Successfully carrying out complex learning-tasks through guiding teams' qualitative and quantitative reasoning

Instructional Science

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 623-643

  Slof, B ^a   Erkens, G ^b   Kirschner, P A ^c   Janssen, J ^b   Jaspers, J G M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c OPEN UNIVERSITY OF THE NETHERLANDS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Complex learning tasks; Computer supported collaborative learning; Learner interaction; Qualitative and quantitative representations; Representational scripting

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859998105     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-011-9185-2     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-198.
2. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
3. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271-315.
4. Cicchetti, D. V., Lee, C., Fontana, A. F., & Dowds, B. N. (1978). A computer program for assessing specific category rater agreement for qualitative data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 805-813.
5. Corbalan, G., Kester, L., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2009). Selecting learning tasks: Effects of adaptation and shared control on learning efficiency and task involvement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 733-756.
6. Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9, 343-363.
7. Cress, U. (2008). The need for considering multilevel analysis in CSCL research: An appeal for the use of more advanced statistical methods. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 69-84.
8. De Simone, C., Schmid, R. F., & McEwan, L. A. (2001). Supporting the learning process with collaborative concept mapping using computer-based communication tools and processes. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7, 263-283.
9. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61-91). Heerlen, The Netherlands: Open Universiteit Nederland.
10. Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2007). Supporting learning: Increasing complexity? Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1162-1166.
11. Erkens, G. (2005). Multiple episode protocol analysis (MEPA). Version 4. 10. The Netherlands: Utrecht University.
12. Fischer, F., Bruhn, J., Gräsel, C., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering collaborative knowledge construction with visualization tools. Learning and Instruction, 12, 213-232.
13. Frederiksen, J. R., & White, B. Y. (2002). Conceptualizing and constructing linked models: Creating coherence in complex knowledge systems. In P. Brna, M. Baker, K. Stenning, & A. Tiberghein (Eds.), In the role of communication in learning to model (pp. 69-96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Hilbert, T. S., & Renkl, A. (2008). Concept mapping as a follow-up strategy to learning form texts: What characterizes good and poor mappers? Instructional Science, 36, 53-73.
15. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chernobilsky, E., & Jordan, R. (2008). Understanding collaborative learning processes in new learning environments. Instructional Science, 36, 409-430.
16. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99-107.
17. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2010a). Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 38, 59-88.
18. Janssen, J., Kirschner, F., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Paas, F. (2010b). Making the black box of collaborative learning transparent: Combining process-oriented and cognitive load approaches. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 139-154.
19. Jaspers, J. G. M., Broeken, M., & Erkens, G. (2005). Virtual collaborative research institute (VCRI). Version 2. 2. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Utrecht University.
20. Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 362-381.
21. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York/London: The Guilford Press.
22. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 4(2), 75-86.
23. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 708-721.
24. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-100.
25. Löhner, S., van Joolingen, W. R., & Savelsbergh, E. R. (2003). The effect of external representations on constructing computer models of complex phenomena. Instructional Science, 31, 395-418.
26. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
27. Mercer, N., Littleton, K., & Wegerif, R. (2004). Methods for studying the processes of interaction and collaborative activity in computer-based educational activities. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13, 195-212.
28. Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Monitoring, planning, and self-efficacy during learning with hypermedia: The impact of conceptual scaffolds. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1686-1706.
29. Mulder, Y. G., Lazonder, A. W., & De Jong, T. (2011). Comparing two types of model progression in an inquiry learning environment with modelling facilities. Learning and Instruction, 21, 614-624.
30. 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, 177-214.
31. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 273-304.
32. Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 185-213.
33. Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2008). External and internal representations in the acquisition and use of knowledge: visualization effects on mental model construction. Instructional Science, 36, 175-190.
34. Simon, H. L., Langley, P. W., & Bradshaw, G. (1981). Scientific discovery as problem solving. Syntheses, 47, 1-27.
35. Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., Janssen, J., & Phielix, C. (2010a). Fostering complex learning-task performance through scripting student use of computer supported representational tools. Computers & Education, 55, 1707-1720.
36. Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., Jaspers, J. G. M., & Janssen, J. (2010b). Guiding students' online complex learning-task behavior through representational scripting. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 927-939.
37. Strijbos, J.-W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers & Education, 46, 29-48.
38. Stull, A. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 808-820.
39. van Bruggen, J. M., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Kirschner, P. A. (2003). A cognitive framework for cooperative problem solving with argument visualization. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham-Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 25-47). London: Springer.
40. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning. A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
41. Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational Psychology Review, 14, 261-312.