Bridging the gap between expert -novice differences: The model-based feedback approach

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

Volumn 43, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 103-117

  Ifenthaler, Dirk ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANNHEIM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Concept map; Expertise; Feedback; Highly Integrated Model Assessment Technology and Tools; HIMATT; Mental model

Indexed keywords

EID: 85008848731     PISSN: 15391523     EISSN: 19450818     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2010.10782564     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Amthauer, R., Brocke, B., Liepmann, D., & Beauducel, A. (2001). I-S-T 2000 R. Gottingen: Hogrefe.
2. Anzai, Y., & Yokoyama, T. (1984). Internal models in physics problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 1(4), 397-450.
3. Azevedo, R., & Bernard, R. M. (1995). A meta-analysis of the effects of feedback in computer- based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(2), 111-127.
4. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213-238.
5. Clariana, R. B. (1993). A review of multiple-try feedback in traditional and computer-based instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(3), 67-74.
6. Ellson, J., Gansner, E. R., Koutsofios, E., North, S. C., & Woodhull, G. (2003). GraphViz and Dynagraph. Static and dynamic graph drawing tools. Florham Park, NJ: AT&T Labs.
7. Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing what to write. Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 139-160). Amsterdam: University Press.
8. Ifenthaler, D. (2008). Practical solutions for the diagnosis of progressing mental models. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Understanding models for learning and instruction. Essays in honor ofNorbert M. Seel (pp. 43-61). New York: Springer.
9. Ifenthaler, D. (2009). Model-based feedback for improving expertise and expert performance. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 7(2), 83-101.
10. Ifenthaler, D. (2010a). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 81-97. DOI: 10.1007/sl1423-008-9087-4
11. Ifenthaler, D. (2010b). Scope of graphical indices in educational diagnostics. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & N. M. Seel (Eds.), Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge (pp. 213-234). New York: Springer.
12. Ifenthaler, D., Masduki, I., & Seel, N. M. (2009). The mystery of cognitive structure and how we can detect it. Tracking the development of cognitive structures over time. Instructional Science. DOI 10.1007/sl 1251-009-9097-6
13. Ifenthaler, D., Pirnay-Dummer, P., & Spector, J. M. (Eds.). (2008). Understanding models for learning and instruction. Essays in honor of Norbert M. Seel. New York: Springer.
14. Ifenthaler, D., & Seel, N. M. (2005). The measurement of change: Learning-dependent progression of mental models. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 2(4), 317-336.
15. Jacobs, B. (1998). Aufgaben stellen und Feedback geben. Retrieved October 6, 2008, from http://www.phil.uni-sb.de/-jakobs/wwwartikel/feedback/index.htm
16. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1989). Mental models. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 469-499). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Johnson, T. E., Ifenthaler, D., Pirnay-Dummer, P., & Spector, J. M. (2009). Using concept maps to assess individuals and team in collaborative learning environments. In P. L. Torres & R. C. V. Marriott (Eds.), Handbook of research on collaborative learning using concept mapping (pp. 358-381). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
18. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). Effects of feedback intervention on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284.
19. Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47(2), 211-232.
20. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 43-64.
21. Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 745-783). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Narciss, S. (2006). Informatives tutorielles Feedback. Entwicklung- und Evaluationsprinzipien auf der Basis instruktionspsychologischer Erkenntnisse. Munster: Waxmann.
23. Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. R Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 125-143). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
24. Narciss, S., & Huth, K. (2004). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multimedia learning. In H. M. Niegemar_n, D. Leutner, & R. Briinken (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning (pp. 181-195). Munster: Waxmann.
25. Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 7-14). Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26. Piaget, J. (1950). La construction du reel chez lenfant. Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestle S.A.
27. Piaget, J. (1976). Die Aquilibration der kcgnitiven Strukturen. Stuttgart: Klett.
28. Pirnay-Dummer, P., & Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Automated knowledge visualization and assessment. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & N. M. Seel (Eds.), Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge (pp. 77-115). New York: Springer.
29. Pirnay-Dummer, P., Ifenthaler, D., & Spector, J. M. (2010). Highly integrated model assessment technology and tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 3-18. DOI: 10.1007/sl1423-009-9119-8
30. Schimmel, B. J. (1983). A meta-analysis of feedback to learners in computerized and programmed instruction. Paper presented at the AREA 1983, Montreal.
31. Schonwiese, C.-D. (2005). Klimawandel—Tatsache oder Fiktion? Energiewirt, 104, 26-29.
32. Seel, N. M. (1991). Weltwissen und mentale Modelle. Gottingen: Hogrefe.
33. Seel, N. M. (1995). Mental models, knowledge transfer, and teaching strategies. Journal of Structural Learning and Intelligent Systems, 12(3), 197-213.
34. Seel, N. M. (1999). Educational semiotics: School learning reconsidered. Journal of Structural Learning and Intelligent Systems, 14(1), 11-28.
35. Seel, N. M., & Dinter, F. R. (1995). Instruction and mental model progression: Learner- dependent effects of teaching strategies on knowledge acquisition and analogical transfer. Educational Research and Evaluation, 1(1), 4-35.
36. Seel, N. M., Ifenthaler, D., & Pirnay-Dummer, P. (2009). Mental models and problem solving: Technological solutions for measurement and assessment of the development of expertise. In P. Blums chein, W. Hung, D. H. Jonassen, & J. Strobel (Eds.), Model-based approaches to learning: Using systems models and simulations to improve understanding and problem solving in complex domains (pp. 17-40). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
37. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189.
38. Simons, P. R. J., & de Jong, F. P. C. M. (1992). Self-regulation and computer-aided instruction. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41 (4), 333-346.
39. Wagner, W., & Wagner, S. U. (1985). Presenting questions, processing responses, and providing feedback in CAI. Journal of Instructional Development, 8(4), 2-8.