Advertisement

Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 55, Issue 5, pp 499–520 | Cite as

Characteristics of a cognitive tool that helps students learn diagnostic problem solving

  • Jared A. DanielsonEmail author
  • Eric M. Mills
  • Pamela J. Vermeer
  • Vanessa A. Preast
  • Karen M. Young
  • Mary M. Christopher
  • Jeanne W. George
  • R. Darren Wood
  • Holly S. Bender
DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE

Abstract

Three related studies replicated and extended previous work (J.A. Danielson et al. (2003), Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 63–81) involving the Diagnostic Pathfinder (dP) (previously Problem List Generator [PLG]), a cognitive tool for learning diagnostic problem solving. In studies 1 and 2, groups of 126 and 113 veterinary students, respectively, used the dP to complete case-based homework; groups of 120 and 199, respectively, used an alternative method. Students in the dP groups scored significantly higher (p = .000 and .003, respectively) on final exams than those in control groups. In the third study, 552 veterinary students responding to a questionnaire indicated that the dP’s gating and data synthesis activities aided learning. The dP’s feedback and requirement of completeness appear to aid learning most.

Keywords

Cognitive Load Theory Cognitive Tools Diagnostic Problem Solving Feedback Gating 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The contents of this article were partially developed under a grant from the Learning Anytime Anywhere Partnerships (LAAP), a program of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), U.S. Department of Education. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Elements of this article were reported previously by Danielson, Bender, Mills, Vermeer, and Preast as Helping Learners Gain Diagnostic Problem Solving Skills: Specific Aspects of the Diagnostic Pathfinder Software Tied to Learning Outcomes in the published proceedings of the 2004 AECT national convention.

References

  1. Bordage, G. (1994). Elaborated knowledge: A key to successful diagnostic thinking. Academic Medicine, 69(11), 883–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bordage, G., & Lemieux, M. (1991). Semantic structures and diagnostic thinking of experts and novices. Academic Medicine, 66(9 Suppl), S70–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bransford, J. D. E., Brown, A. L. E., & Cocking, R. R. E. (2000). how people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. expanded edition. District of Columbia: National Academies Press, 2102 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington DC 20055.Google Scholar
  4. Danielson, J. A. (1999). The design, development and evaluation of a web-based tool for helping veterinary students learn how to classify clinical laboratory data. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.Google Scholar
  5. Danielson, J. A., Bender, H. S., Mills, E. M., Vermeer, P. J., & Lockee, B. B. (2003). A Tool for Helping Veterinary Students Learn Diagnostic Problem Solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Using Cognitive Tools to Represent Problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 362–379.Google Scholar
  7. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The Expertise Reversal Effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kozma, R. B. (1987). The Implications of Cognitive Psychology for computer-based learning Tools. Educational Technology, 40(11), 20–25.Google Scholar
  9. Mayer, R. E. (1976). Comprehension as affected by structure of problem representation. Memory and Cognition, 4(3), 249–255.Google Scholar
  10. McGuinness, C. (1986). Problem Representation: The Effects of Spatial Arrays. Memory and Cognition, 14(3), 270–280.Google Scholar
  11. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept Maps and Vee Diagrams: Two Metacognitive Tools to Facilitate Meaningful Learning. Instructional Science, 19(1), 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments [Special issue]. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pape, S. J., & Tchoshanov, M. A. (2001). The role of representation(s) in developing mathematical understanding. Theory Into Practice, 40(2), 118–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Reeve, J. (2005). Understanding motivation and emotion, (4th ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  16. Salomon, G. (1988). AI in reverse: Computer tools that turn cognitive. J. Educational Computing Research, 4(2), 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional design, (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill.Google Scholar
  18. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for E-Learning [Special issue]. ETR&D, 53(3).Google Scholar
  20. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 179–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Asssociation of Educational Communications and Technology 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jared A. Danielson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Eric M. Mills
    • 1
  • Pamela J. Vermeer
    • 1
  • Vanessa A. Preast
    • 1
  • Karen M. Young
    • 2
  • Mary M. Christopher
    • 3
  • Jeanne W. George
    • 3
  • R. Darren Wood
    • 4
  • Holly S. Bender
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Veterinary Pathology, College of Veterinary MedicineIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Pathobiological Sciences, School of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, School of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  4. 4.Department of PathobiologyUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations