Software for managing complex learning: Examples from an educational psychology course

  • Daniel L. Schwartz
  • Sean Brophy
  • Xiaodong Lin
  • John D. Bransford
Research

Abstract

Inquiry-based instruction including problem-, project-, and case-based methods often incorporate complex sets of learning activities. The numerous activities run the risk of becoming disconnected in the minds of learners and teachers. STAR.Legacy is a software shell that can help designers organize learning activities into an inquiry cycle that is easy to understand and pedagogically sound. To ensure that classroom teachers can adapt the inquiry activities according to their local resources and needs, STAR.Legacy was built upon four types of design principles: learner centered, knowledge centered, assessment centered, and community centered. We describe how a STAR.Legacy constructed for an educational psychology course helped preservice teachers design and learn about effective inquiry-based instruction.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barron, B.J., Schwartz, D.L., Vye, N.J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., Bransford, J.D., & Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 271–311Google Scholar
  2. Barron, B.J., Vye, N.J., Zech, L., Schwartz, D., Bransford, J.D., Goldman, S.R., Pellegrino, J., Morris, J., Garrison, S., & Kantor, R. (1995). Creating contexts for community-based problem solving: The Jasper challenge series. In C.N. Hedley, P. Atonacci, & M. Rabinowitz (Eds.),Thinking and literacy: The mind at work. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Barrows, H.S. (1985).How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, B. (1998). Investigate and decide learning environments: Specializing task models for authoring tool design.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 65–107.Google Scholar
  5. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1985). Cognitive coping strategies and the problem of “inert” knowledge. In S.F. Chipman, J.W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.),Thinking and learning skills: Current research and open questions (Vol. 2, pp. 65–80). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. 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 & A. Ortony (Eds.),Similarity and analogical reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bransford, J.D., & Nitsch, K.E. (1978). Coming to understand things we could not previously understand. In J.F. Kavanagh & W. Strange (Eds.),Speech and language in the laboratory, school and clinic. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bransford, J.D., & Schwartz, D.L. (in press). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. To appear in A. Iran-Nejad & P.D. Pearson (Eds.),Review of Research in Education, 24, xxx-xxx. Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  9. Bransford, J.D., Sherwood, R.D., Hasselbring, T.S., Kinzer, C.K., & Williams, S.M. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.),Cognition, education, and multi-media: Exploring ideas in high technology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Bransford, J.D., Zech, L., Schwartz, D.L., Barron, B.J., Vye, N., & Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (in press). Design environments that invite and sustain mathematical thinking. To appear in P. Cobb (Ed.),Symbolizing, communicating, and mathematizing: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Bridges, E.M., & Hallinger, P. (1995).Implementing problem based learning in leadership development. University of Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse of Educational Management.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, A.L., & Campione, J.C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.),Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–272). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development.Educational Researcher, 23, 13–20.Google Scholar
  14. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data.Educational Psychologist, 27, 291–315.Google Scholar
  15. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1994). Generative learning and anchored instruction: Design, research and implementation issues. In B.P.M. Creemers and G.J. Reezigt (Eds.),New directions in educational research: Contributions from an international perspective. Groningen: ICO.Google Scholar
  16. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1996). Looking at technology in context: A framework for understanding technology and education research. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.),The handbook of educational psychology (pp. 807–840). NY: Simon & Schuster MacMillan.Google Scholar
  17. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997).The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (in press). Adventures in anchored instruction: Lessons from beyond the ivory tower. To appear in R. Glaser (Ed.),Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 5), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Dweck, C.S. (1989). Motivation. In A. Lesgold & R. Glaser (Eds.),Foundations for a psychology of education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Gardner, H. (1991). Assessment in context: The alternative to standardized testing. In B. Gifford & C. O'Connor (Eds.),Future assessments: Changing views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction (pp. 77–120). Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  21. Gibson, J.J., & Gibson, E.J. (1957). Perceptual learning: Differentiation or enrichment.Psychological Review, 62, 32–51.Google Scholar
  22. Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer.Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gragg, C.L. (1940, October 19). Wisdom can't be told.Harvard Alumni Bulletin.Google Scholar
  24. Hmelo, C.E. (1998). Problem-based learning: Effects on the early acquisition of cognitive skills in medicine.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 173–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Bass, K.M., & Fredricks, J. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313–350.Google Scholar
  26. Kuhn, T.S. (1962).The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lin, X.D., & Bielaczyc, K. (1998).Supporting metacognitive activities in learning about complex subject domains. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  28. Michael, A.L., Klee, T., Bransford, J.D., & Warren, S. (1993). The transition from theory to therapy: Test of two instructional methods.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 139–154.Google Scholar
  29. Murray, T. (1998). Authoring knowledge-based tutors: Tools for content, instructional strategy, student model, and interface design.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 5–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972).Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Nunn, C.E. (1996). Discussion in college classrooms: Triangulating observation and survey results.Journal of Higher Education, 67, 23–26.Google Scholar
  32. Penner, D.E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: A design-based modeling approach.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 429–449.Google Scholar
  33. Perfetto, G.A., Bransford, J.D., & Franks, J.J. (1983). Constraints on access in a problem solving context.Memory and Cognition, 11, 24–31.Google Scholar
  34. Sato, N.E., & McLaughlin, M W. (1992). Context matters: Teaching in Japan and in the United States.Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 359–366.Google Scholar
  35. Schwartz, D.L., Biswas, G., Bransford, J.D., Bhuva, B., Balac, T., & Brophy, S. (in press). Computer tools that link assessment and instruction: Investigating what makes electricity hard to learn. To appear in S. Lajoie (Ed.),Computers as cognitive tools: The next generation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Schwartz, D.L., & Bransford, J.D. (1998). A time for telling.Cognition & Instruction, 16, 475–522.Google Scholar
  37. Schwartz, D.L., Lin, X.D., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J.D. (in press). Towards the development of flexibly adaptive instructional design. To appear in C. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models, Volume II. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Spiro, R.J., & Jehng, J.C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the non-linear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix and R.J. Spiro (Eds.),Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Towler, L., & Broadfoot, P. (1992). Self-assessment in the primary school.Educational Review, 44, 137–151.Google Scholar
  40. Vye, N.J., Schwartz, D.L., Bransford, J.D., Barron, B., Zech, L., and Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). SMART environments that support monitoring, reflection, and revision. In Hacker, Dunlosky, & Graesser (Eds.),Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Wertime, R. (1979). Students' problems and “courage spans”. In J. Lockhead and J. Clements (Eds.),Cognitive process instruction. Philadelphia: The Franklin Institute Press.Google Scholar
  42. Whitehead, A.N. (1929).The aims of education. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  43. Williams, S.E. (1992). Putting case-based instruction into context: Examples from legal and medical education.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 367–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel L. Schwartz
    • 1
  • Sean Brophy
    • 1
  • Xiaodong Lin
    • 1
  • John D. Bransford
    • 1
  1. 1.the Learning Technology Center at Vanderbilt UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations