Practicing Connections: A Framework to Guide Instructional Design for Developing Understanding in Complex Domains

Educational Psychology Review

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2021, Pages 739-762

  Fries, Laura ^a   Son, Ji Y ^b   Givvin, Karen B ^a   Stigler, James W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Instruction; Instructional design; Learning in complex domains; Learning theory; Statistics education; Transfer

Indexed keywords

EID: 85089543124     PISSN: 1040726X     EISSN: 1573336X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10648-020-09561-x     Document Type: Article

References (135)

1. Ainsworth, S. (2008). The educational value of multiple-representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: theory and practice in science education. Models and modeling in science education (Vol. 3, pp. 191–203). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5267-5_9
2. Ainsworth, S., Bibby, P., & Wood, D. (2002). Examining the effects of different multiple representational systems in learning primary mathematics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 25–61. DOI: 10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_2
3. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18. DOI: 10.1037/a0021017
4. Alfieri, L., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). Learning through case comparisons: a meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 87–113. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2013.775712
5. Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 181–214. DOI: 10.3102/00346543070002181
6. Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn?: a taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612
7. Baroody, A. J., Feil, Y., & Johnson, A. R. (2007). An alternative reconceptualization of procedural and conceptual knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 115-131.
8. Bassok, M. (2001). Semantic alignments in mathematical word problems. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 401–433). Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.
9. Batanero, C. (2016). Understanding randomness: challenges for research and teaching. In K. Krainer & N. Vondrová (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 34–49). Prague: European Society for Research in Mathematics Education.
10. Batanero, C., Green, D. R., & Serrano, L. R. (1998). Randomness, its meanings and educational implications. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 29(1), 113–123. DOI: 10.1080/0020739980290111
11. Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging ideas: the professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. John Wiley & Sons.
12. Bedard, J., & Chi, M. T. (1992). Expertise. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(4), 135–139. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10769799
13. Bilalic, M., & Campitelli, G. (2018). Studies of the activation and structural changes of the brain associated with expertise. In K. A. Ericsson, R. R. Hoffman, A. Kozbelt, & A. M. Williams (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 233–249). Cambridge University Press.
14. Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher & J. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (2nd ed., pp. 55–64). New York, NY: Worth.
15. Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 417–444. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823
16. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Chapter 3: rethinking transfer: a simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 61–100. DOI: 10.3102/0091732X024001061
17. Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. (1984). The IDEAL Problem Solver: a guide for improving thinking, learning, and creativity. New York: W.H. Freeman.
18. Brenner, M. E., Mayer, R. E., Moseley, B., Brar, T., Durán, R., Reed, B. S., & Webb, D. (1997). Learning by understanding: the role of multiple representations in learning algebra. American Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 663–689. DOI: 10.3102/00028312034004663
19. Campitelli, G., & Gobet, F. (2005). The mind’s eye in blindfold chess. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17(1), 23–45. DOI: 10.1080/09541440340000349
20. Capon, N., & Kuhn, D. (2004). What’s so good about problem-based learning? Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 61–79. DOI: 10.1207/s1532690Xci2201_3
21. Carbonell, K. B., Stalmeijer, R. E., Könings, K. D., Segers, M., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2014). How experts deal with novel situations: a review of adaptive expertise. Educational Research Review, 12, 14–29. DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2014.03.001
22. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4(1), 55–81. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2
23. Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098–1120. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8624.00081
24. Chi, M. T. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: the dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. Advances in Instructional Psychology, 5, 161–238.
25. Chi, M. T. (2011). Theoretical perspectives, methodological approaches, and trends in the study of expertise. In Y. Li & G. Kaiser (Eds.), Expertise in mathematics instruction (pp. 17–39). Springer.
26. Chi, M. T., & Koeske, R. D. (1983). Network representation of a child’s dinosaur knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 19(1), 29–39. DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.19.1.29
27. Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2
28. Chi, M. T., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving: advances in the psychology of human intelligence. Erlbaum, 1–75.
29. de Groot, A. D. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague: Mouton (Original work published 1946).
30. Dehaene, S. (2020). How we learn: why brains learn better than any machine.. for now. Penguin.
31. Endsley, M. R. (2018). Expertise and situation awareness. In K. A. Ericsson, R. R. Hoffman, A. Kozbelt, & A. M. Williams (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316480748.036.
32. Engle, R. A., Lam, D. P., Meyer, X. S., & Nix, S. E. (2012). How does expansive framing promote transfer? Several proposed explanations and a research agenda for investigating them. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 215–231. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2012.695678
33. Epstein, D. J. (2019). Range: why generalists triumph in a specialized world. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
34. Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, and R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (p. 685–706). Cambridge University Press.
35. Ericsson, K. A. (2008). Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: a general overview. Academic Emergency Medicine, 15(11), 988–994. DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00227.x
36. Ericsson, K. A. (2017). Expertise and individual differences: the search for the structure and acquisition of experts’ superior performance. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 8(1–2), e1382.
37. Ericsson, K. A. (2018). Superior working memory in experts. In K. A. Ericsson, R. R. Hoffman, A. Kozbelt, & A. M. Williams (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (p. 696–713). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316480748.036.
38. Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49(8), 725–747. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.49.8.725
39. Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102(2), 211–245. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211
40. Ericsson, K. A., & Pool, R. (2016). Peak: secrets from the new science of expertise. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
41. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. 10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363
42. Ericsson, K. A., Hoffman, R. R., Kozbelt, A., & Williams, A. M. (Eds.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
43. Ericsson, K. A., Prietula, M. J., & Cokely, E. T. (2007). The making of an expert. Harvard Business Review, 85(7/8), 11hoff4.
44. Ericsson, K. A., Hoffman, R. R., & Kozbelt, A. (Eds.). (2018). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge University Press.
45. Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681.
46. Garfield, J., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2005). A framework for teaching and assessing reasoning about variability. Statistics Education Research Journal, 4(1), 92–99 http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/ser.
47. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3
48. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45–56. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.1.45
49. Gentner, D., & Rattermann, M. J. (1991). Language and the career of similarity. Perspectives on Language and Thought: Interrelations in Development, 225.
50. Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: a general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 393–408. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.393
51. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–38. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6
52. Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Introduction: macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: key models in chemical education. In Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 1–8). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8
53. Ginsburg, H. (1977). Children’s arithmetic: the learning process. D. van Nostrand.
54. Givvin, K. B., Moroz, V., Loftus, W., & Stigler, J. W. (2019). Removing opportunities to calculate improves students’ performance on subsequent word problems. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 4(1), 24.
55. Glaser, R., & Chi, M. T. H. (1988). Overview. In M. T. H, R. Chi, Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 15–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
56. Goldwater, M. B., & Schalk, L. (2016). Relational categories as a bridge between cognitive and educational research. Psychological Bulletin, 142(7), 742–757. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000043
57. Greeno, J. G., Moore, J. L., & Smith, D. R. (1993). Transfer of situated learning. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 99–127). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
58. Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., Gentile, J., Lauffer, S., Stewart, J., Tilghman, S. M., & Wood, W. B. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 23(304), 521–522. DOI: 10.1126/science.1096022
59. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262–272). New York, NY: Freeman.
60. Hess, R. D., & Azuma, H. (1991). Cultural support for schooling: contrasts between Japan and the United States. Educational Researcher, 20(9), 2–9. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X020009002
61. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 65–97).
62. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Wearne, D. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: the case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X025004012
63. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: what would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3–15. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X031005003
64. Hodson, D. (1988). Toward a philosophically more valid science curriculum. Science Education, 72(1), 19–40. DOI: 10.1002/sce.3730720103
65. Holyoak, K. J. (1991). 12 symbolic connectionism: toward third-generation theories of expertise. Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits, 301.
66. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2008). The advantage of abstract examples in learning math. Science, 320(5875), 454–455. DOI: 10.1126/science.1154659
67. Kaplan, J. J., Rogness, N. T., & Fisher, D. G. (2014). Exploiting lexical ambiguity to help students understand the meaning of random. Statistics Education Research Journal, 13(1).
68. Kaput, J. J., Blanton, M. L., & Moreno, L. (2017). Algebra from a symbolization point of view. In J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 19–56). Routledge.
69. Kellman, P. J., Massey, C. M., & Son, J. Y. (2010). Perceptual learning modules in mathematics: enhancing students’ pattern recognition, structure extraction, and fluency. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(2), 285–305. DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01053.x
70. 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(2), 75–86. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
71. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–667. DOI: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00737.x
72. Koedinger, K. R., Corbett, A. T., & Perfetti, C. (2012). The Knowledge-Learning-Instruction framework: bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognitive Science, 36(5), 757–798. DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01245.x
73. Koriat, A., & Bjork, R. A. (2005). Illusions of competence in monitoring one’s knowledge during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(2), 187.
74. 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
75. Lachner, A., & Nückles, M. (2015). Bothered by abstractness or engaged by cohesion? Experts’ explanations enhance novices’ deep-learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21(1), 101–115.
76. Lachner, A., Gurlitt, J., & Nückles, M. (2012). A graph-oriented approach to measuring expertise-detecting structural differences between experts and intermediates. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 34(34), 653–658.
77. Lagemann, E. C., & Shulman, L. S. (1999). Issues in education research: problems and possibilities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
78. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511815355
79. Lawson, A. P., Davis, C., & Son, J. Y. (2019a). Not all flipped classes are the same: using learning science to design flipped classrooms. Journal of Scholarship in Teaching and Learning, 19(5), 77–104. DOI: 10.14434/josotl.v19i5.25856
80. Lawson, A. P., Mirinjian, A., & Son, J. Y. (2019b). Can preventing calculations help students learn math? Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 17(2), 178–197. DOI: 10.1891/1945-8959.17.2.178
81. Levin, J. R., & O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). What to do about educational research’s credibility gaps? Issues in Education, 5(2), 177–229. DOI: 10.1016/S1080-9724(00)00025-2
82. Lombrozo, T. (2006). The structure and function of explanations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 464–470. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.004
83. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
84. McDaniel, M. A., Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2007). Generalizing test-enhanced learning from the laboratory to the classroom. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 200–206. DOI: 10.3758/BF03194052
85. McKeithen, K. B., Reitman, J. S., Rueter, H. H., & Hirtle, S. C. (1981). Knowledge organization and skill differences in computer programmers. Cognitive Psychology, 13(3), 307–325. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(81)90012-8
86. Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159–167. DOI: 10.1152/advan.00053.2006
87. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). How people learn II: learners, contexts, and cultures. National Academies Press.
88. National Council for Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics (3rd ed.). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
89. National Governors Association. (2010). Common core state standards. DC: Washington.
90. North, J. S., Ward, P., Ericsson, A., & Williams, A. M. (2011). Mechanisms underlying skilled anticipation and recognition in a dynamic and temporally constrained domain. Memory, 19(2), 155–168. DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2010.541466
91. Novick, L. R. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 510.
92. Novick, L. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1991). Mathematical problem solving by analogy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(3), 398.
93. Paas, F., & van Gog, T. (2006). Optimising worked example instruction: different ways to increase germane cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 87–91. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.004
94. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. DOI: 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1
95. Paas, F., van Gog, T., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: new conceptualizations, specifications, and integrated research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 115–121. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-010-9133-8
96. Pape, S. J., & Tchoshanov, M. A. (2001). The role of representation(s) in developing mathematical understanding. Theory Into Practice, 40(2), 118–127. DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4002_6
97. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
98. Pruim, R., Kaplan, D. T., & Horton, N. J. (2017). The mosaic package: helping students to “think with data” using R. The R Journal, 9(1), 77–102. DOI: 10.32614/RJ-2017-024
99. Reed, S. K. (1985). Effect of computer graphics on improving estimates to algebra word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 285–298. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.77.3.285
100. Reeves, L., & Weisberg, R. W. (1994). The role of content and abstract information in analogical transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115(3), 381–400. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.381
101. Renkl, A., Mandl, H., & Gruber, H. (1996). Inert knowledge: analyses and remedies. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 115–121. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep3102_3
102. Richland, L. E., Linn, M. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2007). Cognition and instruction: bridging laboratory and classroom settings. In Handbook of Applied Cognition (pp. 555–584).
103. Richland, L. E., Stigler, J. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (2012). Teaching the conceptual structure of mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 189–203. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2012.667065
104. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Schneider, M. (2015). Developing conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics. In R. Cohen Kadosh & A. Dowker (Eds.), Oxford handbook of numerical cognition. Oxford University Press.
105. Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: an iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 346–362. 10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.346. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.346
106. Robinson, V. M. (1998). Methodology and the research-practice gap. Educational Researcher, 27(1), 17–26. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X027001017
107. Ross, B. H. (1987). This is like that: the use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(4), 629–639. 10.1037/0278-7393.13.4.629. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.13.4.629
108. Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: a meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432–1463. 10.1037/a0037559. DOI: 10.1037/a0037559
109. Sarfo, F. K., & Elen, J. (2007). Developing technical expertise in secondary technical schools: the effect of 4C/ID learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 10(3), 207–221. DOI: 10.1007/s10984-007-9031-2
110. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: an instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31–38.
111. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–5223. DOI: 10.1207/s1532690xci1604_4
112. Schwartz, D. L., & Goldstone, R. (2015). Learning as coordination. In Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 61–75).
113. Son, J. Y., Smith, L. B., & Goldstone, R. L. (2008). Simplicity and generalization: short-cutting abstraction in children’s object categorizations. Cognition, 108(3), 626–638. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.05.002
114. Son, J. Y., Smith, L. B., & Goldstone, R. L. (2011). Connecting instances to promote children’s relational reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(2), 260–277. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.08.011
115. Son, J. Y., Blake, A., Fries, L., & Stigler, J. W. (under review). Modeling first: applying learning science to the teaching of introductory statistics.
116. Star, J. R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2009). Making algebra work: instructional strategies that deepen student understanding, within and between representations. ERS Spectrum, 27(2), 11–18.
117. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2009). The teaching gap: best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. Simon and Schuster.
118. Stigler, J. W., Givvin, K. B., & Thompson, B. J. (2010). What community college developmental mathematics students understand about mathematics. MathAMATYC Educator, 1(3), 4–16.
119. Stigler, J. W., Son, J. Y., Givvin, K. B., Blake, A., Fries, L., Shaw, S. T., & Tucker, M. C. (2020). The Better Book approach for education research and development. Teachers College Record.
120. Strauss, S. (1998). Cognitive development and science education: toward a middle level model. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) and I. Sigel, K. A. Renninger (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Child psychology in practice (5th edn., pp. 357–400). New York: Wiley.
121. Susilo, A. P., van Merriënboer, J., van Dalen, J., Claramita, M., & Scherpbier, A. (2013). From lecture to learning tasks: use of the 4C/ID model in a communication skills course in a continuing professional education context. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 44(6), 278–284. DOI: 10.3928/00220124-20130501-78
122. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
123. Tabachneck-Schijf, H. J., Leonardo, A. M., & Simon, H. A. (1997). CaMeRa: a computational model of multiple representations. Cognitive Science, 21(3), 305–350. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog2103_3
124. Toth, E. E., Klahr, D., & Chen, Z. (2000). Bridging research and practice: a cognitively based classroom intervention for teaching experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 423–459. DOI: 10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_1
125. Tseng, S. S., Su, J. M., Hwang, G. J., Hwang, G. H., Tsai, C. C., & Tsai, C. J. (2008). An object-oriented course framework for developing adaptive learning systems. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(2), 171–191.
126. Tsui, C. Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2013). Introduction to multiple representations: their importance in biology and biological education. In D. Treagust & C. Y. Tsui (Eds.), Multiple representations in biological education. Models and modeling in Science Education (Vol. 7). Dordrecht: Springer.
127. Uttal, D. H., Scudder, K. V., & DeLoache, J. S. (1997). Manipulatives as symbols: a new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18(1), 37–54. DOI: 10.1016/S0193-3973(97)90013-7
128. Uttal, D. H., O’Doherty, K., Newland, R., Hand, L. L., & DeLoache, J. (2009). Dual representation and the linking of concrete and symbolic representations. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 156–159. DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00097.x
129. van Merriënboer, J. J. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: a four-component instructional design model for technical training. Educational Technology Publications.
130. van Merriënboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0
131. van Merriënboer, J. J., Clark, R. E., & de Croock, M. B. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: the 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 39–61. DOI: 10.1007/BF02504993
132. Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
133. Weisberg, D. S., Kittredge, A. K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Klahr, D. (2015). Making play work for education. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(8), 8–13. DOI: 10.1177/0031721715583955
134. Wild, C. (2006). The concept of distribution. Statistics Education Research Journal, 5(2), 10–26.
135. Woltz, D. J., Gardner, M. K., & Bell, B. G. (2000). Negative transfer errors in sequential cognitive skills: strong-but-wrong sequence application. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 601–625.