Thresholds of knowledge development in complex problem solving: A multiple-case study of advanced learners' cognitive processes

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 61, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 465-503

  Bogard, Treavor ^a   Liu, Min ^b   Chiang, Yueh hui Vanessa ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^c Dharma Drum Buddhist College   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Cognitive processes; Cognitive tools; Complex problem solving; Developing expertise; Mental models; Problem representation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878106524     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: 15566501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-013-9295-4     Document Type: Article

References (94)

1. Alibali, M. W., Phillips, K. M. O., & Fischer, A. D. (2009). Learning new problem-solving strategies leads to changes in problem representation. Cognitive Development, 24(2), 89-101. doi: 10. 1016/j. cogdev. 2008. 12. 005.
2. Anderson, J. R. (2009). Expertise. In Cognitive psychology and its implications (7th ed., pp. 242-271). New York: W. H. Freeman.
3. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
4. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. (2005, November). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition: Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5), 367-379. doi: 10. 1007/s11251-005-1272-9.
5. Bannert, M., & Reimann, P. (2011). Supporting self-regulated hypermedia learning through prompts. Instructional Science, 40(1), 193-211.
6. Belland, B. (2010). Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: The impact of computer-based scaffolds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 285-309. doi: 10. 1007/s11423-009-9139-4.
7. Belland, B., Glazewski, K., & Richardson, J. (2011). Problem-based learning and argumentation: Testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students' creation of evidence-based arguments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 667-694. doi: 10. 1007/s11251-010-9148-z.
8. Bixler, B. A., & Land, S. M. (2010). Supporting college students' ill-structured problem solving in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 39(1), 3-15. doi: 10. 2190/ET. 39. 1. b.
9. Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. B., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals: Handbook I-Cognitive Domain. New York: McKay.
10. Borkowski, J. G., Johnston, M. B., & Reid, M. K. (1987). Metacognition, motivation, and controlled performance. In S. J. Ceci (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social, and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 2, pp. 147-174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How experts differ from novices. In J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (pp. 31-50). Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
12. Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1984). The IDEAL problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning, and creativity. New York: W. H. Freeman.
13. Calderhead, J. (1981). Stimulated recall: A method for research on reaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(2), 211-217. doi: 10. 1111/j. 2044-8279. 1981. tb02474. x.
14. Charness, N. (1976). Memory of chess positions: Resistance to interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2(6), 641-653. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 2. 6. 641.
15. Chase, W. G., & Ericsson, K. A. (1982). Skill and working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 16, pp. 1-58). New York: Academic Press.
16. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). The mind's eye in chess. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 215-281). New York: Academic Press.
17. Chi, M. T. H., & Bassock, M. (1991). Learning from examples vs. self-explanations. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 251-282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovitch, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152. doi: 10. 1207/s15516709cog0502_2.
19. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 7-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20. Cho, K., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002, September). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5-22. doi: 10. 1007/BF02505022.
21. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. M. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Los Angeles: Sage.
22. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: Sage.
23. de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1991). Knowledge of problem situations in physics: A comparison of good and poor novice problem solvers. Learning and Instruction, 1(4), 289-302. doi: 10. 1016/0959-4752(91)90010-6.
24. Derry, S. J. (1996). Cognitive schema theory in the constructivist debate. Educational Psychologist, 31(3), 163-174.
25. Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. Oxford: B. Blackwell.
26. Dunkle, M. E., Schraw, G., & Bendixen, L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem solving. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
27. Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13(4), 277-287.
28. Ericsson, K. A., Prietula, M. J., & Cokely, E. T. (2007). The making of an expert. Harvard Business Review, 85(7/8), 114.
29. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30. Ericsson, K. A., & Staszewsli, J. J. (1989). Skilled memory and expertise: Mechanisms of exceptional performance. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 235-267). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31. Flavell, J. H. (1971). Stage-related properties of cognitive development. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 421-453. doi: 10. 1016/0010-0285(71)90025-9.
32. Foshay, R., & Kirkley, J. (1998). Principles for teaching problem solving. Edina, MN: TRO Learning.
33. Funke, J., & Frensch, P. A. (1995). Complex problem solving research in North America and Europe: An integrative review. Foreign Psychology, 5, 42-47.
34. Gillespie, M. (2002). EFF research principle: An approach to teaching and learning that builds expertise. In Equipped for the future (Vol. 2, pp. 1-8). Washington, D. C.: National Institute for Literacy.
35. Glaser, R. (1989). Expertise and learning: How do we think about instructional processes now that we have discovered knowledge structures? In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 269-282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36. Henning, P. H. (2004). Everyday cognition and situated learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 143-168). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37. Iiyoshi, T., Hannifin, M. J., & Wang, F. (2005). Cognitive tools and student-centered learning: Rethinking tools, functions, and applications. Educational Media International, 42, 281-296. doi: 10. 1080/09523980500161346.
38. Ionescu, T. (2012). Exploring the nature of cognitive flexibility. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(2), 190-200. doi: 10. 1016/j. newideapsych. 2011. 11. 001.
39. Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
40. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85. doi: 10. 1007/BF02300500.
41. Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 362-381.
42. Jonassen, D. H. (2005). Tools for representing problems and the knowledge required to solve them. In S. Tergan & T. Keller (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3426, pp. 93-95). Berlin: Springer.
43. Jonassen, D. H. (2006). Modeling with technology: Mindtools for conceptual change. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
44. 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: Macmillan.
45. Jonassen, D. H., & Strobel, J. (2006). Modeling for meaningful learning. In D. Hung & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Engaged learning with emerging technologies (pp. 1-27). Dordrecht, South Holland: Springer.
46. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379-424. doi: 10. 1080/07370000802212669.
47. Kapur, M., & Rummel, N. (2012). Productive failure in learning from generation and invention activities. Instructional Science, 40(4), 645-650. doi: 10. 1007/s11251-012-9235-4.
48. Kim, M. K. (2012). Theoretically grounded guidelines for assessing learning progress: Cognitive changes in ill-structured complex problem-solving contexts. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 601-622. doi: 10. 1007/s11423-012-9247-4.
49. Kim, B., & Reeves, T. (2007). Reframing research on learning with technology: In search of the meaning of cognitive tools. Instructional Science, 35(3), 207-256. doi: 10. 1007/s11251-006-9005-2.
50. Kleinmuntz, D. N., & Schkade, D. A. (1993). Information displays and decision processes. Psychological Science, 4(4), 221-227. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-9280. 1993. tb00265. x.
51. Kluwe, R. H. (1995). Single case studies and models of complex problem solving. In P. A. Frensch & J. Funke (Eds.), Complex problem solving: The European perspective (pp. 269-291). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52. Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205-226. doi: 10. 1016/S0959-4752(02)00021-X.
53. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. doi: 10. 1207/s15430421tip4104_2.
54. Lajoie, S. P. (1993). Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 261-288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
55. Lajoie, S. P. (2000). Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
56. Lajoie, S. P. (2008). Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: A rose by any other name? Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 469-475. doi: 10. 1007/s10648-0089088-1.
57. Larkin, J. H. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 75-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
58. Lee, H., Lim, K., & Grabowski, B. (2010). Improving self-regulation, learning strategy use, and achievement with metacognitive feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 629-648.
59. Liu, M., & Bera, S. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in a hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 5-21.
60. Liu, M., Bera, S., Corliss, S., Svinicki, M., & Beth, A. (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(3), 309-334.
61. Liu, M., Horton, L., Corliss, S. B., Svinicki, M. D., Bogard, T., Kim, J., et al. (2009). Students' problem-solving as mediated by their cognitive tool use: A study of tool use patterns. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(1), 111-139.
62. Liu, M., Horton, L., Kang, J., Kimmons, R. & Lee, J. (2013a). Using a Ludic simulation to make learning of middle school space science fun. The International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 5(1).
