| Preface | 8 |
|---|
| Acknowledgments | 10 |
|---|
| Contents | 12 |
|---|
| Contributors | 14 |
|---|
| Reviewers | 17 |
| Part I Cognitive Approaches to Learning and Instruction (Spector) | 18 |
|---|
| 1 Learning and Instruction in the Digital Age | 19 |
| 1.1 The Dawn of the Digital Age | 19 |
| 1.2 Opportunities and Concerns for Learning and Instruction in the Digital Age | 20 |
| 1.3 A Step Forward: Personal Learning Management Systems | 22 |
| 1.4 Beyond the Digital Age | 24 |
| References | 25 |
| 2 Cognition and Student-Centered, Web-Based Learning: Issues and Implications for Research and Theory | 27 |
| 2.1 Introduction | 27 |
| 2.2 Assumptions Underlying Student-Centered Learning | 28 |
| 2.2.1 Locus and Nature of Knowledge | 29 |
| 2.2.2 Role of Context | 30 |
| 2.2.3 Role of Prior Knowledge and Experience | 31 |
| 2.3 Nagging Issues | 31 |
| 2.3.1 Technical System Knowledge and Familiarity | 31 |
| 2.3.2 Disorientation | 31 |
| 2.3.3 Canonical Versus Individual Meaning: Misconceptions | 32 |
| 2.3.4 Knowledge as Accretion Versus Tool | 32 |
| 2.3.5 To Scaffold or to Direct | 33 |
| 2.3.6 Attitudes, Beliefs, and Practices | 33 |
| 2.3.7 Cognitive Load | 34 |
| 2.3.8 Metacognitive Demands | 34 |
| 2.4 Implications for Research, Theory, and Design | 34 |
| 2.4.1 Can Student-Centered, Web-Based Learning Be Scaffolded? | 34 |
| 2.4.2 Will Students Critically Assess the Legitimacy, Veracity, and Accuracy of Resources? | 35 |
| 2.4.3 Will Scaffolding Help Students to Manage Cognitive Complexity? | 35 |
| 2.4.4 Will Students Negotiate Their Individual Learning Needs? | 35 |
| 2.4.5 Will Students Identify Appropriate and Relevant Resources? | 35 |
| References | 36 |
| 3 Testing as Feedback to Inform Teaching | 40 |
| 3.1 Introduction | 40 |
| 3.1.1 Summative Versus Formative Testing | 41 |
| 3.1.2 Substituting Memorization for Understanding | 42 |
| 3.1.3 The Test Interpretation Problem | 42 |
| 3.1.4 Meaning from Alternative Answers | 17 |
| 3.2 An Alternative Approach to Test Scoring | 44 |
| 3.2.1 Solving the Linear Dependency Issue | 45 |
| 3.2.2 Interpreting the Patterns | 46 |
| 3.3 Implications for Testing Theory | 47 |
| 3.3.1 Heads or Tails: The Dichotomy Dilemma? | 48 |
| 3.3.2 A Dicey Alternative | 49 |
| 3.3.3 Exposing the Dynamics of Learning | 50 |
| 3.3.4 Associating Independent Tests | 52 |
| 3.4 A New Model for Assessing Learning | 55 |
| 3.4.1 Illustrations Using Actually Student Data | 55 |
| 3.4.2 Student Performance Change | 56 |
| 3.4.2.1 Student 2350 | 56 |
| 3.4.2.2 Student 1660 | 57 |
| 3.4.2.3 Student 1150 | 58 |
| 3.4.2.4 Student 160 | 59 |
| 3.5 Summary, Conclusions, and Implications | 60 |
| Appendix | 62 |
| Notes for Appendix | 63 |
| References | 63 |
| 4 Enhancing Learning from Informatics Texts | 65 |
| 4.1 Introduction | 65 |
| 4.2 The ConstructionIntegration Model | 68 |
| 4.2.1 Text Coherence | 69 |
| 4.2.2 The Measurement of Learning | 70 |
| 4.3 The Study | 71 |
| 4.3.1 Method | 71 |
| 4.3.1.1 Participants | 71 |
| 4.3.1.2 Procedure | 72 |
| 4.3.2 Materials and Tasks | 72 |
| 4.3.2.1 Matching Activity (Pre-reading and Post-reading Test) | 72 |
| 4.3.2.2 Texts | 72 |
| 4.3.2.3 The Propositional Representation of Text | 73 |
| 4.3.3 Text Recall | 73 |
| 4.3.4 Assessment Questions | 73 |
| 4.3.5 Data Collection | 74 |
| 4.4 Results | 74 |
| 4.4.1 Matching Activity | 74 |
| 4.4.1.1 Reading Rates | 75 |
| 4.4.1.2 Text Recall | 75 |
| 4.4.1.3 Assessment Questions | 76 |
| 4.5 Conclusions and Future Plans | 77 |
| References | 78 |
| Part II Knowledge Representation and Mental Models (Ifenthaler) | 80 |
|---|
| 5 Model-Based Knowledge Mapping | 81 |
| 5.1 Introduction | 81 |
| 5.2 Theoretical Background | 82 |
| 5.2.1 Semantic Interpretation and Categorization | 82 |
| 5.2.2 Mental Models and Model-Centered Instruction | 83 |
| 5.2.3 Distributed Cognition | 83 |
| 5.2.4 Model-Based Knowledge Management | 84 |
| 5.3 Conventional Knowledge Mapping
|