Instructional Science

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 431–453 | Cite as

Convergent cognition

  • Peter J. Rich
  • Keith R. Leatham
  • Geoffrey A. Wright
Article

Abstract

In an attempt to address shortcomings revealed in international assessments and lamented in legislation, many schools are reducing or eliminating elective courses, applying the rationale that replacing “non-essential” subjects with core subjects, such as mathematics and language arts, will better position students in the global market. However, there is evidence that systematically pairing a core subject with another, complementary subject, may lead to greater overall learning in both subjects. In this paper, we analyze two subject area pairs—first and second language, and computer programming and mathematics—to demonstrate in what ways two subjects might complement each other. We then analyze the relationships between these pairs to better understand the principles and conditions that encourage what we call convergent cognition, the synergistic effect that occurs when a learner studies two complementary subjects.

Keywords

Cognition Convergence Transfer Learning Mathematics Computer programming L1 L2 SLA second-language acquisition 

References

  1. Agalianos, A., Noss, R., & Whitty, G. (2001). Logo in mainstream schools: The struggle over the soul of an educational innovation. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(4), 479–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Council of Teachers of Foreign Languages. (2009). What does research show about the benefits of language learning? Retrieved December 12, 2009 from http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=4724.
  3. Andrade, C. (1989). Two languages for all children: Expanding to low achievers and the handicapped. In E. Muller (Ed.), Languages in the elementary schools (pp. 177–203). New York: The American Forum.Google Scholar
  4. Austin, H. S. (1987). Predictors of Pascal programming achievement for community college students. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 161–164). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Bae, J. (2007). Development of English skills need not suffer as a result of immersion: Grades 1 and 2 writing assessment in a Korean/English two-way immersion program. Language Learning, 57(2), 299–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barber, G. E. (1985). Latin as a practical study. The Classical Journal, 81(2), 158–160.Google Scholar
  7. Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bassok, M., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Interdomain transfer between isomorphic topics in algebra and physics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(1), 153–166.Google Scholar
  9. Bassok, M., & Holyoak, K. J. (1993). Pragmatic knowledge and conceptual structure: Determinants of transfer between quantitative domains. Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Bastian, T. R. (1980). An investigation into the effects of second language learning on achievement in English. Dissertation Abstracts International. 40(12-A, Pt. 1), 6176–6177.Google Scholar
  11. Bergin, S., & Reilly, R. (2006). Predicting introductory programming performance: A multi-institutional multivariate study. Computer Science Education, 16(4), 303–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bloch, S. (2007). Teach scheme!: A functional-first approach to beginning programming. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 22(3), 161–163.Google Scholar
  13. Byrne, P., & Lyons, G. (2001). The effect of student attributes on success in programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(3), 49–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. California dept. of Education. (2010). Student access to core courses. Retrieved October 1, 2010 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/lp/vl/hsepc2.asp.
  15. Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1981). Inducing flexible thinking: The problem of access. In M. P. Friedman, J. P. Das, & N. O’Connor (Eds.), Intelligence and learning. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  16. Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Learning ability and transfer propensity as sources of individual differences in intelligence. In Learning and Cognition in the Mentally Retarded (pp. 265–293). Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Carraher, D., & Schliemann, A. (2002). The transfer dilemma. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chen, X., Xu, F., Nguyen, T. K., Hong, G., & Wang, Y. (2010). Effects of cross-language transfer on first-language phonological awareness and literacy skills in Chinese children receiving English instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 712–728. doi:10.1037/a0018802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cisero, C. A., & Royer, J. M. (1995). The development and cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(3), 275–303. doi:10.1006/ceps.1995.1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., & Sarama, J. (2001). Logo and geometry [Monograph]. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(2), 127–166.Google Scholar
  21. Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2002). The astounding effectiveness of dual language education for all. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  22. Cook, V. (1992). Evidence of multicompetence. Language Learning, 42, 557–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Corte, E. D., Verschaffel, L., & Schrooten, H. (1992). Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (pp. 207–228). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cummins, J. (1978). The cognitive development of children in immersion programs. Canadian Modern Language Review, 34(5), 855–883.Google Scholar
  25. Cunningham, T. H., & Graham, C. R. (2000). Increasing native English vocabulary recognition through Spanish immersion: Cognate transfer from foreign to first language. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. de Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (1986). Effects of computer experience on children’s thinking skills. Journal of Structural Learning, 9, 161–174.Google Scholar
  27. de Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (1989). Logo, a vehicle for thinking. In B. Greer & G. Mulhern (Eds.), New directions in mathematics education (pp. 63–81). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Deary, I., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandes, C. (2007). Intelligence and educational achievement. Intelligence, 35(1), 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Demie, F., & Strand, S. (2006). English language acquisition and educational attainment at the end of secondary school. Educational Studies, 32(2), 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Doye, P. (1977). Untersuchungen zum englischunterricht in der grundschule: Bericht uber D. Westermann: Braunschweiger forschungsprojekt FEU.Google Scholar
  31. Eddy, P. A. (1981). The effect of foreign language study in high school on verbal ability as measured by the scholastic aptitude test-verbal. Final report. Washington, D.C.: Center for applied linguistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 196 312).Google Scholar
  32. Feurzeig, W., Papert, S., Bloom, M., Grant, R., & Solomon, C. (1970). Programming-languages as a conceptual framework for teaching mathematics. SIGCUE Outlook, 4(2), 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Friel, B. (2003). Don’t know much about history. National Journal, 35(31), 2550–2551.Google Scholar
  34. Gagné, R. M. (1974). Essentials of learning for instruction. Hinsdale: The Dryden Press.Google Scholar
  35. Gale, K., McClay, D., Christie, M., & Harris, S. (1981). Academic achievement in the Milingimbi bilingual education program. TESOL Quarterly, 15(3), 297–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gorman, H., & Bourne, L. E. (1983). Learning to think by learning logo: Rule learning in third-grade computer programmers. Bulletin of Psychonomic Society, 21, 165–167.Google Scholar
  37. Gruber, H. E., & Gruber, V. (1962). The eye of reason: Darwin’s development during the beagle voyage. Isis, 53, 186–200.Google Scholar
  38. Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of learning: Cognition, instruction, and reasoning (illustrated ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  39. Honour-Werth, L. (1986). Predicting student performance in a beginning computer science class. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 138–143). Cincinnati: SIGCSE.Google Scholar
  40. Hostetler, T. R. (1983). Predicting student success in an introductory programming course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 15(3), 40–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., & Christian, D. (2003). Trends in two-way immersion education: A review of the research (report no. 63). Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. Retrieved from April 19, 2007.Google Scholar
  42. Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (1987). Synthesizing mathematical conceptions and their formalization through the construction of a logo-based school mathematics curriculum. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 18(4), 581–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (1992). Learning mathematics and logo. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition (illustrated ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Johnson, D. C. (2000). Algorithmics and programming in the school mathematics curriculum: Support is waning—is there still a case to be made? Education and Information Technologies, 5, 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kesckes, I., & Papp, T. (2000). Foreign language and mother tongue. Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. Knuth, E. J., Alibali, M. W., McNeil, N. M., Weinberg, A., & Stephens, A. C. (2005). Middle school students’ understanding of core algebraic concepts: Equivalence & variable 1. ZDM, 37(1), 68–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1985). Why are some problems hard? Evidence from the tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 248–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Krashen, S. D. (1987). English language teaching series: Principles and practices in second language acquisition. London: Prentice-Hall: International (UK) Ltd.Google Scholar
  50. Leatham, K. R. (2006). Viewing mathematics teachers’ beliefs as sensible systems. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(1), 91–102. doi:10.1007/s10857-006-9006-8.Google Scholar
  51. Leeper, R. R., & Silver, J. L. (1982). Predicting success in a first programming course. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, (pp. 147–150). Dallas: SIGCSE.Google Scholar
  52. Leinhart, G., Zalavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions graphs, and graphing. Tasks, Learning, and Teaching, 60(1), 1–64.Google Scholar
  53. Linn, M. C., & Dalbey, J. (1985). Cognitive consequences of programming instruction, access, and ability. Educational Psychologist, 20, 191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lopato, E. (1963). FLES and academic achievement. The French Review, 36(5), 499–507.Google Scholar
  55. Manis, F. R., Lindsey, K. A., & Bailey, C. E. (2004). Development of reading in grades K-2 in Spanish-speaking English-language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19(4), 214–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Masciantonio, R. (1977). Tangible benefits of the study of Latin: A review of research. Foreign Language Annals, 10(4), 375–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McCoy, L. P. (1988). General variable skill, computer programming and mathematics. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Association for Computing in Education. New Orlean: IACE.Google Scholar
  58. McCoy, L. (1996). Computer-Based mathematics learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, 438–460.Google Scholar
  59. Miller, R., Kelly, G., & Kelly, J. (1988). Effects of logo computer programming experiences on problem solving and spatial relations ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 348–357.Google Scholar
  60. Milner, S. (1973). The effects of computer programming on performance in mathematics. In Proceedings from the annual meeting of the american educational research association. New Orlean, LA.Google Scholar
  61. Moreno, R., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2011). Teaching with concrete and abstract visual representations: Effects on students’ problem solving, problem representations, and learning perceptions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 32. doi:10.1037/a0021995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: Author.Google Scholar
  63. North, K. (2007). Integrated algebra/computer science. Retrieved December 12, 2009 from http://teachertech.rice.edu/Participants/knorth/algebra/index.htm.
  64. Noss, R. (1986). Constructing a conceptual framework for elementary algebra through logo programming. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17(4), 335–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. OECD. (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Exectuve summary. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  66. Offenberg, R. M. (1971). Evaluation of the elementary school (FLES) Latin program 1970–1971. Philadelphia: Philadelphia School District Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 056 612).Google Scholar
  67. Oprea, J. M. (1988). Computer programming and mathematical thinking. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 7(2), 175–190.Google Scholar
  68. Palumbo, D. B. (1990). Programming language/problem-solving research: A review of relevant issues. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 65–89.Google Scholar
  69. Paris, S. G., & McEvoy, A. P. (2000). Harmful and enduring effects of high-stakes testing. Issues in Education, 6(1/2), 145–160.Google Scholar
  70. Pavlenko, A. (2003). ‘I feel clumsy speaking Russian’: L2 influence on L1 in narratives of Russian L2 users of English. In Second language acquisition: Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 32–61). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  71. Paz, T., & Leron, U. (2009). The slippery road from actions on objects to functions and variables. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40, 18–39.Google Scholar
  72. Pea, R. D., & Kurland, D. M. (1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New Ideas in Psychology, 2(2), 137–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Norton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Powell, A. G., Farrar, E., & Cohen, D. K. (1985). The shopping mall high school: Winners and losers in the educational marketplace. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  75. Rosenthal, B. (2004). No subject left behind? Think again. NEA Today, 23(2), 26–27.Google Scholar
  76. Säljö, R. (2003). Epilogue: From transfer to boundary crossing new perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing between school and work (p. 311). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  77. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24, 113–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schwarz, B. B., & Hershkowitz, R. (1999). Prototypes: Brakes or levers in learning the function concept? The role of computer tools. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 362–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sheridan, R. (1976). Augmenting reading skills through language learning transfer. FLES latin program evaluation reports, 1973–74, 1974–75, 1975–76 [microform]/rita Sheridan.Google Scholar
  80. Sinclair, N. (2008). The history of the geometry curriculum in the United States. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  81. Soloway, E., Lochhead, J., & Clement, J. (1982). Does computer programming enhance problem-solving ability? In R. E. Seidel, R. E. Anderson, & B. Hunter (Eds.), Computer literacy (pp. 171–185). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  82. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Stewart, J. H. (2005). Foreign language study in elementary schools: Benefits and implications for achievement in reading and math. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(1), 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Subhi, T. (1999). The impact of LOGO on gifted children’s achievement and creativity. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15(2), 98–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Thompson, P. W. (1994). Students, functions, and the undergraduate curriculum. In E. Dubinsky, A. H. Schoenfeld, & J. J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education (pp. 21–44). Providence: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  86. Thorndike, E. L., & Woodworth, R. S. (1901). The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. Psychological Review, 8, 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Turnbull, M., Lapkin, S., & Hart, D. (2001). Grade 3 immersion students’ performance in literacy and mathematics: Province-wide results from Ontario (1998–1999). Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1), 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Foundations for succes. The final report of the national mathematics advisory panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  89. Usiskin, Z. (1988). Conceptions of school algebra and uses of variables. In The ideas of algebra. Virginia: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc.Google Scholar
  90. Weatherford, H. J. (1986). Personal benefits of foreign language study. Eric digest # 276 305. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.Google Scholar
  91. Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  92. Wilson, B. C., & Shrock, S. (2001). Contributing to success in an introductory computer science course: A study of twelve factors. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(1), 184–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Zheng, R. (2009). Cognitive effects of multimedia learning (illustrated ed.). Hershey: Idea Group Inc (IGI).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter J. Rich
    • 1
  • Keith R. Leatham
    • 2
  • Geoffrey A. Wright
    • 3
  1. 1.Instructional Psychology & TechnologyBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  2. 2.Mathematics EducationBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  3. 3.Technology & Engineering EducationBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations