Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TEACHING
MODELS
Brent Wilson
Peggy Cole
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER
Wilson, B., & Cole, P. (1991). A review of cognitive teaching models. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 39 (4), 47-64
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to review from an instructional-design (ID) point of view
nine teaching programs developed by cognitive psychologists over the last ten years.
Among these models, Collins' cognitive apprenticeship model has the most explicit
prescriptions for instructional design. The paper analyzes the cognitive apprenticeship
model, then uses components of the model as an organizing framework for understanding
the remaining models. Differences in approach are noted between traditional ID
prescriptions and the cognitive teaching models. Surprisingly, we were unable to identify
common design strategies common to all of the model programs. Key differences among
programs included: (1) problem solving versus skill orientation, (2) detailed versus broad
cognitive task analysis, (3) learner versus system control, and (4) error-restricted versus
error-driven instruction. The paper concludes by arguing for the utility of continuing
dialogue between cognitive psychologists and instructional designers.
The field of instructional design (ID) emerged more than 30 years ago as psychologists
and educators searched for effective means of planning and producing instructional
systems (Merrill, Kowallis, & Wilson, 1981; Reiser, 1987). Since that time, instructional
designers have became more clearly differentiated from instructional psychologists
working within a cognitivist tradition (Glaser, 1982; Glaser & Bassok, 1989; Resnick,
1981). ID theorists tend to place priority on developing explicit prescriptions and models
for designing instruction while instructional psychologists focus on understanding the
learning processes in instructional settings.
Of course, the distinction between designers and psychologists is never clear-cut. Over
the years, many ID theorists have explored learning processes, just as many psychologists
have put considerable energy into the design and implementation of experimental
instructional programs. However, because the two fields support different literature and
theory bases, communication is often lacking. Cognitive psychologists have tended to
overlook contributions from the ID literature, and likewise much design work of
psychologists has gone unnoticed by ID theorists. (A happy exception to this trend is the
Gott's second observation relates to training opportunities. Now, at a time when more
problem-solving expertise is needed due to the complexity of systems, fewer on-the-job
training opportunities exist for entry-level workers. There is often little or no chance for
beginning workers to acclimatize themselves to the job, and workers very quickly are
expected to perform like seasoned professionals. True apprenticeship experiences are
becoming relatively rare. Gott calls this dilemma-more complex job requirements with
less time on the job to learn-the "lost" apprenticeship, and argues for the critical need for
cognitive apprenticeships and simulation-type training to help workers develop greater
problem-solving expertise.
The authors contrast this task-analysis approach with a more teacher-based approach
where simplicity is achieved by the social negotiation between teacher and learner:
The teacher and child start out doing the task together. At first, the teacher is doing most
of the task and the child is playing some minor role. Gradually, the child is able to do
more and more until finally he can do the task on his own. The teacher's actions in these
supportive interactions have often been called "scaffolding,"... suggesting a temporary
support that is removed when no longer necessary....There is a sequence involved ...but it
is a sequence of different divisions of labor. The task-in the sense of the whole task as
negotiated between the teacher and child-remains the same. (p. 153)
Several of the cognitive teaching models reviewed below embody similar constructivist
concepts. It is not yet clear, however, precisely how such concepts would translate
themselves into guidelines for designing teaching materials. The cognitive apprenticeship
model discussed at length below includes some well-worn design elements-such as
modeling and fading-and others that are relatively neglected by ID models-such as
situated learning, exploration, and the role of tacit knowledge.
Taken in its extreme form that would require "authentic," real-life contexts for all
learning, the notion of situated learning is somewhat vague and unrealistic. Instruction
always involves the dual goals of generalization and differentiation (Gagn & Driscoll,
1989). In its more modest form, however, the idea of context-based learning has
considerable appeal. Gagn and Merrill (1990) have pointed to the need for better
integration of learning goals through problem-solving "transactions." The notion of
situated learning, however it is viewed, challenges the conditions-of-learning paradigm
that prescribes the breaking down of tasks to be taught out of context.
3. Modeling and explaining: Show how a process unfolds and tell reasons why it
happens that way. Collins (1991) cites two kinds of modeling: modeling of processes
observed in the world and modeling of expert performance, including covert cognitive
processes. Computers can be used to aid in the modeling of these processes. Collins
stresses the importance of integrating both the demonstration and the explanation during
instruction. Learners need access to explanations as they observe details of the modeled
performance. Computers are particularly good at modeling covert processes that
otherwise would be difficult to observe. Collins suggests that truly modeling competent
performance, including the false starts, dead ends, and backup strategies, can help
learners more quickly adopt the tacit forms of knowledge alluded to above in the section
on content. Teachers in this way are seen as "intelligent novices" (Bransford et al., 1988).
By seeing both process modeling and accompanying explanations, students can develop
"conditionalized" knowledge, that is, knowledge about when and where knowledge
should be used to solve a variety of problems.
ID models presently incorporate modeling and demonstration techniques. Tying
explanations to modeled performances is a useful idea, similar to Chi and Bassok's
(1989) studies of worked-out examples. Again, the emphasis is on making tacit strategies
more explicit by directly modeling mental heuristics.
4. Coaching: Observe students as they try to complete tasks and provide hints and helps
when needed. Intelligent tutoring systems sometimes embody sophisticated coaching
systems that model the learner's progress and provide hints and support as practice
activities increase in difficulty. Burton and Brown (1979) developed a coach to help
learners with "How the West Was Won," a game originally implemented on the PLATO
system. Anderson, Boyle, and Reiser (1985) developed coaches for geometry and LISP
programming. Clancey (1986) and White and Frederiksen (1986) include coaches in their
respective programs on medical diagnosis and electric circuits, both discussed below.
Coaching strategies can be implemented in a variety of settings. Bransford and Vye
(1989) identify several characteristics of effective coaches:
Coaches need to monitor learners' performance to prevent their getting too far off base,
but leaving enough room to allow for a real sense of exploration and problem solving.
Coaches help learners reflect on their performance and compare it to others'.
Imitation occurs when a batting coach demonstrates a proper swing, contrasting it with
your swing;
Replay occurs when the coach videotapes your swing and plays it back, critiquing and
comparing it to the swing of an expert;
Abstracted replay might occur by tracing an expert's movements of key body parts such
as elbows, wrists, hips, and knees, and comparing those movement to your movements;
Spatial reification would take the tracings of body parts and plot them moving through
space.
The latter forms of reflection seem to rely on technologies-video or computer- for
convenient instantiation. Collins (1991) uses Anderson et al.'s Geometry Tutor as an
example of reflective instruction; Clancey's (1986) GUIDON medical tutor requires
reflective thinking because so much metacognitive responsibility is given to learners.
Both are computer-based programs.
Articulation and reflection are both strategies to help bring meaning to activities that
might otherwise be more "rote" and procedural. Reigeluth's (1983b) concern with
meaningful learning is indicative of the need; however, much of traditional ID practice
tends to undervalue the reflective aspects of performance in favor of getting the
procedure down right. The risk of ignoring reflection is that learners may not learn to
discriminate in applying procedures; they may fail to recognize conditions where using
their knowledge would be appropriate, and may fail to transfer knowledge to different
tasks.
7. Exploration: Encourage students to try out different strategies and hypotheses and
observe their effects. Collins (1991) claims that through exploration, students learn how
to set achievable goals and to manage the pursuit of those goals. They learn to set and try
out hypotheses, and to seek knowledge independently. Real-world exploration is always
an attractive option; however, constraints of cost, time, and safety sometimes prohibit
instruction in realistic settings. Simulations are one way to allow exploration; hypertext
structures are another.
As Reigeluth (1983a) notes, discovery learning techniques are less efficient than direct
instruction techniques for simple content acquisition. The choice must depend, however,
on the goals of instruction: For near transfer tasks (cf. Salomon & Perkins, 1988), direct
instruction may occasionally be warranted; for far transfer tasks, learners must learn not
only the content but also how to solve unforeseen problems using the content; in such
cases, instructional strategies allowing exploration and strategic behavior become
essential McDaniel & Schlager, 1990).
Having thus represented a traditional ID mode of thinking about exploration, we are still
left unsatisfied. Following a constructivist way of thinking, there is something
intrinsically valuable about situated problem-solving activity that makes learning more
effective than straight procedural practice. This is an area that needs better articulation,
including a rationale for appropriate goals for exploratory and inquiry-based instruction,
and effective strategies for reaching those goals.
8. Sequence: Present instruction in an ordering from simple to complex, with
increasing diversity, and global before local skills.
Increasing complexity. Collins et al. (1989) point to two methods for helping learners
deal with increasing complexity. First, instruction should take steps to control the
complexity of assigned tasks. They cite Lave's study of tailoring apprenticeships:
apprentices first learn to sew drawers, which have straight lines, few pieces of material,
and no special features like zippers or pockets. They progress to more complex garments
over a period of time. The second method for controlling complexity is through
scaffolding; for example, group or teacher support for individual problem solving.
Increasing diversity refers to the variety in examples and practice contexts.
Global before local skills refers to helping learners acquire a mental model of the
problem space at very early stages of learning. Even though learners are not engaged in
full problem solving, through modeling and helping on parts of the task (scaffolding),
they can understand the goals of the activity and the way various strategies relate to the
problem's solution. Once they have a clear "conceptual map" of the activity, they can
proceed to developing specific skills.
The sequencing suggestions above bear a strong resemblance to those of elaboration
theory (Reigeluth & Stein, 1983) and component display theory (Merrill, 1983). The
notion teaching of global before local skills is implicit in elaboration theory; simple-tocomplex sequencing is the foundation of elaboration theory. The notion of increasing
diversity is the near-equivalent to the prescription to use "varied-example" and practice
activities in concept or rule learning. The cognitive apprenticeship extends these notions
beyond rule learning to problem-solving contexts. At the same time, a number of research
findings call into question the simple-to-complex formula. For a more complete
discussion of sequencing issues, see Wilson & Cole (1992).
10
11
significantly, it is failure driven; that is, primary instruction occurs in the form of
feedback to student errors.
GUIDON requires the student to make a diagnosis, then to justify it with reasons. When
the student's diagnosis "fails," he/she must take steps to correct the reasoning that led to
it. Thus while the student develops expertise in medical diagnosis in a realistic problemsolving context, he/she also learns to detect and correct buggy procedures and
misconceptions. The program is nearly completely learner-controlled; at any point, the
student can choose to browse through the expert taxonomies and tables, examine the
expert's reasoning during problem solving, ask questions, or request explanations. But
ultimately the student must generate the appropriate links in a solution graph for each
case.
Reciprocal
Teaching
Brown and Palincsar (1989; Palincsar & Brown, 1984) have developed a cooperative
learning system for the teaching of reading, termed reciprocal teaching. The teacher and
learners assemble in groups of 2 to 7 and read a paragraph together silently. A person
assumes the "teacher" role and formulates a question on the paragraph. This question is
addressed by the group, whose members are playing roles of producer and critic
simultaneously. The "teacher" advances a summary, and makes a prediction or
clarification, if any is needed. The role of teacher then rotates, and the group proceeds to
the next paragraph in the text. Brown and colleagues have also developed a method of
assessment, called dynamic assessment, based on successively increasing prompts on a
realistic reading task. The reciprocal teaching method uses a combination of modeling,
coaching, scaffolding, and fading to achieve impressive results, with learners showing
dramatic gains in comprehension, retention, and far transfer over sustained periods.
12
course, is in conflict with a more constructive, planning approach in which writing pieces
are composed in a more coherent, intentional way. To encourage students to adopt more
sophisticated writing strategies, Scardamalia and Bereiter (1985) have developed a set of
writing prompts called procedural facilitations, that are designed to reduce workingmemory demands and provide a structure for completing writing plans and revisions.
Their system includes a set of cue cards for different purposes of writing, structured
under five headings: new idea (e.g. "An even better idea is..."; "An important point I
haven't considered yet is..."), improve ("I could make my point clearer..."), elaborate
("An example of this..."; "A good point on the other side of the argument is..."), goals
("My purpose..."), and putting it together ("I can tie this together by..."). Each prompt is
written on a notecard and drawn by learners working in small groups. The teacher makes
use of two techniques, soloing and co-investigation. Soloing gives learners the
opportunity to try out new procedures by themselves, then return to the group for critique
and suggestions. Co-investigation is a process of using think-aloud protocols that allow
learner and teacher to work together on writing activities. This allows for more direct
modeling and immediate direction. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) have found up to
tenfold gains in learning indicators with nearly every learner improving his/her writing
through the intervention.
Anchored
Instruction
John Bransford and colleagues at Vanderbilt University have developed several
instructional products using video settings. Young Sherlock Holmes or Indiana Jones may
provide macrocontexts within which problems of various kinds may be addressed. For
example, when Indiana Jones quickly replaces a bag of sand in place of the gold idol, the
booby trap is tricked into thinking the idol is still there. This scene opens up questions of
13
mass and density: If the idol were solid gold, how big must a sand bag be to weigh the
same, and could Indy have escaped as he did carrying a solid-gold idol of that size?
Based on a single macrocontext, learners may approach a variety of problems that draw
on science, math, language, and history. Bransford and colleagues have applied the name
anchored instruction to this approach of grounding instruction in information-rich
situations, and have reported favorable findings in field-based and laboratory studies (The
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1990). Recently, several videodisc-based
macrocontexts called the Jasper Series have been developed as a basis for research and
classroom instruction (The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, in press;
Sherwood and The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1991; Van Haneghan
et al., in press).
14
d. the cases are accompanied by expert commentary and guidance; and, finally,
e. because the cases are short, they are each easier to remember and more of them can be
presented in a short amount of time, facilitating the recognition of relationships across
cases. (p. 202; reformatted)
Spiro and Jehng emphasize that this instructional approach is difficult-it places great
metacognitive demands on learners-but it addresses goals which are often overlooked in
instruction precisely because they are difficult.
Instruction designed around mini-cases is similar to Schank's use of stories in instruction
(Schank & Jona, 1991; Riesbeck & Schank, 1989). Schank's approach includes
videotaping and assembling a database of short "stories" or cases from experts, then
accessing and sequencing those stories within an instructional framework according to
expressed feelings, perceptions, and needs of the learner. Case-based instruction is a
highly appealing design concept, and we look forward to reports of working programs
from Schank and colleagues.
15
On each day that the students worked on the project, they initially spent 5-7 minutes
writing designs and plans in special notebooks and 45-55 minutes working on their
computers, and then wrote about the problems they had encountered and changes they
had made; occasionally they also included designs for the next session's activity. "The
only two requirements were: (1) that they write in their Designer Notebooks before and
after each working session; and (2) that they spend a specific amount of time at the
computer each day" (Harel & Papert, p. 4) in order to fit the project into the schedule.
In many respects the students, teacher and researcher were like a community of scholars
jointly in pursuit of knowledge, or a community of craft apprentices. At all times students
had access to "experts" and to continual evaluation; they could compare their work with
each others' work and to the work of experts (all representing various stages of expertise).
By the end of the study, not only did the experimental group significantly exceed both
control groups in mastery of fractions, but on some items the students scored twice as
high as sixth- to eighth-graders. The students were also more persistent than students in
both control groups in trying to solve various Logo programming problems, and
developed more metacognitive sophistication. They could find problems, develop plans,
discard or revise inefficient plans, and control distractions and anxiety.
Harel and Papert hypothesize that no single factor alone contributed to the students'
achievements. Instead they conclude that several factors interrelated in a holistic
approach which may include but is not limited to:
the affective side of cognition and learning; the children's process of personal
appropriation of knowledge; the children's use of LogoWriter; the children's
constructivist involvement with the deep structure of fractions knowledge; the integratedlearning principle; the learning-by-teaching principle; and the power of design as a
learning activity. (Harel & Papert, p. 30)
Expert Systems.
Lippert (1988, 1990) describes the way in which an expert system shell can be used as
both an instructional and a learning strategy to "facilitate the acquisition of procedural
knowledge and problem-solving skills in difficult topics" (1988, p. 22). Again, students
learn by designing-developing an expert system individually or in groups, on their own or
under the guidance of a teacher. According to Lippert, the strategy can be used with
students as young as grade 6 and in any domain whose knowledge base can be expressed
in productions.
Like the Harel and Papert approach, developing an expert system forces students to
construct a meaningful representation of the domain. Most expert systems are systems
which reduce a content domain to a set of IF-THEN rules. According to Lippert's
scheme, the knowledge base is the key component and includes four parts: decisions
which define the domain; questions which extract information (answers) from the user;
rules that relate the answers to the decisions; and explanations (of questions or rules),
16
which require the developer to understand the relationships among the various elements
of the domain-the learner must understand "why" and "when," not merely "what." The
developer constructs the knowledge base which the system then evaluates; if the system
finds inconsistencies or redundancies, the developer must revise the knowledge base. In
doing so, the learner must be reflective and articulate his or her implicit knowledge.
Developing such a system helps students confront their misconceptions of the content.
In designing the system, students can experiment, trying out ideas and revising them as
necessary until they are satisfied with their representation of the domain. They can
initially restrict their system to one component of a domain and expand it to
accommodate their expanding knowledge base. As in Harel and Papert's Logo
environment, when students work in groups, they are exposed to and stimulated by
different representations of the domain. And like the students in the Logo environment,
students who design an expert system learn much incidental information and often
become enthusiastic about learning the content.
Several issues remain unresolved with respect to learning through design activities. Like
many prototype programs, factors contributing to the success of the programs are largely
embedded within the expertise of the researchers and teachers. The critical factors in the
instructional design need to be further explicated; this will allow the approach to be more
easily identified and exported to different settings. A key issue is the question of
efficiency: Can learning through design make more efficient use of time and resources, or
does a design-oriented approach require extra time and resources? Theoretically, learning
through design represents a fundamental alternative to traditional instructional designs,
and deserves, therefore, continued attention among ID theorists.
17
interpretation problems per se. Instead, learners are provided a rich environment to
explore and study. Problem solving in this setting depends heavily on the predisposition
and prior knowledge of the learner. Thus the explicit instructional guidance for problem
solving is relatively weak, which would likely result in failure for the learner lacking in
metacognitive and preexisting content knowledge. The rest of the programs include
higher levels of guidance for problem solving and practice on procedural skills.
A problem-solving orientation toward instruction is not implied by the conditions-oflearning paradigm; in fact, the reverse seems to be true. In the words of an anonymous
reviewer of a previous draft of this article, "this is a content issue, not a method issue."
Traditional instructional designers "would say that the needs analysis should determine
whether or not you have a problem-solving orientation or a skill orientation (or both, or
neither-perhaps an understanding orientation)." Hence, from an ID point of view,
problem-solving instruction is only one of several kinds, each meeting different needs. A
more constructivist point of view, however, would suggest that virtually all instruction
somehow should be embedded within a problem-solving context (e.g., Bransford & Vye,
1989; Wilson, 1989). The heavy bias toward problem solving in the models reviewed
seems to be evidence of the viability of such an emphasis.
18
Faulconer and Williams (1990), for example, outline a Heideggerian perspective that
helps to resolve the dualistic bias inherent in the current "objectivism" versus
"constructivism" debate (Duffy & Jonassen, in press). Instructional designers can do
more to be sensitive to the variety of conceptions of knowledge and learning, and to
develop teaching models in line with those varying conceptions.
19
actions within levels, but movement from level to level is planned in advance according
to content parameters. With less defined content (e.g., reciprocal teaching), sequence of
cases is, at least on the surface, much less important. Another view of reciprocal teaching,
however, is that the text being read is not the content; rather, the content lies in the skills
being modeled and practiced, and the sequencing, under the informal control of the
teacher, does proceed from simple to complex.
CONCLUSION
This paper has been concerned with the relationship between two related disciplines:
cognitive psychology and instructional design. ID, the more applied discipline, faces the
challenges of constantly re-inventing itself as new research in basic psychology sheds
light on learning processes. It is no cause for concern that ID models need continual selfreview; indeed, there would be cause for concern if the situation were otherwise. To
provide some sense of context, however, we would like to call attention to some basic
principles of cognitive apprenticeship articulated by the philosopher Erasmus more than
500 years ago. In a letter to a student friend, Erasmus offers some advice:
Your first endeavor should be to choose the most learned teacher you can find, for it is
impossible that one who is himself no scholar should make a scholar of anyone else. As
soon as you find him, make every effort to see that he acquires the feelings of a father
towards you, and you in turn those of a son towards him . . . . Secondly, you should give
him attention and be regular in your work for him, for the talents of students are
sometimes ruined by violent effort, whereas regularity in work has lasting effect just
20
because of its temperance and produces by daily practice a greater result than you would
suppose . . . . A constant element of enjoyment must be mingled with our studies so that
we think of learning as a game rather than a form of drudgery, for no activity can be
continued for long if it does not to some extent afford pleasure to the participant.
Listen to your teacher's explanations not only attentively but eagerly. Do not be satisfied
simply to follow his discourse with an alert mind; try now and then to anticipate the
direction of his thought . . . Write down his most important utterances, for writing is the
most faithful custodian of words. On the other hand, avoid trusting it too much . . . . The
contests of minds in what we may call their wrestling ring are especially effective for
exhibiting, stimulating, and enlarging the sinews of the human understanding. Do not be
ashamed to ask questions if you are in doubt; or to be put right whenever you are wrong.
(Erasmus, 1974, pp. 114-115)
At a time when terms like metacognition, scaffolding , and cognitive apprenticeship are
being invented to describe the learning process, it is humbling to be reminded of the
insights of former paradigms. ID theorists may chafe at the continuing need to revise
their theories in light of advances in psychological theory, but it is good for both fields
for the dialogue to continue. Indeed, the interaction between basic psychology and
applied instructional design can be expected to continue for some time to come.
AUTHOR
NOTES
We would like to thank Jim Cole for calling our attention to the works of Erasmus. We
also thank suggestions made by anonymous reviewers. Please send requests for reprints
to Brent Wilson, University of Colorado at Denver/Campus Box 106/P. O. Box
173364/Denver CO 80217-3364.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications (3rd ed.). New York:
Freeman.
Anderson, J. R., Boyle, C. F., & Yost, G. (1985). The Geometry Tutor. In Proceedings of
the international joint conference on artificial intelligence, pp. 1-7. Los Altos CA:
International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
Anderson, J. R., Farrell, R., & Sauers, R. (1984). Learning to program in LISP. Cognitive
Science, 8, 87-129.
Andrews, D. H., & Goodson, L. A. (1980). A comparative analysis of models of
instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 3(4), 2-16.
Bereiter, C. (1991, April). Implications of connectionism for thinking about rules.
Educational Researcher, 10-16.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21
22
23
24
Perkins, D. N. (1990). The nature and nurture of creativity. In In B. F. Jones & L. Idol
(Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Posner, G. K., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982) Accommodation
of scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66,
211-227.
Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1983a). Instructional-design theories and models: An overview
of their current status. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1983b). Meaningfulness and instruction: Relating what is being learned
to what a student knows. Instructional Science, 12(3) 197-218.
Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1987). Instructional theories in action: Lessons illustrating
selected theories and models. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Reigeluth, C. M., Merrill, M. D., Wilson, B. G., & Spiller, R. T. (1980). The elaboration
theory of instruction: A model for structuring instruction. Instructional Science, 9, 195219.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Stein, R. (1983). Elaboration theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),
Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 335381). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Reiser, R. A. (1987). Instructional technology: A history. In R. M. Gagn (Ed.),
Instructional technology: Foundations. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Resnick, L. B. (1981). Instructional Psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 631666.
Resnick, L. B. (1989, February). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher,
13-20.
Riesbeck, C., & Schank, R. (1989). Inside case-based reasoning. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (Eds.). (1984). Everyday cognition: Its development in social
context (pp. 95-116). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Salmoni, A. W., Schmidt, R. A., & Walter, C. B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor
learing: A review and critical reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 355-386.
Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal
development: Internalizing reading-related metacognitions from a reading partner.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 620-627.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1988). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms
of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113-142.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1985). Fostering the development of self-regulation in
children's knowledge processing. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.),
Thinking and learning skills: Research and open questions (pp. 563-577). Hillsdale NJ:
Erlbaum.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in
knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37-68.
25
Schank, R. C., & Jona, M. Y. (1991). Empowering the student: New perspectives on the
design of teaching systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 7-35.
Schoenfeld (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.
Sherwood, R. D., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1991, April).
The development and preliminary evaluation of anchored instruction environments for
developing mathematical and scientific thinking. Paper presented at the meeting of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva WI.
Smith, P. L., & Wedman, J. F. (1988). Read-think-aloud protocols: A new data-source for
formative evaluation. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 1(2), 13-22.
Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988, October).
Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains
(Technical Report No. 441). Champaign IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Center for the Study of Reading.
Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J-C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and
technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In
D. Nix & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in
high technology (pp. 163-205). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (in press). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. To
appear in R. Duschl & R. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive science, and
educational theory and practice. Albany NY: SUNY Press.
Van Haneghan, J. P., Barron, L., Young, M. F., Williams, S. M., Vye, N. J., & Bransford,
J. D. (in press). The Jasper Series: An experiment with new ways to enhance
mathematical thinking. In D. Halpern (Ed.), The development of thinking skills in the
sciences and mathematics. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Wertsch, J. V. (1989). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge MA:
Harvard University Press.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1986). Progressions of quantitative models as a
foundation for intelligent learning environments. Technical Report # 6277, Bolt,
Beranek, & Newman.
Wilson, B. G. (1987). Computers and instructional design: Component display theory in
transition. In M. R. Simonson & S. Zvacek (Eds.), Proceedings of selected research
presentations (pp. 767 - 782). Washington, D. C.: Association for Educational
Communications and Technology, Research and Theory Division.
Wilson, B. G. (1989). Cognitive psychology and instructional design. In S. Thiagarajan
(Ed.), Proceedings of the National Society for Performance and Instruction, 317-333.
Wilson, B. G., & Jonassen, D. H. (1989). Hypertext and instructional design: Some
preliminary guidelines. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 2(3), 34-49.
Wilson, B., & Cole, P. (1992). Returning the 'theory' to Elaboration Theory: Strategies
for organizing instruction based on cognitive conceptions of learning. Paper presented at
the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco,
manuscript in preparation.
26