Pulling It Together: A Process Model for DDM and Learning

Chapter
Part of the Understanding Complex Systems book series (UCS)

Abstract

We are interested to know the pathways through which facilitated ILEs support learners’ decision -making and learning in dynamic tasks. In the last chapter, there have been some speculations about the paths through which the facilitator support (FS) treatments affect transfer learning (TL) and other moderating predictors of transfer learning. Here in this chapter, we want to analyze the impacts of the remaining predictors of the process model which are (1) LM treatments, (2) prior knowledge, and (3) FS treatments.

Keywords

Prior knowledge Learning mode Individual learning Team learning Decision strategy Hierarchical regression Variance for transfer learning Task knowledge Structural knowledge Heuristics knowledge Transfer learning Pathways to transfer learning Interactions with peers Validated process model Cognitive effort Decision time 

References

  1. 1.
    Badke-Schaub, P.: Groups and complex problems. Strategies of small groups in dealing with a computer simulated AIDS epidemic. Peter Lang, Frankfurt, Germany (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bakken, BE.: Learning and transfer of understanding in dynamic decision environments. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Boston (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohen, J., Cohen, P.: Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Wiley, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diehl, E., Sterman, J.D.: Effects of feedback complexity on dynamic decision making. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 62(2), 198–215 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Funke, J.: Experimental research on complex problem solving. In: Frensch, P., Funke, J. (eds.) Complex Problem Solving: the European Perspective, pp. 3–25. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, New Jeresy (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maxwell, TA.: Decisions: Cognitive styles, mental models, and task performance. Ph. D. Dissertation, State University of New York at Albany, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mayer, W., Dale, K., Fraccastoro, K., Moss, G.: Improving transfer of learning: Relationship to methods of using business simulation. Simul. Gaming 42(1), 64–84 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moxnes, E.: Not only the tragedy of the commons: Misperceptions of bioeconomics. Manage. Sci. 44, 1234–1248 (1998)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Plate, R.: Assessing individuals’ understanding of nonlinear casual structures in complex systems. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 28(1), 19–33 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sengupta, K., Abdel-Hamid, T.K.: Alternative concepts of feedback in dynamic decision environments: An experimental investigation. Manage. Sci. 39(4), 411–428 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tennyson, R.D., Thurlow, R., Breuer, K.: Problem-oriented simulations to develop and improve higher-order thinking strategies. Comput. Hum. Behav. 3, 151–165 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Administrative StudiesYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations