Externally Modeling Mental Models

Chapter

Abstract

Meaningful learning, as opposed to reproductive learning, is active, constructive, intentional, authentic, and collaborative. When learners engage in meaningful learning, they naturally construct mental models. When learners collaborate, they naturally construct group mental models. One method for engaging learners in meaningful learning is to have them construct computer-based models that externalize their mental models. Using tools such as databases, concept maps, expert systems, spreadsheets, systems modeling tools, microworlds and simulation tools, teachable agents, computer conferences, and hypermedia, learners can construct models of domain knowledge, problems, systems, semantic structures, and thinking processes.

Keywords

Modeling Mental models Meaningful learning Authentic contexts Collaboration Cognitive residue Structural knowledge Performance/procedural knowledge Activity-based knowledge Conversational/discursive knowledge Social negotiation Computer-based modeling Microworlds Modeling systems Simulations Instructional technology 

References

  1. Adams-Webber, J. (1995). Constructivist psychology and knowledge elicitation. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 8(3), 237–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barley, S. R., & Bechty, B. A. (1994). In the backrooms of science: The work of technicians in science labs. Work and Occupations, 21(1), 85–126.Google Scholar
  3. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Creativity: Shifting across ontological categories flexibly. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Conceptual Structures and processes: Emergence, Discovery and Change. (pp. 209–234). Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  4. Confrey, J., & Doerr, H. M. (1994). Student modelers. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(3), 199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DiSessa, A., & Abeson, H. (1986). Boxer: A reconstructible computational medium. Communications of the ACM, 29, 859–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dole, J. A., Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Durkheim, É. (1915) The elementary forms of the religious life (J. W. Swain, Trans.). New York and London: The Free press.Google Scholar
  8. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.Google Scholar
  9. Frederiksen, J. R., & White, B. Y. (1998). Teaching and learning generic modeling and reasoning skills. Journal of Interactive Learning Environments, 55, 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. L. (1983). Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 45(1), 65–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as Mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 362–381.Google Scholar
  15. Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. A. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Jonassen, D. H., & Henning, P. (1999). Mental models: Knowledge in the head and knowledge in the world. Educational Technology, 39(3), 37–42.Google Scholar
  17. Kraiger, K., & Salas, E. (1993, April). Measuring mental models to assess learning during training. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  18. Larkin, J. H. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.). Mental models (pp. 75–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Modeling in mathematics and science. In R. Glaser (Ed.) Advances in instructional psychology: volume 5. Educational design and cognitive science (pp. 101–159). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Lippert, R. C. (1988). An expert system shell to teach problem solving. Tech Trends, 33(2), 22–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McGuinness, C. (1986). Problem representation: The effects of spatial arrays. Memory & Cognition, 14(3), 270–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mellar, H., Bliss, J., Boohan, R., Ogborn, J., & Tompsett, C. (1994). Learning with artificial worlds: Computer-based modeling in the curriculum. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  23. Penner, D. E., Giles, N. D., Lhrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1997). Building functional models: designing and elbow. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ploetzner, R., Fehse, E., Kneser, C., & Spada, H. (1999). Learning to relate qualitative and quantitative problem representations in a model-based setting for collaborative problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(2), 177–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ploetzner, R., & Spada, H. (1998). Constructing quantitative problem representations on the basis of qualitative reasoning. Interactive Learning Environments, 5, 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rips, L. J. (1986). Mental muddles. In M. Brand & R.M. Harnish (Eds.), The representation of knowledge and beliefs (pp. 258–286). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  27. Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.Google Scholar
  28. Savelsbergh, E. R., De Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1998). Competence related differences in problem representations. In M. van Someren, P. Reimann, T. de Jong, & H. Boshuizen (Eds.), The role of multiple representations in learning and problem solving. (pp. 263–282).Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  29. Schank, R. C. (1994). Goal-based scenarios. In R. C. Schank & E. Langer (Eds.), Beliefs, reasoning, and decision making: Psycho-logic in honor of Bob Abelson. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Schwarz, C., & White, B. (2005). Meta-modeling knowledge: Developing students′ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.Google Scholar
  31. Schwartz, J. L., & Yerulshalmy, M. (1987). The geometric supposer: Using microcomputers to restore invention to the learning of mathematics. In D. Perkins, J. Lockhead, & J. C. Bishop (Eds.), Thinking: The second international conference (pp. 525–536). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Shavelson, R. J. (1972). Some aspects of the correspondence between content structure and cognitive structure in physics instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Spector, J. M., Christensen, D. L, Sioutine, A. V, & McCormack, D. (2001, September-November) Models and simulations for learning in complex domains: Using causal loop diagrams for assessment and evaluation. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(5–6), 517–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Taylor, H. A., & Tversky, B. (1992). Spatial mental models derived from survey and route descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 261–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van der Veer, G. C. (1989). Individual differences and the user interface. Ergonomics, 32(11), 1431–1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. White, B. (1993). ThinkerTools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10(1), 1–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Psychology and Learning TechnologiesUniversity of MissouriSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations