Hypothesis instruction and goal specificity: Conditions that influence the learning and control of a complex system;Hypotheseninstruktion und zielspezifität: Bedingungen, die das erlernen und kontrollieren eines komplexen systems beeinflussen

International Journal of Fracture

Volumn 108, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 657-683

  Vollmeyer, Regina ^a   Burns, Bruce D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Dual space model; Hypothesis testing; Problem solving

Indexed keywords

EID: 6244267785     PISSN: 03769429     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Baker, L. M. & Dunbar, K. (1996) Problem spaces in real-world science: What are they and how do scientists search them? In G. W. Cottrell (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 21-22). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Bandura, A. & Wood, R. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 805-814.
3. Berry, D. & Broadbent, D. E. (1987). The combination of implicit and explicit knowledge in task control. Psychological Research, 49, 7-15.
4. Burns, B. D. & Vollmeyer, R. (1996). Goals and problem solving: Learning as search of three spaces. In G. W. Cottrell (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 23-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Cervone, D., Jiwani, N. & Wood, R. (1991). Goal setting and the differential influence of selfregulatory processes on complex decision-making performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 257-266.
6. Dunbar, K. & Klahr, D. (1989). Developmental differences in scientific discovery processes. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing (pp. 109-143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Erdfelder, E., Faul, F. & Buchner, A. (in Druck). GPOWER - A universal tool for statistical power analyses. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers.
8. Funke, J. (1991). Solving complex problems: Exploration and control of complex systems. In R. J. Sternberg & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms (pp. 185-222). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Funke, J. (1992). Wissen über dynamische Systeme: Erwerb, Repräsentation und Anwendung. Heidelberg: Springer.
10. Greeno, J. G. (1978). Natures of problem solving abilities. In W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook, of learning and cognitive processes (Vol. 5, 239-270). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Gruber, H., Renkl, A., Mandl, H. & Reiter, W. (1993). Exploration strategies in an economic simulation game. In D. M. Towne, T. Dejong & H. Spada (Eds.), Simulation-based experiential learning (pp. 225-233). Heidelberg: Springer.
12. Jordan, M. I. & Rumelhart, D. E. (1992). Forward models: Supervised learning with a distal teacher. Cognitive Science, 16, 307-354.
13. Klahr, D. &. Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-55.
14. Klahr, D., Fay, A. E. & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 111-146.
15. Klayman, J. & Ha, Y.-W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211-228.
16. Plötzner, R., Spada, H., Stumpf, M. & Opwis, K. (1990). Learning qualitative and quantitative reasoning in a microworld for elastic impacts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 4, 501-516.
17. Putz-Osterloh, W. (1993). Unterschiede im Erwerb und in der Reichweite des Wissens bei der Steuerung eines dynamischen Systems. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 40, 386-410.
18. Recker, M. M. Govindaraj, T. & Vasandam, V. (1994). Troubleshooting in a complex, dynamical domain. In A. Ram & K. Eiselt (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 739-744). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Reichert, U. & Dörner, D. (1988). Heurismen beim Umgang mit einem "einfachen" dynamischen System. Sprache & Kognition, 7, 12-24.
20. Schunn, C. D. & Klahr, D. (1996). The problem of problem spaces: When and how to go beyond a 2-space model of scientific discovery. In G. W. Cottrell (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 25-26). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Simon, H. A. & Lea, G. (1974). Problem solving and rule induction: A unified view. In L. W. Gregg (Ed.), Knowledge and cognition (pp. 105-127). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Spada, H., Reimann, P. & Häusler, B. (1983). Hypothesenerarbeitung und Wissensaufbau beim Schüler. In L. Kötter & H. Mandl (Hsg.), Kognitive Prozesse und Unterricht. Jahrbuch für Empirische Erziehungswissenschaft 1983 (S. 139-167). Düsseldorf: Schwann.
23. Sweller, J. (1983). Control mechanisms inproblem solving. Memory & Cognition, 11, 32-40.
24. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects of learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
25. Vollmeyer, R., Burns, B. D. & Holyoak, K. J. (1996). The impact of goal specificity on strategy use and the acquisition of problem structure. Cognitive Science, 20, 75-100.
26. Woodworth, R. S. & Schlosberg, H. (1954). Experimental psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.