14^th	SPRING BREAK	SPRING BREAK
March 21^st	Content: Short-term memory. Debate Issue #8: Multi-store vs. Dynamic Models of Short-Term memory.	Sternberg Ch. 15: Multi-Store versus dynamic models of temporary storage in memory.
March 28^th	Content: Implicit vs. Explicit Learning Debate Issue #9: Abstraction vs. Non-abstraction	Issues of Awareness Sternberg Ch. 14: Implicit versus Explicit Learning
April 4^th	Content: Conscious vs. Unconscious Cognition Debate Issue #10: Unconscious cognition versus no unconscious cognition	Sternberg Ch. 6: Conscious versus Unconscious Cognition
April 11^th	Content: Metacognition Debate Issue #11: Metamemory: Direct Access to Memory Representations vs. Construction and Attribution	Sternberg Ch. 18: Cognition vs. Metacognition.
April 18^th	Content: Response Time vs. Accuracy in Memory Debate Issue #12: Accuracy & RT: Two sides of the same coin or not?	Broader issues in Cognitive Psychology Sternberg Ch. 10. Response time versus accuracy in human memory.
April 25^th	Domain Generality & Domain Specificity Debate Issue #13: Domain generality vs. domain specificity	Sternberg Ch. 5: Domain Generality versus Domain Specificity in Cognition.
May 2^nd	FINALS WEEK: Take Home Final due	FINALS WEEK: Take Home Final due