63. Liu, M., Yuen, T. T. Horton, L., Lee, J., Toprac, P. and Bogard, T. (2013b). Designing technology-enriched cognitive tools to support young learners' problem solving. The International Journal of Cognitive Technology.
64. Livingston, E., & Borko, H. (1989). Expert-novice differences in teaching: A cognitive analysis and implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(4), 36-42. doi: 10. 1177/002248718904000407.
65. Lyle, J. (2003). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 861-878. doi: 10. 1080/0141192032000137349.
66. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59, 43-64. doi: 10. 3102/00346543059001043.
67. Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26(1-2), 49-63.
68. Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 47-62). New York: Macmillan.
69. Merriënboer, J., & Stoyanov, S. (2008). Learners in a changing learning landscape: Reflection from an instructional design perspective. In J. Visser, M. Visser-Valfrey, D. N. Aspin, & J. D. Chapman (Eds.), Lifelong learning book series (Vol. 12, pp. 69-90). Dordrecht, South Holland: Springer.
70. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
71. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97. doi: 10. 1037/h0043158.
72. Patel, V. L., & Groen, G. J. (1991). The general and specific nature of medical expertise: A critical look. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 93-125). New York: Cambridge University Press.
73. Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167-182. doi: 10. 1207/s15326985ep2004_2.
74. Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315-341. doi: 10. 1007/s10648-006-9029-9.
75. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 92-104. doi: 10. 1006/ceps. 1999. 1017.
76. Poitras, E., Lajoie, S., & Hong, Y. J. (2011). The design of technology-rich learning environments as metacognitive tools in history education. Instructional Science, 1-29.
77. Prawat, R. S. (1989). Promoting access to knowledge, strategy, and disposition in students: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 59, 1-41. doi: 10. 2307/1170445.
78. Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1-12. doi: 10. 1207/s15326985ep4001_1.
79. Ramdass, D., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Developing self-regulation skills: The important role of homework. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(2), 194-218.
80. Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2-9.
81. Savelsbergh, E. R., de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1998). Competence-related differences in problem representations. In M. van Sommeren, P. Reimann, T. de Jong, & H. Boshuizen (Eds.), The role of multiple representations in learning and problem solving (pp. 262-282). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
82. Schkade, D. A., & Kleinmuntz, D. N. (1994). Information displays and choice processes: Differential effects of organization, form, and sequence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57(3), 319-337. doi: 10. 1006/obhd. 1994. 1018.
83. Simons, K., & Klein, J. (2007, January). The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 35(1), 41-72. doi: 10. 1007/s11251-006-9002-5.
84. Spector, J. M. (2008). Expertise and dynamic tasks. In H. Qudrat-Ullah, J. M. Spector, & P. I. Davidsen (Eds.), Understanding complex systems series: Complex decision making 2008 (pp. 25-37). Berlin: Springer. doi: 10. 1007/978-3-540-73665-3_2.
85. Spector, J. M. (2010). Mental representations and their analysis: An epistemological perspective. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & N. M. Seel (Eds.), Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge 2010 (Part 1, pp. 27-40). New York: Springer. doi: 10. 1007/978-1-4419-5662-0_3.
86. Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitiveflexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains (Tech. Rep. No. 441). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
87. Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
88. van Gog, T., Ericsson, K., Rikers, R., & Paas, F. (2005, September). Instructional design for advanced learners: Establishing connections between the theoretical frameworks of cognitive load and deliberate practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 73-81. doi: 10. 1007/BF02504799.
89. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
90. Xun, G., & Land, S. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interaction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5-22. doi: 10. 1007/BF02504836.
91. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed., Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
92. Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 179-217.
93. Zhang, J., & Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18(1), 87-122. doi: 10. 1016/0364-0213(94)90021-3.
94. Zimmerman, B. J., & Campillo, M. (2003). Motivating self-regulated problem solvers. In J. E. Davidson & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of problem solving (pp. 233-262). New York: Cambridge University Press.