THE ROLE OF INSTRUCTORS IN DEVELOPING STUDENTS' COGNITIVE PROCESSES
Keywords:
cognitive processes, instructor's role, higher education, cognitive development, active learning, metacognition, critical thinking, digital competencies.Abstract
This article explores the pivotal role of instructors in the purposeful development of cognitive processes among higher education students within contemporary educational paradigms. In an environment where the emphasis shifts from passive
knowledge transfer to actively fostering metacognitive skills, critical thinking, and digital literacy, the educator's role becomes central to stimulating cognitive functions such as perception, attention, memory, thinking, imagination, and speech. The article
examines current theoretical foundations and innovative practical mechanisms through which instructors can effectively influence these processes, including the application of active and interactive methodologies, proble-based and project-based learning
technologies, and the creation of a cognitively stimulating digital and physical learning environment. Advanced strategies for instructor influence on students' cognitive development are discussed, emphasizing their significance for academic success, the
formation of professional competencies, and adaptation to the challenges of the 21st century.
References
1.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M.
K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching.
Jossey-Bass.
2.
Baker, R. S., & Siemens, G. (2014). Educational Data Mining and Learning
Analytics. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
(2nd ed., pp. 253-274). Cambridge University Press.3.
Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful
learning: A review of research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning. Powerful
learning: What we know about teaching for understanding, 2, 11-70.
4.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative
assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (formerly:
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education), 21(1), 5-31.
5.
Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (2005). Discussion as a way of teaching:
Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms. Jossey-Bass.
6.
Hattie, J., & Yates, G. C. (2014). Visible learning and the science of how we
learn. Routledge.
7.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do
students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
8.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2018). Why minimal guidance
during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery,
problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist,
41(2), 75-86.
9.
OECD. (2018). The Future of Education and Skills 2030. OECD Publishing.
10.
Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A
systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education:
Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147,
103778.
