Design and performance frameworks for constructing problem-solvingsimulations

Cell Biology Education

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 162-179

  Stevens, Ron ^a   Palacio Cayetano, Joycelin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive frameworks; Problem solving; Science education; Strategy; Undergraduate

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; COLLEGE STUDENT; COMPUTER; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LEARNING; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL SCHOOL; MENTAL PERFORMANCE; MULTIMEDIA; PRIMARY SCHOOL; PROBLEM SOLVING; REINFORCEMENT; TEACHING; THEORETICAL STUDY; TIME; VALIDATION PROCESS;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; MULTIMEDIA; PROBLEM SOLVING; PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING; SOFTWARE; SOFTWARE DESIGN;

EID: 3142582990     PISSN: 15367509     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.03-02-0006     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Anderson, J.D. (1980). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications, San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
2. Barrett, G.V., and Depinet, R.L. (1991). A reconsideration of testing for competence rather than for intelligence. Am. Psychol. 46, 1012-1024.
3. Baxter, G.P., and Glaser, R. (1997). An Approach to Analyzing the Cognitive Complexity of Science Performance Assessments, Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing (CRESST), Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California, Los Angeles.
4. Berry, D.C., and Broadbent, D.E. (1988). Interactive tasks and the implicit-explicit distinction. Br. J. Psychol. 79, 251-272.
5. Case, E.L., Cooper, M., Stevens, R., and Vendlinski, T. (2002). Using the IMMEX system to teach and assess problem solving in general chemistry. ACS Annual Meeting Presentation, Orlando, FL. http://www.acs.org/portal/ PersonalScheduler/EventView.jsp?paper_key=200723&session_key=34422.
6. Casillas, A.M., Clyman, S.G., Fan, Y.V., and Stevens, R.H. (1999). Exploring alternative models of complex patient management with artificial neural networks. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 1, 1-19.
7. Chen, E., et al. (2001). How teachers use IMMEX in the classroom. http://www.immex.ucla.edu/TopMenu/WhatsNew/EvaluationForTeachers.PDF.
8. Chung, G.R., de Vries, L.F., Cheak, A.M., Stevens, R.H., and Bewley, W.L. (2002). Cognitive process validation of an online problem solving assessment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 18, 669-684.
9. Delaney, P.F., Reder, L.M., Staszewski, J.J., and Ritter, F.E. (1998). The Strategy-specific nature of improvement: The power law applies by strategy within task. Psychol. Sci. 9, 1-7.
10. Dublin Core Qualifiers (2001). http://purl.org/dc/Gateway to Educational Materials (2001). http://www.geminfo.org/Workbench.
11. Dublin Core Qualifiers (2001). http://purl.org/dc/Gateway to Educational Materials (2001). http://www.geminfo.org/Workbench.
12. Elstein, A.S. (1993). Beyond multiple-choice questions and essays: The need for a new way to assess clinical competence. Acad. Med. 68, 244-249.
13. Haider, H., and Frensch, P. (1996). The role of information reduction in skill acquisition. Cognit. Psychol. 30, 304-337.
14. Hudson, J., Fivush, R., and Kuebli, J. (1992). Scripts and episodes: The development of event memory. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 6, 625-636.
15. IMMEX Problem Set Descriptors (2003). http://www.immex.ucla.edu/ SubjectHeadingDocs/hazmat.htm.
16. IMMEX Project Web Site (2003). http://www.immex.ucla.edu/.
17. International Society for Technology in Education (2003). Center for Applied Research in Educational Technology (CARET). http://caret.iste.org/.
18. Johnson, M.A., and Lawson, A.E. (1999). What are the relative effects of reasoning ability and prior knowledge on biology achievement in expository and inquiry classes. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 35, 89-103.
19. Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental Models, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20. Kanowith-Klein, Burch, C., and Stevens, R. (1998). Sleuthing for science. Natl. Staff Dev. Council J. Staff Dev. 19(3), 48-53.
21. Kolodner, J.L. (1993). Case-Based Reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
22. Kolodner, J.L. (1997). Educational implications of analogy. A view from case-based reasoning. Am. Psychol. 52, 57-66.
23. Krijik, J., and Haney, R. (1987). Proportional reasoning and achievement in high school chemistry. School Sci. Math. 70, 813-820.
24. Lawson, A.E. (1995). Science Teaching and the Development of Thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
25. Lawson, A.E. (2000). Classroom test of scientific reasoning [multiple choice version]. Based on the development and validation of the classroom test of formal reasoning. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 15, 11-24.
26. Lawson, A.E., Clark, B., Cramer-Meldrum, E., Falconer, K.A., Sequist, J.M., and Kwon, Y.-J. (2000). Development of scientific reasoning in college biology: Do two levels of general hypothesis-testing skills exist? J. Res. Sci. Teach. 37, 81-101.
27. Lawton, M. (1998). Making the most of assessments. Education Week on the Web, October. http://www.edweek.org/sreports/tc98/cs/cs9.htm.
28. Mayer, R.E., and Moreno, R. (2000). A learner-centered approach to multimedia explanations: Deriving instructional design principles from cognitive theory. Interactive multimedia. Electronic Journal of Coumputer-Enahnced Learning. http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/2000/2/05/index.asp.
29. Mayer, R.E., Heiser, J., and Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. J. Educ. Psychol. 93, 187-198.
30. Mislevy, R.J., Steinberg, L.S., Breyer, F.J., Almond, R.G., and Johnson, L. (1999a). A cognitive task analysis, with implications for designing a simulation-based assessment system. Comput. Hum. Behav. 15, 335-374.
31. Mislevy, R.J., Almond, R.G., Yan, D., and Steinberg, L.S. (1999b). Bayes nets in educational assessment: Where do the numbers come from? In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, eds. K.B. Laskey and H. Prade, San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
32. Novak, J., and Gowin, D. (1984). Learning How to Learn, New York: Cambridge University Press.
33. Olson, A., and Loucks-Horsley, S., eds. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34. Paek, P. (2002). Problem solving strategies and metacognitive skills on SAT mathematics items. Unpublished thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
35. Palacio-Cayetano, J. (1998). Unpublished thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
36. Palacio-Cayetano, J., Kanowith-Klein, S., and Stevens, R. (1999). UCLA's outreach program of science education in the Los Angeles schools. Acad. Med. 7(4), 348-351.
37. Palacio-Cayetano, J., Schmier, S., and Dexter, S. (2002). Experience counts: Comparing preservice and inservice students technology integration decisions. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference (SITE 2002). Nashville, TN, March 18-23.
38. Pelligrino, J., Chudowski, N., and Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
39. Reder, L., and Schuun, C. (1996). Metacognition does not imply awareness: Strategy choice is governed by implicit memory and learning. In: Implicit Memory and Cognition, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, NJ.
40. Schuun, C.D., and Anderson, J.R. (2002). The generality/specificity of expertise in scientific reasoning. Cognit. Sci. 23(3), 337-370.
41. Schuun, C.D., Lovett, M.C., and Reder, L.M. (2001). Awareness and working memory in strategy adaptivity. Memory Cognit. 29(2), 254-266.
42. Sedighian, K. (1997). Challenge-driven learning: A model for children's multimedia mathematics learning environments. ED-MEDIA 97: World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, Calgary, Canada. http://taz.cs.ubc.ca/ egems/reports/kamran5.doc.
43. Seely-Brown, J., Collins, A., and Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ. Res. 18, 32-42.
44. Shayer, M., and Adey, P. (1993). Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle and high school students. IV: Three years after a two-year intervention. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 30, 351-366.
45. Staver, J., and Halsted, D., (1985). The effects of reasoning, use of models, sex type, and their interactions on posttest achievement in chemical bonding after constant instruction. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 22, 437-447.
46. Stevens, R.H. (1991). Search path mapping: A versatile approach for visualizing problem-solving behavior. Acad. Med. 66(9), S72-S75.
47. Stevens, R.H., and Najafi, K. (1993). Artificial neural networks as adjuncts for assessing medical students' problem-solving performances on computer-based simulations. Comput. Biomed. Res. 26(2), 172-187.
48. Stevens, R.H., Kwak, A.R., and McCoy, J.M. (1992). Solving the problem of how medical students solve problems. M.D. Comput. 8(1), 1320.
49. Stevens, R., Wang, P., and Lopo, A. (1996). Artificial neural networks can distinguish novice and expert strategies during complex problem-solving. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 3(2), 131-138.
50. Stevens, R.H., Ikeda, J., Casillas, A., Palacio-Cayetano, J., and Clyman, S. (1999). Artificial neural network-based performance assessments. Comput. Hum. Behav. 15, 295-314.
51. Stevens, R.H., Sprang, M., Simpson, E., Vendlinski, T., Palacio-Cayetano, J., and Paek, P. (2001). Tracing the development, transfer and retention of problem-solving skills. American Educational Research Association Symposium, Seattle, WA, presentation 44.38.
52. Swiller, J., and Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognit. Instruct. 12, 185-233.
53. Underdahl, J., Palacio-Cayetano, J., and Stevens, R. (2001). Practice makes perfect: Assessing and enhancing knowledge and problem-solving skills with IMMEX software. Learn. Lead. Technol. 28, 26-31.
54. VanLehn, K. (1996). Cognitive skill acquisition. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 47, 513-539.
55. Vendlinski, T., and Stevens, R. (2000). The use of artificial neural nets (ANN) to help evaluate student problem solving strategies. In: International Conference of the Learning Sciences, University of Michigan, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
56. Vendlinski, T., and Stevens, R. (2002). A Markov model analysis of problem-solving progress and transfer. J. Technol. Learn. Assess. 1(3), 1-20.
57. Von Secker, C.E., and Lissitz, R.W. (1999). Estimating the impact of instructional practices on student achievement in science. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 36, 1110-1126.