Problem solving: The enterprise

Innovations in Instructional Technology: Essays in Honor of M. David Merrill

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 91-110

  Jonassen, David H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 45849131549     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410613684     Document Type: Chapter

References (55)

1. Adelson, B. (1984). When novices surpass experts: The difficulty of a task may increase with expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10(3), 483-496.
2. Ausubel, D. P. (1963). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
3. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
4. Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347-362.
5. Courseware, Inc. (1978). Author training course. Pensacola, FL: Naval Education & Training Command.
6. Ellis, J. A.,&Wulfeck,W. H. (1978). Instructional quality inventory; Job performance aid. San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center (ED 169287).
7. Fisher, K. M. (1991). SemNet: A tool for personal knowledge construction. In D. H. Jonassen & P. Kommers (Eds.), Mindtools (pp. 63-77). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
8. Gagné, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
9. Gagné, R. M., & Merrill, M. D. (1990). Integrative goals for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 23-30.
10. Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Rich environments for active learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 665-692). New York: Macmillan.
11. Gruber, T. (1994). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human-Computer Systems, 43(5/6), 199-220.
12. Hannafin, M. J., Hall, C., Land, S., & Hill, J. (1994). Learning in open-ended environments: Assumptions, methods, and implications. Educational Technology, 34(5), 48-55.
13. Hernandez-Serrano, J., & Jonassen, D. H. (2003). The effects of case libraries on problem solving. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 19, 103-114.
14. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design model for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65-95.
15. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: Their current state of the art (2nd ed., pp. 215-240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research in Technology in Education, 35 (3), 362-381.
17. Jonassen, D. H. (2004). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18. Jonassen, D. H. (in press). Knowledge is complex: Accommodating human ways of knowing. Knowledge Organization.
19. Jonassen, D. H. (2003b). Designing instruction for story problems. Educational Psychology Review, 15(3), 267-296.
20. Jonassen, D. H., & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-based reasoning and instructional design: Using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 65-77.
21. Jonassen, D. H., Hernandez-Serrano, J., & Choi, I. (2000). Integrating constructivism and learning technologies. In J. M. Spector&T. M. Anderson (Eds.), Integrated and holistic perspectives on learning, instruction, and technology (pp. 103-128). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic.
22. Jonassen, D. H.,Wang, F. K., Strobel, J., & Cernusca, D. (2003). Application of a case library of technology integration stories for teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(4), 547-566.
23. Jones, M. K., Li, Z., & Merrill, M. D. (1990). Domain knowledge representation for instructional analysis. Educational Technology, 30(9), 7-31.
24. Land, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (1996). A conceptual framework for the development of theories-in-action with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(3), 37-53.
25. Mayer, R. E. (1982). Memory for algebra story problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 199-216.
26. Merrill, M. D. (1973). Content and instructional analysis for cognitive transfer task. AV Communication Review, 21, 109-126.
27. Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component display theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), lnstructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 279-333). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. Merrill, M. D. (1987). The new component design theory: Instructional design for courseware authoring. Instructional Science, 16, 19-34.
29. Merrill, M. D. (2000, October). First principles of instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications andTechnology, Denver, CO.
30. Merrill, M. D., Jones, M. K., & Li, Z. (1992). Instructional transaction theory: Classes of transactions. Educational Technology, 32(9), 12-26.
31. Merrill, M. D., Li, Z.,&Jones, M. K. (1990). Second generation instructional design (ID2). Educational Technology, 30(2), 7-14.
32. Merrill, M. D., Li, Z.,&Jones, M. K. (1991). Instructional transaction theory: An introduction. Educational Technology, 31(6), 7-12.
33. Merrill, M. D., Li, Z.,&Jones, M. K. (1992). Instructional transaction shells: Responsibilities, methods, and parameters. Educational Technology, 32(2), 5-26.
34. Merrill, M. D., Reigeluth, C. M., & Faust, G.W. (1979). The instructional quality profile: Curriculum evaluation and design. In H. F. O'Neal (Ed.), Procedures for instructional systems development (pp. 165-204). New York: Academic Press.
35. Merrill, M. D., Richards, R. E., Schmidt, R.,&Wood, N. D. (1977). The instructional strategy diagnostic profile training manual. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, David O. McKay Institute.
36. Montague, W. E. (1983). Instructional quality inventory. Performance and Instruction, 22(5), 11-14.
37. Montague, W. E., & Wulfeck, W. H. (1982). Improving the quality of Navy training: The role of R&D in support of instructional systems design, final report. San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED243472)
38. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
39. Ploetzner, R., Fehse, E., Kneser, C., & Spada, H. (1999). Learning to relate qualitative and quantitative problem representations in a model-based setting for collaborative problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(2), 177-214.
40. Ploetzner, R., & Spada, H. (1998). Constructing quantitative problem representations on the basis of qualitative reasoning. Interactive Learning Environments, 5, 95-107.
41. Reif, F. (1987). Instructional design, cognition, and technology: Application to the teaching of science concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 309-324.
42. Reigeluth, C. M. (1979). In search of a better way of organizing instruction: The elaboration theory. Journal of Instructional Development, 2(1), 8-15.
43. Reigeluth, C. M. (1983a). Meaningfulness and instruction: Relating what is being learned to what a student knows. Instructional Science, 12, 197-218.
44. Reigeluth, C. M. (1983b). Instructional design: What it is and why it is. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), lnstructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 3-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45. Reigeluth, C. M. (1987). Lesson blueprints based on the elaboration theory of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories in action: Lessons, illustrations, theories and models (pp. 245-288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46. Reigeluth, C. M., Merrill, M. D.,&Bundeson, C.V. (1978). The structure of subject matter content and its implications for instructional design. Instructional Science, 7, 107-126.
47. Reigeluth, C. M., & Stein, F. S. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 335-382). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
48. Scandura, J. M. (1973). Structural learning: Theory and research. New York: Gordon & Breach.
49. Schank, R. C., Fano, A., Bell, B., & Jona, M. (1993/1994). The design of goal-based scenarios. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(4), 305-345.
50. Sinatra, G. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.), (2003). Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
51. Smith, M. U. (1991). Toward a unified theory of problem solving. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52. Sweller, J.,&Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use ofworked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59-89.
53. van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four component instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: EducationalTechnology.
54. Voss, J. F., & Post, T. A. (1988). On the solving of ill-structured problems. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 261-285). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
55. Wielenga, B. J., & Schreiber, A. T. (1993). Usable and sharable knowledge bases: A European perspective. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Building and Sharing of Very Large-Scaled Knowledge Bases (pp. 000-000). Tokyo: Japan Information Processing Development Center.