The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt
Development Special Issue

Abstract

The Jasper Woodbury Problem Solving Series is an example of a video-based instructional macrocontext for complex problem generation and problem solving. The Jasper series and curricular materials are described and illustrated in this article. The theoretical framework underlying the series includes assumptions about educational goals and the nature of learning, including the importance of generative activities and cooperative learning situations. The authors argue that the Jasper series affords generative and cooperative learning activities in a way that traditional mathematics problem-solving materials do not. However, whether these features are utilized depends on the teaching model at work in the classroom. Three models of teaching—basics first, structured problem solving, and guided generation—that can be applied to the Jasper series are outlined. The strengths and weaknesses of each are discussed, and associated assessment issues are raised. The article concludes by pointing to the need for research on the impact of differing instructional design decisions.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, L., Kasserman, J., Yearwood, A., Perfetto, G., Bransford, J., & Franks, J. (1988). The effects of facts versus problem-oriented acquisition.Memory & Cognition, 16, 167–175.Google Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989).Science for all Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  3. Barrow, H. S. (1985).How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Borasi, R. (1987, November). Exploring mathematics through the analysis of errors.For the Learning of Mathematics, 7(3), 1–8.Google Scholar
  5. Borasi, R. (in press).Learning mathematics through inquiry: A study of practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinmann Educational Books.Google Scholar
  6. Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Morris, C. D., & Stein, B. S. (1979). Some general constraints on learning and research. In L. S. Cermak and F. I. M. Craik (Eds.),Levels of processing and human memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., & Sherwood, R. D. (1989). New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom can't be told. In S. Vosniadou and A. Ortony (Eds.),Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 470–497). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bransford, J. D., Goin, L. I., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., Sherwood, R. D., & Williams, S. M. (1988). Learning with technology: Theoretical and empirical perspectives.Peabody Journal of Education, 64(1), 5–26.Google Scholar
  9. Bransford, J. D., Goldman, S. R., & Vye, N. J. (in press). Making a difference in people's abilities to think: Reflections on a decade of work and some hopes for the future. In L. Okagaki & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),Directors of development: Influences on children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R., Hasselbring, T., Kinzer, C., & Williams, S. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.),Cognition, education, and multimedia: Explorations in high technology (pp. 115–142). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R., Vye, N., & Rieser, J. (1986). Teaching thinking and problem solving: Research foundations.American Psychologist, 41(10), 1078–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1984).The IDEAL problem solver. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  13. Bransford, J. D., & Vye, N. J. (1989). A perspective on cognitive research and its implications for instruction. In L. Resnick and L. E. Klopfer (Eds.),Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp. 173–205). Alexandria, VA: American Society for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  14. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–41.Google Scholar
  15. Brown, S. I., & Walters, M. I. (1983).The art of problem posing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Charles, R., & Silver, E. A. (Eds.). (1988).The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & National Council for Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  17. Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems.Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clement, J. (1982). Algebra word problem solutions: Thought processes underlying a common misconception.Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 13, 16–30.Google Scholar
  19. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition.Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2–10.Google Scholar
  20. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1991a).Video environments for connecting mathematics, science, and other disciplines. Paper presented at the Wingspread Conference on Integrated Science and Mathematics Teaching and Learning, Racine, WI.Google Scholar
  21. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1991b). Technology and the design of generative learning environments.Educational Technology, 31(5), 34–40.Google Scholar
  22. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (in press-a). Anchored instruction approach to cognitive skills acquisition and intelligent tutoring. In W. Regian & V. J. Shute (Eds.),Cognitive approaches to automated instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (in press-b). The Jasper series: A generative approach to improving mathematical thinking. InThis year in school science 1991. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  24. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (in press-c). Anchored instruction and science education. In R. Duschl & R. Hamilton (Eds.),Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology and educational theory and practice. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  25. Cole, M., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1987).Contextual factors in education. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.Google Scholar
  26. Cosden, M. A., Goldman, S. R., & Hine, M. S. (1990). Learning handicapped students' interactions during a microcomputer-based writing activity.Journal of Special Education Technology, 10, 220–232.Google Scholar
  27. Dewey, S. (1933):How we think: Restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: Heath.Google Scholar
  28. Dick, W. (1991). An instructional designer's view of constructivism.Educational Technology, 31(5), 41–44.Google Scholar
  29. Frederiksen, J. R., & Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing.Educational Researcher, 18, 27–32.Google Scholar
  30. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordance. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.),Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving.Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Analogical problem solving.Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Goldman, S. R., Mertz, D. L., & Pellegrino, J. W. (1989). Individual differences in extended practice functions and solution strategies for basic addition facts.Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 481–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Goldman, S. R., Pellegrino, J. W., & Bransford, J. (in press). Assessing programs that invite thinking. In H. O'Neill & E. Baker (Eds.),Technology assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Goldman, S. R., Pellegrino, J. W., & Mertz, D. L. (1988). Extended practice of basic addition facts: Strategy changes in learning disabled students.Cognition & Instruction, 5, 223–265.Google Scholar
  36. Goldman, S. R., Vye, N. J., Williams, S. M., Rewey, K., Pellegrino, J. W., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1991, April).Solution space analyses of the Jasper problems and students' attempts to solve them. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  37. Hanson, N. R. (1970). A picture theory of theory meaning. In R. G. Colodny (Ed.),The nature and function of scientific theories (pp. 233–274). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hasselbring, T., Sherwood, R., Bransford, J., Fleenor, K., Griffith, D., & Goin, L. (1988). An evaluation of a level-one instructional videodisc program.Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 16(2), 151–169.Google Scholar
  39. Hine, M. S., Goldman, S. R., & Cosden, M. A. (1990). Error monitoring by learning handicapped students.Journal of Special Education, 23, 407–422.Google Scholar
  40. Jenkins, J. J. (1979). Four points to remember: A tetrahedral model and memory experiments. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.),Levels and processing in human memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Lipman, M. (1985). Thinking skills fostered by philosophy for children. In J. Segal, S. Chipman, & R. Glaser (Eds.),Thinking and learning skills: Relating instruction to basic research (Vol. 1, pp. 83–108). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Lockhart, R. S., Lamon, M., & Gick, M. L. (1988). Conceptual transfer in simple insight problems.Memory & Cognition, 16, 36–44.Google Scholar
  43. McLarty, K., Goodman, J., Risko, V., Kinzer, C. K., Vye, N., Rowe, D., & Carson, J. (1990). Implementing anchored instruction: Guiding principles for curriculum development. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.),Literacy theory and research: Analyses from multiple paradigms (pp. 109–120). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.Google Scholar
  44. Minstrell, J. A. (1989). Teaching science for understanding. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.),Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp. 129–149). Alexandria, VA: American Society for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  45. Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1979). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533.Google Scholar
  46. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989).Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  47. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1989). Instruction for self-regulated reading. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.),Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp. 19–39). Alexandria, VA: American Society for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  49. Perfetto, G., Yearwood, A., Franks, J., & Bransford, J. (1987). The effects of generation on memory access.Bulletin of the Psychonomics Society, 25, 151–154.Google Scholar
  50. Pellegrino, J. W., Heath, A., Warren, S., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1991, April).Collaboration at a distance: A Jasper implementation experiment in nine states. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  51. Resnick, L. (1987).Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  52. Resnick, L. B., & Klopfer, L. E. (Eds.) (1989).Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  53. Resnick, L. B., & Resnick, D. P. (in press). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In. C. O'Connor & B. Gifford (Eds.),New approaches to testing: Rethinking aptitude, achievement and assessment. New York: National Committee on Testing and Public Policy.Google Scholar
  54. Risko, V. J., Kinzer, C., Vye, N. J., & Rowe, D. (1990, April).Effects of videodisc macrocontexts on comprehension and composition of causally-coherent stories. Presentation at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  55. Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to.International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89–99.Google Scholar
  56. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 37–68.Google Scholar
  57. 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 (Vol. 2, pp. 563–578). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  58. Schank, R. C., & Jona, M. Y. (1991). Empowering the student: New perspectives on the design of teaching systems.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 7–36.Google Scholar
  59. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985).Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  60. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). Problem solving in context(s). In R. I. Charles & E. A. Silver (Eds.),The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving (Vol. 3, pp. 82–92). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & National Council for Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  61. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Teaching mathematical thinking and problem solving. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.),Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp. 83–103). Alexandria, VA: American Society for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  62. Schwab, J. J. (1960). What do scientists do?Behavioral Science, 5, 1–27.Google Scholar
  63. Silver, E. A. (1990, April).Discussant: Reflections on directions of mathematics curriculum reform from the cognitive and social sciences. Invited address at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  64. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. L., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains.Educational Technology, 31(5), 24–33.Google Scholar
  65. Van Haneghan, J., Barron, L., Young, M., Williams, S., Vye, N., & Bransford, J. (in press). The Jasper Series: An experiment with new ways to enhance mathematical thinking. In D. Halpern (Ed.),Concerning: The development of thinking skills in the sciences and mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  66. Van Lehn, K. (1990).Mind bugs: The origins of procedural misconceptions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  67. Van Lehn, K., & Brown, J. S. (1980). Planning nets: A representation for formalizing analogies and semantic models for procedural skills. In R. E. Snow, P. A. Federico, & W. E. Montague (Eds.),Cognitive process analyses of learning and problem-solving (Vol. 2, pp. 95–137). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  68. Vye, N. J., Sharp, D. M., McCabe, K., & Bransford, J. D. (in press). Discussion: Exploring a reasoning-based program for teaching arithmetic. In B. Means (Ed.),Models for teaching advanced skills to disadvantaged students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  69. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Whitehead, A. N. (1929).The aims of education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  71. Yackel, E., Cobb, P., Wood, T., Wheatley, G., & Merkel, G. (1990). The importance of social interaction in children's construction of mathematical knowledge. InTeaching and learning mathematics in the 1990s. 1990 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 12–21). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© the Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations