Instructions:
This is for a graduate school student in school psychology for psychology of cognition and affect class. You are to write a response to the following articles. (see below and look up the full articles on google- ONLY USE THOSE ARTICLES LISTED BELOW)
You have two tasks:
1. Write response to the articles and frame it as you are a school psychologist and write about the information in discussing and ask a discussion question about how educators can support this depending on topic relate it to teachers, students, and educators. Write 4 paragraphs. 2 paragraphs per article.
2. write a short 1 paragraph reply to a students discussion post (see discussion post below) and comment on it with your thoughts and answer the question they have. Write what you appreciated or were intrigued about what they wrote. DO NOT USE TO WRITE YOUR DISCUSSION POST PLEASE. PLEASE ONLY USE TO REPLY TO THIS STUDENTS DISCUSSION
Must cite in APA. NO PLAGIARISM. !!
Articles:
1. Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? Ataxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 612-637.doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612
2. Sala, G. & Gobet, F. (2017). Does far transfer exist? Negative evidence from chess, music, and working memory training. Current Directions in PsychologicalScience, 26, 515-520
write response to this students discussion post:
“The articles this week debated the construct of far transfer. In both readings, transfer studies were examined with studies examining transfer showing mixed results. It seems that some domains and tasks are more conducive to the transfer process than others. Additionally, Barnett and Ceci (2002) discuss how defining near and far transfer is particularly challenging. The concepts of near and far transfer are often based on the idea of similarity, however, Barnett and Ceci (2002) argue that “using the number of elements two domains have in common as a precise measure of similarity… requires that all the elements of the two domains have been mapped and manipulated, which is generally not practical in the complex, real-world domains”. I believe that thinking about transfer in near and far terms is a bit confusing and limiting. Barnett and Ceci (2002) break down transfer into the two overall factors of content and context. Content examines what is being transferred and context looks at when and where it is transferred from and to. In thinking about transfer in this way, we can begin to expand the near and far transfer distinctions.
Based on this, my question for the class is does it make more sense to view transfer on a spectrum, rather than just near and far? Would thinking about transfer in this way increase the fidelity of transfer as a whole? “
Requirements:
