The embodiment of cases as alternative perspective in a mathematics hypermedia learning environment

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 64, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 1183-1206

  Valentine, Keri D ^a   Kopcha, Theodore J ^b  

^a WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cases as alternative perspective; Cognitive flexibility theory; Conjecture mapping; Design based research; Hypermedia design; Realistic Mathematics Education

Indexed keywords

EID: 84961778388     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: 15566501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-016-9443-8     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Aamodt, A., & Plaza, E. (1994). Case-based reasoning: Foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Communications, 7(1), 39–59.
2. Abbott, E. A. (1992). Flatland: A romance of many dimensions. New York, NY: Dover Publications Inc.
3. Brown, D. E., & Hammer, D. (2008). Conceptual change in physics. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 127–154). New York, NY: Routledge.
4. Caplan, S., Wallace, W. (Producers), Travis, J., & Johnson, D. (Directors) (2007). Flatland: The movie [DVD]. Washington, DC: Flat World Productions.
5. Carroll, W. M. (1998). Geometric knowledge of middle school students in a reform-based mathematics curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 98(4), 188–197.
6. Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. New York, NY: Routledge.
7. Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
8. Clements, D. H. (2003). Teaching and learning geometry. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 151–178). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
9. Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31(3–4), 175–190.
10. Cobb, P., Zhao, Q., & Visnovska, J. (2008). Learning from and adapting the theory of realistic mathematics education. Éducation & Didactique, 2(1), 105–124.
11. Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2003). Understanding learning systems: Mathematics education and complexity science. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 137–167. doi:10.2307/30034903.
12. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
13. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2009). The systematic design of instruction (7th ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
14. Driscoll, M. (2007). Fostering geometric thinking: A guide for teachers, grades 5-10. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
15. Edwards, L. D. (1991). Children’s learning in a computer microworld for transformation geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(2), 122–137.
16. Figueiredo, N., van Galen, F., & Gravemeijer, K. (2009). The actor’s and observer’s point of view: A geometry applet as an example. Educational Designer, 1(3), 1–20.
17. Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
18. Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
19. Goeze, A., Zottmann, J. M., Vogel, F., Fischer, F., & Schrader, J. (2014). Getting immersed in teacher and student perspectives? Facilitating analytical competence using video cases in teacher education. Instructional Science, 42(1), 91–114.
20. Goldenberg, E. P., Cuoco, A. A., & Mark, J. (1998). A role for geometry in general education. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 3–44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. Goldstone, R. L. (2006). The complex systems see-change in education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 35–43.
22. Grant, D. A., & Berg, E. (1948). A behavioral analysis of degree of reinforcement and ease of shifting to new responses in a Weigl-type card-sorting problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38(4), 404.
23. Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from a learning design perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 17–51). New York, NY: Routledge.
24. Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 524–549. doi:10.2307/749690.
25. Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2014). Authentic learning environments. New York, NY: Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_32.
26. Ionescu, T. (2012). Exploring the nature of cognitive flexibility. New Ideas in Psychology, 30, 190–200.
27. Jacobson, M. J. (2008). A design framework for educational hypermedia systems: Theory, research, and learning emerging scientific conceptual perspectives. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 5–28.
28. Jacobson, M. J., & Archodidou, A. (2000). The design of hypermedia tools for learning: Fostering conceptual change and transfer of complex scientific knowledge. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 145–199.
29. Jacobson, M. J., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Advances in scaffolding learning with hypertext and hypermedia: Theoretical, empirical, and design issues. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 1–3.
30. Jacobson, M. J., & Kapur, M. (2012). Learning environments as emergent phenomena: Theoretical and methodological implications of complexity. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 303–334). New York, NY: Routledge.
31. Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1993). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. (No. 573) (pp. 301–333). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED355508.
32. Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(4), 301–333.
33. Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34.
34. Jonassen, D. H. (2011a). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York: Routledge.
35. Jonassen, D. H. (2011b). Supporting problem solving in PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 5(2), 95–112.
36. Jörg, T., Davis, B., & Nickmans, G. (2007). Towards a new, complexity science of learning and education. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 145–156.
37. Keiser, J. M., Klee, A., & Fitch, K. (2003). An assessment of students’ understanding of angle. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 9(2), 116–119.
38. Kisa, M. T., & Stein, M. K. (2015). Learning to see teaching in new ways: A foundation for maintaining cognitive demand. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 105–136.
39. Kolodner, J. L. (2006). Case-based reasoning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 225–242). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
40. Li, T., & Jonassen, D. H. (1996). The effect of lesson structures on prediction and inference. In Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (Vol. 18, pp. 423–429). ERIC. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED397772.pdf#page=432.
41. Lima, M., Koehler, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (2004). Collaborative interactivity and integrated thinking in Brazilian business schools using cognitive flexibility hypertexts: The panteon project. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(4), 371–406.
42. Lima, M., Koehler, M. J., & Spiro, R. (2010). Cognitive flexibility hypertexts and the development of creative and critical thinking in business education: The Panteon Project. FACEF Pesquisa, 7(3). http://legacy.unifacef.com.br/revistas/index.php/facefpesquisa/article/view/39.
43. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2011). Designing effective instruction (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
44. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
45. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, D.C.
46. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
47. Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterise it and how can we represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2–3), 165–190.
48. Reitan, R. M. (1992). Trail making test: Manual for administration and scoring. Tucson: Reitan Neuropsychology Laboratory.
49. Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18–36. doi:10.1080/10508406.2013.778204.
50. Sawyer, R. K. (2014). Introduction: The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 1–18). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
51. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning the think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–371). New York, NY: Macmillan.
52. Schoenfeld, A. H. (Ed.). (1994). Reflections on doing and teaching mathematics. In Mathematical thinking and problem solving (pp. 53–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
53. Shapiro, A. M. (2008). Hypermedia design as learner scaffolding. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 29–44.
54. Spiro, R. J., Collins, B. P., & Ramchandran, A. (2007a). Modes of openness and flexibility in “cognitive flexibility hypertext” learning environments. In B. Khan (Ed.), Flexible learning in an information society (pp. 18–25). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
55. Spiro, R. J., Collins, B. P., & Ramchandran, A. (2007b). Reflections on a post-Gutenberg epistemology for video use in ill-structured domains: Fostering complex learning and cognitive flexibility. Retrieved October 21, 2012, from http://postgutenberg.typepad.com/newgutenbergrevolution/2008/06/new-paper-on-cf.html.
56. Spiro, R. J., Collins, B. P., Thota, J. J., & Feltovich, P. J. (2003). Cognitive flexibility theory: Hypermedia for complex learning, adaptive knowledge application, and experience acceleration. Educational Technology, 43(5), 5–10.
57. Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains (Technical Report No. 441). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
58. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 57–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
59. Spiro, R. J., Vispoel, W., Schmitz, J., Samarapungavan, A., & Boerger, A. (1987). Knowledge acquisition for application: Cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex content domains (Technical Report No. 409). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
60. Strobel, J., Jonassen, D. H., & Ionas, I. G. (2008). The evolution of a collaborative authoring system for non-linear hypertext: A design-based research study. Computers & Education, 51(1), 67–85.
61. Swan, K. (1994). History, hypermedia, and criss-crossed landscapes. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3(2), 120–139.
62. Wells, A. T., & McCrory, R. (2011). Hypermedia and learning: Contrasting interfaces to hypermedia systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 195–202.
63. Zottmann, J. M., Goeze, A., Frank, C., Zentner, U., Fischer, F., & Schrader, J. (2012). Fostering the analytical competency of pre-service teachers in a computer-supported case-based learning environment: A matter of perspective? Interactive Learning Environments, 20(6), 513–532.
64. Zydney, J., & Grincewicz, A. (2011). The use of video cases in a multimedia learning environment for facilitating high school students’ inquiry into a problem from varying perspectives. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(6), 715–728.