Computer-based feedback for computer-based collaborative problem solving

Computer-Based Diagnostics and Systematic Analysis of Knowledge

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 261-279

  O'neil, Harold F ^a   Chuang, San Hui Sabrina ^b   Baker, Eva L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b NATIONAL TAIWAN NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

After action review; Collaborative problem solving; Feedback

Indexed keywords

EID: 84892821587     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-5662-0_14     Document Type: Chapter

References (38)

1. Brown, B. R., Nordyke, J. W., Gerlock, D. L., Begley, I. J., & Meliza, L. L. (1998, May). Training analysis and feedback aids (TAAF Aids) study for live training support (Study Report, Army Project Number 2O665803D730). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
2. Chuang, S. H., & O'Neil, H. F. (2006). Role of task-specific adapted feedback on a computer-based collaborative problem-solving task. In H. F. O'Neil & R. Perez (Eds.), Web-based learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 239-254). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Chung, G. K. W. K., O'Neil, H. F., & Herl, H. E. (1999). The use of computer-based collaborative knowledge mapping to measure team processes and team outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 463-493.
4. Clariana, R. B., Wagner, D., & Murphy, L. C. R. (2000). Applying a connectionist description of feedback timing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 5-22. (Pubitemid 33238093)
5. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). E-learning and the science ofinstruction. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Ellis, S., Mendel, R., & Nir, M. (2006). Learning from successful and failed experience: The moderating role of kind of after-event review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 669-680. (Pubitemid 43936978)
8. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
9. Herl, H. E., Baker, E. L., & Niemi, D. (1996). Construct validation of an approach to modeling cognitive structure of U.S. history knowledge. Journal ofEducational Research, 89(4), 206-219.
10. Hsieh, I. G., & O'Neil, H. F., Jr. (2002). Types of feedback in a computer-based collaborative problem-solving group task. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(6), 699-715.
11. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 126-136.
12. King, P. E., Young, M. J., & Behnke, R. R. (2000). Public speaking performance improvement as a function of information processing in immediate and delayed feedback interventions. Communication Education, 49(4), 365-374. (Pubitemid 33220455)
13. Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2005). The web as an information resource in K-12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 285-328. (Pubitemid 41442064)
14. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 79-97.
15. Lalley, J. P. (1998). Comparison of test and video as forms of feedback during computer assisted learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18(4), 323-338.
16. Lee, W., & Zalatimo, S. (1990). Computer-assisted instruction with immediate feedback versus delayed feedback in learning to solve analogy items. International Journal ofInstructional Media, 17(4), 319-329.
17. Marshall, L., O'Neil, H. F., Chen, A., Juehl, M., Hsieh, I., & Abedi, J. (2005). Teamwork skills assessment and instruction. In J. M. Spector, C. Ohrazda, A. Van Schaak, & D. A. Wiley (Eds.), Innovations in instructional technology: Essays in honor of M. David Merrill (pp. 131-149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook ofmultimedia learning (pp. 31-48). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
20. Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook ofeducational psychology (pp. 47-62). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
21. Meliza, L. L., & Goldberg, S. L. (2008). Impact of after-action review on learning in simulation-based U.S. Army training. In E. Baker, J. Dickieson, W. Wulfeck, & H. F. O'Neil (Eds.), Assessment of problem solving using simulations (pp. 255-272). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. Morrison, J. E., & Meliza, L. L. (1999). Foundations of the after-action review process (Special Report 42). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
23. Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 87(2), 319-334.
24. Ngu, B., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2002). Text editing in chemistry instruction. Instructional Science, 30, 379-102.
25. O'Neil, H. F., Jr. (1999). Perspectives on computer-based performance assessment of problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(3-4), 225-268.
26. O'Neil, H. F., Jr., Chung, G. K. W. K., & Brown, R. (1997). Use of networked simulations as a context to measure team competencies. In H. F. O'Neil Jr. (Ed.), Workforce readiness: Competencies and assessment (pp. 411-452). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27. O'Neil, H. F., Jr., Mayer, R. E., Herl, H. E., Niemi, C., Olin, K., & Thurman, R. A. (2000). Instructional strategies for virtual aviation training environments. In H. F. O'Neil Jr. & D. H. Andrews (Eds.), Aircrew training and assessment (pp. 105-130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. O'Neil, H. F., Jr., Wang, S., Chung, G. K. W. K., & Herl, H. E. (2000). Assessment of teamwork skills using computer-based teamwork simulations. In H. F. O'Neil Jr. & D. H. Andrews (Eds.), Aircrew training and assessment (pp. 245-276). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4. (Pubitemid 36399998)
30. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Science, 32(1-2), 1-8. (Pubitemid 39045927)
31. Park, O., & Gittelman, S. S. (1992). Selective use of animation and feedback in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(4), 27-37.
32. Rieber, L. P. (1996). Animation as feedback in a computer-based simulation representation matters. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(1), 5-22.
33. Robinson, D. H., & Molina, E. (2002). The relative involvement of visual and auditory working memory when studying adjunct displays. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 118-131.
34. Schacter, J., Herl, H. E., Chung, G., Dennis, R. A., & O'Neil, H. F., Jr. (1999). Computer-based performance assessments: A solution to the narrow measurement and reporting of problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 403-418.
35. Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load and selective attention as factors in the structuring of technical material. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: General, 119, 176-192.
36. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
37. van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147-177. (Pubitemid 40688717)
38. Vekiri, L. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 261-312.