The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes

Educational Psychologist

Volumn 49, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 219-243

  Chi, Michelene T H ^a   Wylie, Ruth ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84918546411     PISSN: 00461520     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2014.965823     Document Type: Article

References (133)

1. Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26, 147–179.
2. Alibali, M., & DiRusso, A. (1999). The function of gesture in learning to count: More than keeping track. Cognitive Development, 14, 37–56.
3. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2005). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. London, England: Longman.
4. Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 774–783.
5. Azevedo, R., Greene, J. A., Moos, D. C., Winters, F. I., Cromley, J. G., & Godbole-Chaudhuri, P. (2006). Is externally-regulated learning by a human tutor always effective in facilitating learning with hypermedia? In S. Barab, K. Hay, & D. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Sciences (pp. 16–22). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307–359.
7. Bartlett, F. C. (1958). Thinking: An experimental and social study. London, England: Allen & Unwin.
8. Bauer, A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2007). Selection-based note-taking applications. CHI 07 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY: ACM.
9. Beal, C. R., & Stevens, R. H. (2010). Improving students’ problem solving in a web-based chemistry simulation through embedded metacognitive messages. Technology, Instruction, Cognition & Learning, 8, 255–271.
10. Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P. L., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 221–252.
11. Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., Schwartz, D., & Vye, N. (2005). Learning by teaching a new agent paradigm for education software. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19, 363–392.
12. Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475–488). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
13. 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.
14. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. Washington, DC: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University.
15. Bonwell, C. C., & Sutherland, T. E. (1996). The active learning continuum: Choosing activities to engage students in the classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1996(67), 3–16.
16. Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21–32.
18. Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 182–197.
19. Chang, K.-E., Sung, Y.-T., & Chen, I.-D. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71, 5–23.
20. Chi, M., Dohmen, I., Shemwell, J. T., Chase, C. C., & Schwartz, D. L. (2012, April). Seeing the forest from the trees: A comparison of two instructional models using contrasting cases. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
21. Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. Advances in Instructional Psychology, 5, 161–238.
22. Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-Constructive-Interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.
23. 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.
24. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H. & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.
25. Chi, M. T. H., & Kang, S. (2014). The learning benefits of dialogue videos over monologue videos: Implications for designing online videos. Manuscript submitted for publication.
26. Chi, M. T. H., & Menekse, M. (in press). Dialogues as interactions. In C. Asterhan & L. Resnick (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. Washington, DC: AERA.
27. Chi, M. T. H., Roscoe, R. D., Slotta, J. D., Roy, M., & Chase, C. C. (2012). Misconceived causal explanations for emergent processes. Cognitive Science, 36, 1–61.
28. Chi, M. T. H., Roy, M., & Hausmann, R. G. M. (2008). Observing tutorial dialogues collaboratively: Insights about human tutoring effectiveness from vicarious learning. Cognitive Science, 32, 301–341.
29. Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S. A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471–533.
30. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.
31. Chularut, P., & DeBacker, T. K. (2004). The influence of concept mapping on achievement, self-regulation, and selfefficacy in students of English as a second language. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 248–263.
32. Cobb, P. (Ed.). (1994). Learning mathematics: Constructivist and interactionist theories of mathematical development. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
33. Coffey, J. W., Carnot, M. J., Feltovich, P. J., Feltovich, J., Hoffman, R. R., & Cañas, A. J. (2003). A summary of literature pertaining to the use of concept mapping techniques and technologies for education and performance support (Tech. rep. submitted to the US Navy Chief of Naval Education and Training). Pensacola, FL: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.
34. Coleman, E. B., Brown, A. L., & Rivkin, I. D. (1997). The effect of instructional explanations on learning from scientific texts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 347–365.
35. Conati, C., & Carenini, G. (2001). Knowledge encapsulation: Studies on the development of medical expertise. In 17th International Joint Conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1301–1306). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
36. 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.
37. Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 88–108.
38. Czerniak, C. M., & Haney, J. J. (1998). The effect of collaborative concept mapping on elementary preservice teachers’ anxiety, efficacy, and achievement in physical science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9, 303–320.
39. Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: The untapped potential. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 5, 331–343.
40. Dawson, I. (2004). Time for chronology? Ideas for developing chronological understanding. Teaching History, 117, 14–24.
41. Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332, 862–864.
42. D’Mello, S., Olney, A., Williams, C., & Hays, P. (2012). Gaze tutor: A gaze-reactive intelligent tutoring system. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70, 377–398.
43. Docktor, J. L., Strand, N. E., Mestre, J. P., & Ross, B. H. (2010, October). A conceptual approach to physics problem solving. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1289, p. 137). Portland, OR: American Institute of Physics.
44. Doymus, K. (2008). Teaching chemical equilibrium with the jigsaw technique. Research in Science Education, 38, 249–260.
45. Ebert-May, D., Brewer, C., & Allred, S. (1997). Innovation in large lectures: Teaching for active learning. Bioscience, 47, 601–607.
46. Ferguson-Hessler, M., & de Jong, T. (1990). Studying physics texts: Differences in study processes between good and poor performers. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 41–54.
47. Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.
48. Fonseca, B. & Chi, M. T. H. (2011). The self-explanation effect: A constructive learning activity. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), The handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 296–321). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.
49. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
50. Gobert, J. D., & Clement, J. J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 39–53.
51. Goldstone, R. L., & Day, S. (Eds.) (2012). New conceptualizations of transfer of learning [Special issue]. Educational Psychologist, 47(3).
52. Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104–137.
53. Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 36, 93–103.
54. Guastello, E. F., Beasley, T. M., & Sinatra, R. C. (2000). Concept mapping effects on science content comprehension of low-achieving inner-city seventh graders. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 356–364.
55. Hausmann, R. G. M., & Chi, M. T. H. (2002). Can a computer interface support self-explaining? Cognitive Technology, 7, 4–14.
56. Hausmann, R. G. M., van de Sande, B., & VanLehn, K. (2008). Shall we explain? Augmenting learning from intelligent tutoring systems and peer collaboration. In B. P. Woolf, E. Aimeur, R. Nkambou, & S. Lajoie (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 636–645). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS.
57. Hendricks, C. C. (2001). Teaching causal reasoning through cognitive apprenticeship: What are results from situated learning? Journal of Educational Research, 94, 302–311.
58. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379–432.
59. Horton, P. B., McConney, A. A., Gallo, M., Woods, A. L., Senn, G. J., & Hamelin, D. (1993). An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool. Science Education, 77, 95–111.
60. James, K. H., Humphrey, G. K., Vilis, T., Corrie, B., Baddour, R., & Goodale, M. A. (2002). “Active” and “passive” learning of three-dimensional object structure within an immersive virtual reality environment. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 383–390.
61. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 31, 28–33.
62. Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Playing and making games. Games and Culture, 1, 36–40.
63. Kam, M., Wang, J., Iles, A., Tse, E., Chiu, J., Glaser, D., …, Canny, J. (2005, April). Livenotes: A system for cooperative and augmented note-taking in lectures. In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’05) (pp. 531–540). Portland, OR.
64. Kastens, K. A., & Liben, L. S. (2007). Eliciting self-explanations improves children's performance on a field-based map skills task. Cognition and Instruction, 25, 45–74.
65. Katayama, A. D., Shambaugh, R. N., & Doctor, T. (2005). Promoting knowledge transfer with electronic note taking. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 129–131.
66. King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41, 30–35.
67. 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, 41, 75–86.
68. Kitchner, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition. Human Development, 26, 222–232.
69. Kobayashi, K. (2006). Combined effects of note-taking/reviewing on learning and the enhancement through interventions: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology, 26, 459–477.
70. Kramarski, B., & Dudai, V. (2009). Group-metacognitive support for online inquiry in mathematics with differential self-questioning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40, 377–404.
71. Loyens, S. M. M., & Gijbels, D. (2008). Understanding the effects of constructivist learning environments: Introducing a multi-directional approach. Instructional Science, 36, 351–357.
72. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T., Mohler, L., Beranek, M., Spencer, V., Boon, R. T., & Talbott, E. (2001). Can middle school students with serious reading difficulties help each other and learn anything? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 18–27.
73. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Spencer, V., & Fontana, J. (2003). Promoting success in high school world history: Peer tutoring versus guided notes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 52–65.
74. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14–19.
75. Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
76. McEldoon, K. L. (2014). Supporting novice learning through focused processing of worked examples and explanations. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
77. McEldoon, K. L., Durkin, K. L., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2013). Is self-explanation worth the time? A comparison to additional-practice. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 615–632.
78. Menekse, M., Stump, G., Krause, S., & Chi, M. T. H. (2013). Differentiated overt learning activities for effective instruction in engineering classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 102, 346–374.
79. Mestre, J. P. (2002). Probing adults’ conceptual understanding and transfer of learning via problem posing. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 9–50.
80. Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting Active Learning. Strategies for the College Classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
81. Milrad, M. (2002). Using construction kits, modeling tools and system dynamics simulations to support collaborative discover learning. Educational Technology and Society, 5, 76–87.
82. Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413–448.
83. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 937–949.
84. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
85. Oakhill, J. V., Cain, K., & Bryant, P. E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: Evidence from component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 443–468.
86. O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 71–86.
87. Okada, T., & Simon, H. A. (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 21, 109–146.
88. Okebukola, P. A., & Jegede, O. J. (1988). Cognitive preference and learning mode as determinants of meaningful learning through concept mapping. Science Education, 72, 489–500.
89. O’Reilly, T., Symons, S., & MacLatchy-Gaudet, H. (1998). Brief research report: A comparison of self-explanation and elaborative interrogation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 434–445.
90. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.
91. Pea, R., & Kurland, M. (1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New Ideas in Psychology, 2, 137–168.
92. Pelech, J. (2010). The comprehensive handbook of constructivist teaching: From theory to practice. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
93. Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Generative effects of note-taking during science lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 34–38.
94. Piaget, J. (1930). The child's conception of physical causality. Oxford, England: Harcourt Brace.
95. Pillow, B. H., Mash, C., Aloian, S., & Hill, V. (2002). Facilitating children's understanding of misinterpretation: Explanatory efforts and improvements in perspective taking. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163, 133–148.
96. Pine, K. J., & Messer, D. J. (2000). The effect of explaining another's actions on children's implicit theories of balance. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 35–52.
97. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivation and self regulation components of academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
98. Rafal, C. T. (1996). From co-construction to takeovers: Science talk in a group of four girls. Journal of Learning Sciences, 5, 279–293.
99. 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.
100. Rickards, J. P., & Friedman, F. (1978). The encoding versus the external storage hypothesis in note taking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 3, 136–143.
101. Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 534–574.
102. Rosenthal, J. S. (1995). Active learning strategies in advanced mathematics classes. Studies in Higher Education, 20, 223–228.
103. Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., Mason, R. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 478–493.
104. Rowles, C. J. (2013). Strategies to promote critical thinking and active learning. Teaching in nursing: A guide for faculty, 258–279.
105. Rubin, J., & Herbert, M. (1998). Peer teaching-model for active learning. College Teaching, 48, 26–30.
106. Russell, I. J., Caris, T. N., Harris, G. D., & Hendricson, W. D. (1983). Effects of three types of lecture notes on medical student achievement. Academic Medicine, 58, 627–636.
107. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of Research in Education, 23, 1–24.
108. Scardamalia, M. (1992, July). The role of adaptation and understanding in knowledge-building communities. Paper presented at conference of NATO Advanced Science Institute, Kolymbari Crete, Greece.
109. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Journal of the learning students’ understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 131–166.
110. Schmid, R. F. & Telaro, G. (1990). Concept mapping as an instructional strategy for high school biology. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 78–85.
111. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling a time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 475–522.
112. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right … if they argue together! Cognition and Instruction, 18, 461–494.
113. Siegler, R. (1995). How does change occur: A microgenetic study of number conservation. Cognitive Psychology, 28, 225–273.
114. Stark, R. (1999). Lernen mit Lösungsbeisplielen: Einfluss unvollständiger Lösungsbeispiele auf Beispielelaboration, Motivation and Lernerfolg [Learning by worked-out examples: The impact of completion tasks on example elaboration, motivation and learning outcomes]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
115. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 183–218.
116. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.
117. Trafton, J. G., & Trickett, S. B. (2001). Note-taking for self-explanation and problem solving. Human–Computer Interaction, 16, 1–38.
118. van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10, 311–330.
119. VanLehn, K., Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., & Rosé, C. P. (2007). When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading? Cognitive Science, 31, 3–62.
120. VanLehn, K., Jones, R. M., & Chi, M. T. H. (1992). A model of the self-explanation effect. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 1–59.
121. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121–140.
122. Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction, problem solving, and cognition: Multidisciplinary perspectives. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 1–119.
123. Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
124. Whitten, W. B., II. (2011). Learning from and for tests. In A. S. Benjamin (Ed.), Successful remembering and successful forgetting: A festschrift in honor of Robert A. Bjork (pp. 217–234). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
125. Willerman, M., & Mac Harg, R. A. (1991). The concept map as an advance organizer. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 705–711.
126. Wilson, B. G. (1997, March). Reflections on constructivism and instructional design, instructional development paradigms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
127. Wong, R. M. F., Lawson, M. J., & Keeves, J. (2002). The effects of self-explanation training on students’ problem solving in high-school mathematics. Learning and Instruction, 12, 233–262.
128. Wylie, R. (2011). Examining the generality of self-explanation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
129. Yaron, D., Karabinos, M., Lange, D., Greeno, J. G., & Leinhardt, G. (2010). The ChemCollective—virtual labs for introductory chemistry courses. Science, 328, 584–585.
130. Yetter, G., Gutkin, T., Saunders, A., Galloway, A., Sobansky, R., & Song, S. (2006). Individual practice for complex problem solving: A cautionary tale. Journal of Experimental Education, 74, 137–159.
131. Yin, Y., Vanides, J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, C. C., & Shavelson, R. J. (2005). Comparison of two concept-mapping techniques: Implications for scoring, interpretation, and use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 166–184.
132. Zhang, Z. H., & Linn, M. C. (2013). Learning from chemical visualizations: Comparing generation and selection. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 2174–2197.
133. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 21, 3–17.