Cognitive tools for scaffolding students defining an ill-structured problem

Journal of Educational Computing Research

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 353-385

  Zydney, Janet ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350335979     PISSN: 07356331     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2190/EC.38.4.a     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Bathke, A., & Brunner, E. (2003). A nonparametric alternative to analysis of covariance. In M. G. Akritas & D. N. Politis (Eds.), Recent advances and trends in nonparametric statistics (pp. 109-120). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
2. Bell, P. (2004). Argument construction and collaborative debate. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 115-143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. Bennett, R. E., & Rock, D. A. (1995). Generalizability, validity, and examinee perceptions of a computer-delivered formulating-hypotheses test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 19-36.
4. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5. Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2001). The use of embedded scaffolds with hypermedia-supported student-centered learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10, 333-356.
6. Chi, M. T. H., & Glaser, R. (1985). Problem-solving ability. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Human abilities: An information-processing approach (pp. 227-250). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
7. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Chin, C., Brown, D. E., & Bruce, B. C. (2002). Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 521-549.
9. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
10. Czarnik, J. C., & Hickey, D. T. (1997, April). Problem generation in the mission to Mars curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois.
11. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 91-142.
12. Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819-837.
13. Dori, Y. J., & Herscovitz, O. (1999). Question-posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: Analysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 411-430.
14. Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., & Harman, H. H. (with Derman, D). (1992). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests 1976 (Office of Naval Research Contract N00014-71-0117). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.
15. Fitzgerald, G. E., Wilson B., & Semrau, L. (1997). An interactive multimedia program to enhance teacher problem-solving skills based on cognitive flexibility theory: Design and outcomes. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 6, 47-76.
16. Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students' problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51, 21-38.
17. Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52, 5-22.
18. Hoover, S. M. (1994). Scientific problem finding in gifted fifth-grade students. Roeper Review, 16, 156-159. RetrievedOctober 10, 2002 fromAcademic Search Elite database.
19. Hoover, S. M., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1990). The scientific hypothesis formulation ability of gifted ninth-grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 838-848.
20. Iiyoshi, T., & Hannafin, M. J. (1998, April). Cognitive tools for open-ended learning environments: Theoretical and implementation perspectives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, California.
21. Jacobson, M. J., & Archodidou, A. (2000). The design of hypermedia tools for learning: Fostering conceptual change and transfer of complex scientific knowledge. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 145-199.
22. Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 301-333.
23. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
24. Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 362-382.
25. Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
26. Keys, C. W. (1998). A study of grade six students generating questions and plans for open-ended science investigations. Research in Science Education, 28, 301-316.
27. King, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children's problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 307-317.
28. Land, S. M., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2003). Scaffolding reflection and articulation of scientific explanations in a data-rich, project-based learning environment: An investigation of progress portfolio. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51, 65-84.
29. Li, T., & Jonassen, D. (1996). The effect of lesson structures on prediction and inference. Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis, Indiana, 18, 423-429.
30. Liu, M., & Bera, S. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 5-21.
31. Liu, M., Bera, S., Corliss, S. B., Svinicki, M. D., & Beth, A. D. (2004). Understanding the connection between cognitive tool use and cognitive processes as used by sixth graders in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31, 309-334.
32. Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
33. Miyake, N., & Norman, D. A. (1979). To ask a question, one must know enough to know what is not known. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 357-364.
34. Oliver, K., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student management of Web-based hypermedia resources during open-ended problem solving. The Journal of Educational Research, 94, 75-92.
35. Olsher, G., & Dreyfus, A. (1999). Biotechnologies as a context for enhancing junior high-school students' ability to ask meaningful questions about abstract biological processes. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 137-153.
36. Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21, 73-98.
37. Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 185-217.
38. Rowell, P. M., Gustafson, B. J., & Guilbert, S. M. (1999). Engineers in elementary classrooms: Perceptions of learning to solve technological problems. Research in Science & Technological Education, 17, 109-118. Retrieved January 25, 2001, from ProQuest database.
39. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372.
40. Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 77-96.
41. Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and illstructured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 6-33.
42. Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains (Tech. Rep. No. 441). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
43. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
44. Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., & Lesgold, A. M. (2002). "Mapping to know": The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86, 264-286.
45. 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.
46. Winn, W., & Snyder, D. (1996). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 112-142). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
47. Wolf, S. E., & Brush, T. (2000, October). Using the big six information skills as a metacognitive scaffold to solve information based problems. Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Papers Presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Denver, Colorado, 471-481.
48. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology, Psychiatry, & Applied Disciplines, 17, 89-100.
49. Zydney, J. M. (2003). [The effect of different types of scaffolding in a multimedia program on students' problem finding]. Unpublished raw data.
50. Zydney, J. M. (2005). Eighth-grade students defining complex problems. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14, 61-90.