The effects of directive self-explanation prompts to support active processing of multiple representations in a simulation-based learning environment

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Volumn 27, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 411-423

  van der Meij, Jan ^a   de Jong, T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Multiple representations; Scientific inquiry learning; Self explanations; Simulation based learning environments

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052775611     PISSN: 02664909     EISSN: 13652729     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00411.x     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Ainsworth S. (1999) The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education 33, 131-152.
2. Ainsworth S. (2006) DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction 16, 183-198.
3. Ainsworth S.E., Bibby P.A. & Wood D.J. (1997) Information technology and multiple representations: new opportunities - new problems. Journal of Information for Teacher Education 6, 93-104.
4. Bernsen N.O. (1994) Modality theory in support of multimodal interface design. Paper presented at the AAAI Spring Symposium on Intelligent Multi-Media Multi-Modal Systems, Stanford.
5. Berthold K., Eysink T.H.S. & Renkl A. (2009) Assisting self-explanation prompts are more effective than open prompts when learning with multiple representations. Instructional Science 37, 345-363.
6. Bodemer D., Ploetzner R., Feuerlein I. & Spada H. (2004) The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualisations. Learning and Instruction 14, 325-341.
7. Bunt A., Conati C. & Muldner K. (2004) Scaffolding self-explanation to improve learning in exploratory learning environments. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems (eds J.C. Lester, R.M. Vicari & F. Paraguaçu), pp. 109-156. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
8. Chandler P. & Sweller J. (1991) Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction 8, 293-332.
9. Chi M.T.H., Bassok M., Lewis M.W., Reimann P. & Glaser R. (1989) Self-explanations: how students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science 13, 145-182.
10. Chi M.T.H., Deleeuw N., Chiu M.H. & Lavancher C. (1994) Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science 18, 439-477.
11. Conati C. & Vanlehn K. (2000) Toward computer-based support of meta-cognitive skills: a computational framework to coach self-explanation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 11, 389-415.
12. Eysink T.H.S., de Jong T., Berthold K., Kolloffel B.J., Opfermann M. & Wouters P. (2009) Learner performance in multimedia learning arrangements: an analysis across instructional approaches. American Educational Research Journal 46, 1107-1149.
13. Folker S., Sichelschmidt L. & Ritter H. (2005) Processing and integrating multimodal material - the influence of color-coding. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (eds B.G. Bara, L. Barsalou & M. Bucciarelli), pp. 690-695. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
14. Goldman S.R. (2003) Learning in complex domains: when and why do multiple representations help? Learning and Instruction 13, 239-244.
15. de Jong T. (2010) Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instructional Science 38, 105-134.
16. de Jong T. & van Joolingen W.R. (1998) Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research 68, 179-201.
17. de Jong T., Ainsworth S., Dobson M., van der Hulst A., Levonen J., Reimann P., Sime J-A., van Someren M., Spada H. & Swaak J. (1998) Acquiring knowledge in science and mathematics: the use of multiple representations in technology based learning environments. In Learning with Multiple Representations (eds M.W. van Someren, P. Reimann, H.P.A. Boshuizen & T. de Jong), pp. 9-41. Elsevier Science, Oxford.
18. de Jong T., van Joolingen W.R., Veermans K. & van der Meij J. (2005) Authoring discovery learning environments: In search for reusable components. In Innovations in Instructional Technology: Essays in Honor of M. David Merrill (eds J.M. Spector & D.A. Wiley), pp. 11-28. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
19. van Joolingen W.R. & de Jong T. (2003) SimQuest: authoring educational simulations. In Authoring Tools for Advanced Technology Educational Software: Toward Cost-Effective Production of Adaptive, Interactive, and Intelligent Educational Software (eds T. Murray, S. Blessing & S. Ainsworth), pp. 1-31. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
20. Kaput J.J. (1989) Linking representations in the symbol systems of algebra. In Research Issues in the Learning and Teaching of Algebra (eds S. Wagner & C. Kieran), pp. 167-194. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
21. Kozma R. (2003) The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction 13, 205-226.
22. Kozma R.B. & Russell J. (1997) Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34, 949-968.
23. Kozma R.B., Russell J., Jones T., Marx N. & Davis J. (1996) The use of multiple, linked representations to facilitate science understanding. In International Perspectives on the Psychological Foundations of Technology-Based Learning Environments (eds S. Vosniadou, R. Glaser, E. DeCorte & H. Mandel), pp. 41-60. Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.
24. van Labeke N. & Ainsworth S. (2001) Applying the DeFT framework to the design of multi-representational instructional simulations. Paper presented at the AIED'2001 - 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, San Antonio, Texas.
25. Lohse G.L. (1993) A cognitive model for understanding graphical perception. Human-Computer Interaction 8, 353-388.
26. Matthews P. & Rittle-Johnson B. (2009) In pursuit of knowledge: comparing self-explanations, concepts, and procedures as pedagogical tools. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 104, 1-21.
27. van der Meij J. & de Jong T. (2006) Learning with multiple representations: supporting students' learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction 16, 199-212.
28. Mokros J.R. & Tinker R.F. (1987) The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children's ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 24, 369-383.
29. Paas F., Renkl A. & Sweller J. (2003) Cognitive load theory and instructional design: recent developments. Educational Psychologist 38, 1-4.
30. Paas F., Renkl A. & Sweller J. (2004) Cognitive load theory: instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science 32, 1-8.
31. Petre M., Blackwell A.F. & Green T.R.G. (1998) Cognitive questions in software visualization. In Software Visualization: Programming As a Multi-Media Experience (eds J. Stasko, J. Domingue, M. Brown & B. Price), pp. 453-480. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
32. Pirolli P. & Recker M. (1994) Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Ethics & Behavior 12, 235-275.
33. Renkl A. (1997) Learning from worked-out examples: a study on individual differences. Cognitive Science 21, 1-29.
34. Renkl A., Stark R., Gruber H. & Mandl H. (1998) Learning from worked-out examples: the effects of example variability and elicited self-explanations. Contemporary Educational Psychology 23, 90-108.
35. Rittle-Johnson B. (2006) Promoting transfer: effects of self-explanation and direct instruction. Child Development 77, 1-15.
36. Roy M. & Chi M.T.H. (2005) The self-explanation principle in multi-media learning. In Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (ed. R.E. Mayer), pp. 271-287. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
37. Schnotz W. & Lowe R. (2003) External and internal representations in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction 13, 117-123.
38. Schworm S. & Renkl A. (2002) Learning by solved example problems: Instructional explanations reduce self-explanation activity.
39. Seufert T. (2003) Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction 13, 227-237.
40. Seufert T. & Brünken R. (2006) Cognitive load and the format of instructional aids for coherence formation. Applied Cognitive Psychology 20, 321-331.
41. van Someren M., Reimann P., Boshuizen H.H. & de Jong T., eds (1998) Learning with Multiple Representations. Elsevier Science, Oxford.
42. Tabachneck-Schijf H.J.M. & Simon H.A. (1998) One person, multiple representations: an analysis of a simple, realistic multiple representation learning task. In Learning with Multiple Representations (eds M.W. van Someren, P. Reimann, H.P.A. Boshuizen & T. de Jong), pp. 137-151. Elsevier Science, Oxford.
43. Tsui C.Y. & Treagust D.F. (2003) Genetics reasoning with multiple external representations. Research in Science Education 33, 111-135.
44. Van Meter P.N., Firetto C. & Higley K. (2007) The integration of representations: A program of research for academic development. Paper presented at the AERA, Chicago.