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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1777-1832
Number of pages56
JournalCognitive Science
Volume42
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2018

Fingerprint

Students
Learning
Problem-Based Learning
Practice (Psychology)

Keywords

  • Active learning
  • Co-constructive learning
  • Cognitive engagement
  • Collaborative learning
  • Constructive learning

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Cognitive Neuroscience
  • Artificial Intelligence

Cite this

Chi, M., Adams, J., Bogusch, E. B., Bruchok, C., Kang, S., Lancaster, M., ... Yaghmourian, D. L. (2018). Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement Into Practice. Cognitive Science, 42(6), 1777-1832. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12626

Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement Into Practice. / Chi, Michelene; 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.

In: Cognitive Science, Vol. 42, No. 6, 01.08.2018, p. 1777-1832.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chi, M, Adams, J, Bogusch, EB, Bruchok, C, Kang, S, Lancaster, M, Levy, R, Li, N, McEldoon, KL, Stump, GS, Wylie, R, Xu, D & Yaghmourian, DL 2018, 'Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement Into Practice', Cognitive Science, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1777-1832. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12626
Chi M, Adams J, Bogusch EB, Bruchok C, Kang S, Lancaster M et al. Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement Into Practice. Cognitive Science. 2018 Aug 1;42(6):1777-1832. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12626
Chi, Michelene ; 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. / Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement Into Practice. In: Cognitive Science. 2018 ; Vol. 42, No. 6. pp. 1777-1832.
@article{5e091362c53c48168977feccdf67bf74,
title = "Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement Into Practice",
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.",
keywords = "Active learning, Co-constructive learning, Cognitive engagement, Collaborative learning, Constructive learning",
author = "Michelene Chi and Joshua Adams and Bogusch, {Emily B.} and Christiana Bruchok and Seokmin Kang and Matthew Lancaster and Roy Levy and Na Li and McEldoon, {Katherine L.} and Stump, {Glenda S.} and Ruth Wylie and Dongchen Xu and Yaghmourian, {David L.}",
year = "2018",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/cogs.12626",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "1777--1832",
journal = "Cognitive Science",
issn = "0364-0213",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement Into Practice

AU - Chi, Michelene

AU - Adams, Joshua

AU - Bogusch, Emily B.

AU - Bruchok, Christiana

AU - Kang, Seokmin

AU - Lancaster, Matthew

AU - Levy, Roy

AU - Li, Na

AU - McEldoon, Katherine L.

AU - Stump, Glenda S.

AU - Wylie, Ruth

AU - Xu, Dongchen

AU - Yaghmourian, David L.

PY - 2018/8/1

Y1 - 2018/8/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Active learning

KW - Co-constructive learning

KW - Cognitive engagement

KW - Collaborative learning

KW - Constructive learning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85051736513&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85051736513&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/cogs.12626

DO - 10.1111/cogs.12626

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85051736513

VL - 42

SP - 1777

EP - 1832

JO - Cognitive Science

JF - Cognitive Science

SN - 0364-0213

IS - 6

ER -