Classrooms Across Cultures

200
Chapter 5
Learning
other environmental influences, along with personality factors, may dampen or amplify
the effect of watching televised violence. Indeed, not every viewer interprets violence in
the same way, and not every viewer is equally vulnerable (Ferguson, 2002; Wood, Wong,
& Chachere, 1991). The most vulnerable may be young boys, and especially those who
are most aggressive or violence-prone in the first place, a trait that could well have been
acquired by observing the behavior of parents or peers (Huesmann et al., 1997).
Still, the fact that violence on television can have a causal impact on violent behavior is reason for serious concern. This issue continues to influence public debate about
what should, and should not, be aired on television.
Using Research on Learning
to Help People Learn
䉴 What should teachers learn about learning?
The study of how people learn obviously has important implications for improved
teaching in our schools (Bjork & Linn, 2006; Halpern & Hakel, 2003; Lambert, 1999;
Li, 2005; Woolfolk-Hoy, 1999) and for helping people develop skills.
Classrooms Across Cultures
psychology
applying
RECIPROCAL
TEACHING Ann
Brown and her colleagues (1992) demonstrated the success of reciprocal teaching,
in which children take turns teaching
each other. This technique, which is similar to the cooperative arrangements seen
in Japanese education, has become increasingly popular in North American
schools (A. Brown et al., 1992; N. Brown,
2000).
Many people have expressed concern that schools in the United States are not doing a
very good job (Associated Press, 1997; Carnegie Task Force on Learning in the Primary
Grades, 1996; Penner et al., 1994). The average performance of U.S. students on tests
of reading, math, and other basic academic skills has tended to fall short of that of
youngsters in other countries, especially Asian countries (International Association for
the Evaluation of Education Achievement, 1999; National Center for Education
Statistics, 2000, 2002; Program for International Student Assessment, 2004, 2005). In
one comparison study, Harold Stevenson (1992) followed a sample of pupils in Taiwan,
Japan, and the United States from first grade, in 1980, to eleventh grade, in 1991. In
the first grade, the Asian students scored no higher than their U.S. peers on tests of
mathematical aptitude and skills, nor did they enjoy math more. However, by the fifth
grade, the U.S. students had fallen far behind. Corresponding differences were seen in
reading skills.
Some possible causes of these differences were found in the classroom itself. In a
typical U.S. classroom, teachers talked to students as a group; then students worked
at their desks independently. Reinforcement or other feedback about performance on
their work was usually delayed until the next day or, often, not provided at all. In contrast, the typical Japanese classroom placed greater emphasis on cooperative work
among students (Kristof, 1997). Teachers provided more immediate feedback on a
one-to-one basis. And there was an emphasis on creating teams of students with varying abilities, an arrangement in which faster learners help teach slower ones. However,
before concluding that the differences in performance are the result of social factors
alone, we must consider another important distinction: The Japanese children practiced more. They spent more days in school during the year and, on average, spent
more hours doing homework.
Although the significance of these cultural differences in learning and teaching is
not yet clear, the educational community in the United States is paying attention to
them (e.g., Felder & Brent, 2001). Psychologists and educators are also considering how
various principles of learning can be applied to improve education. For example, anecdotal and experimental evidence suggests that some of the most successful educational
techniques are those that apply basic principles of operant conditioning, offering frequent testing, positive reinforcement for correct performance, and immediate corrective feedback following mistakes (Kass, 1999; Oppel, 2000; Roediger, McDaniel, &
McDermott, 2006; Walberg, 1987).