Scenario-based training (SBT) as a medium for facilitating higher order or advanced learning has not been exploited fully. This paper argues for the use of contrasting cases to facilitate advanced learning within practice environments, where advanced learning is characterized by well differentiated and organized knowledge that can be generalized and abstracted. The rationale and guidance for incorporating contrasting cases into SBT is provided. A learning framework is leveraged to further describe how the method of contrasting cases can be adapted to address the challenges of learners at different stages of skill acquisition.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DreyfusH.L.DreyfusS.E. (2004). The ethical implications of the five-stage skill acquisition model. Bulletin of Science Technology Society, 24, 251–264.
2.
EricssonK. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development superior expert performance. In EricssonK.A.CharnessN.FeltovichP.J.HoffmanR.R.Expertise and Expert Performance, (pp. 692). New York: Cambridge University Press.
3.
EricssonK. A.KrampeR. T.Tesch-RomerC. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.
4.
FeltovichP.J.SpiroR.J.CoulsonR.K. (1993). Learning, teaching, and testing for complex conceptual understanding. In. FrederiksenN.MislevyR. J.BejarI.I. (Eds.), Test Theory for a new Generation of Tests, (pp. 181–217) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
FioreS.M.HoffmanR.R.SalasE. (1008). Learning and performance across disciplines: An epilogue for moving multidisciplinary research toward an interdisciplinary science of expertise. Military Psychology, 20, S155–S170.
6.
FowlkesJ. E.DwyerD. J.OserR. L.SalasE. (1998). Event-based approach to training (EBAT). The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8, 209–221.
7.
KleinG.BaxterH.C. (2006). Cognitive transformation theory: Contrasting cognitive and behavioral learning. Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2006). Arlington, VA: NTSA.
8.
GentnerD.LoewensteinJ.ThompsonL. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 393–408.
KozlowskiS. W. J. (1998). Training and developing adaptive teams: Theory, principles, and research. In Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE. (Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training, (pp. 115–153) Washington, DC: APA.
11.
MatonK. (2009). Cumulative and segmented learning: Exploring the role of curriculum structures in knowledge-building. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30, 43–57.
12.
MarzanoR.J.PickeringD.J.PollackJ.E. (2001). Classroom Instruction That Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
13.
National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
14.
RasmussenE. (1996). Fallon air wing training curriculum. Aimpoint, 12, 38–44.
15.
SchwartzD.L.BransfordJ.D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 475–522.
16.
Smith-JentschK. A.ZeisigR. L.ActonB.McPhersonJ. A. (1998). Team dimensional training: A strategy for guided team self-correction. In Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE. (Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training. (pp. 271–297) Washington, DC: APA Press.
