The present study investigated the effects of question prompts in scaffolding novice instructional designers solving ill-structured, instructional design problems in a Web-based learning environment. The effects of question prompts were studied under different prompting conditions (Question-Elaboration vs. Question-Guidance), taking into consideration various levels of learners' prior knowledge and experience. The study employed a comparative, multiple-case study design using the technique of think-aloud protocols, which were followed by interviews. Eight graduate students from the program of Instructional Design and Technology participated in the study. While the qualitative findings supported the previous research on the advantages of question prompts in scaffolding ill-structured problem solving, they also shed light on the specific cognitive and metacognitive functions, as well as limitations, of question prompts in different conditions. The study has implications for designing instructional scaffolds for supporting ill-structured problem solving of various domains in a Web-based learning environment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AzevedoR.CromleyJ. G., & SeibertD. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students' ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344–370.
2.
ChiM.BassokM.LewisM.ReimannP., & GlaserR. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.
3.
ChiM. T. H., & GlaserR. (1985). Problem solving ability. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Human abilities: An information processing approach (pp. 227–250). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
4.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19, 2–10.
5.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Designing learning environments that support thinking: The Jasper series as a case study. In DuffyT. M.LowyckJ., & JonassenD. H. (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 9–36). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
6.
DavisE. A., & LinnM. (2000). Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.
7.
DickW. O.CareyL., & CareyJ. O. (2001). The systematic design of instruction (5th ed.). NY: Longman.
8.
DijkstraS. (2001). The design space for solving instructional-design problems. Instructional Science, 29, 275–290.
9.
ErtmerP. A., & NewbyT. J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instructional Science, 24, 1–24.
10.
FeltovichP. J.SpiroR. J., & CoulsonR. L. (1989). The nature of conceptual understanding in biomedicine: The deep structure of complex ideas and the development of misconceptions. In EvansD. A. & PatelV. L. (Eds.), Cognitive science in medicine: Biochemical modeling (pp. 111–172). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
FeltovichP. J.SpiroR. J.CoulsonR. L., & FeltovichJ. (1996). Collaboration within and among minds: Mastering complexity, individually and in groups. In KoschmannT. (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 25–44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12.
GeX., & LandS. M. (2003). Scaffolding students' problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38.
13.
GeX., & LandS. M. (2004). A conceptual framework of scaffolding ill-structured problem solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5–22.
14.
GickM. L. (1986). Problem solving strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21(1&2), 99–120.
15.
GickM. L., & HolyoakK. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–355.
16.
GreeneB. A., & LandS. M. (2000). A qualitative analysis of scaffolding use in a resource-based learning environment involving the world wide web. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(2), 151–180.
17.
GustafsonK. L., & BranchR. M. (2002). What is instructional design? In ReiserR. A. & DempseyJ. V. (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 16–25). New York: Merrill.
18.
JonassenD. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94.
19.
JonassenD. H. (1999a). Designing constructivist learning environments. In ReigeluthC. M. (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: Vol. II. A new paradigm of instructional theory, (pp. 215–239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20.
JonassenD. (1999b). Forward. In ErtmerP. A. & QuinnJ. (Eds.), The ID CaseBook: Case studies in instructional design (pp. v–vi). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
KauffmanD. F. (2004). Self-regulated learning in Web-based environments: Instructional tools designed to facilitate cognitive strategy use, metacognitive processing, and motivational beliefs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(1&2), 139–161.
23.
KingA. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children's problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 307–317.
KingA. (12994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338–368.
26.
KitchenerK. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemistic cognition: A three-level model of cognitive processing. Human Development, 26, 222–232.
27.
KluweR. H., & FriedrichsenG. (1985). Mechanism of control and regulation in problem solving. In KuhlJ. & BeckmannJ. (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
28.
KoschmannT.KelsonA. C.FeltovichP. J., & BarrowsH. S. (1996). Computer-supported problem-based learning: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. In KoschmannT. (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 83–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29.
LinX., & LehmanJ. D. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 837–848.
30.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (Eds.). (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
31.
PalincsarA. S., & BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117–175.
32.
PerezR. S., & EmeryC. D. (1995). Designer thinking: How novices and experts think about instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 80–95.
33.
ReigeluthC. M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In ReigeluthC. M. (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. II. A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 5–29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34.
RosenshineB., & MeisterC. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive strategies. Educational Leadership, 4, 26–33.
35.
RosenshineB.MeisterC., & ChapmanS. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221.
36.
SalomonG.GlobersonT., & GutermanE. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal development: Internalizing reading-related metacognitions from a reading partner. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 620–627.
37.
ScardamaliaM., & BereiterC. (1985). Fostering the development of self-regulation in children's knowledge processing. In ChipmanS. F.SegalJ. W., & GlaserR. (Eds.), thinking and learning skills: Research and open questions (Vol. 2, pp. 563–577). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
38.
ScardamaliaM.BereiterC., & SteinbachR. (1984). Teachability of reflective processes in written composition. Cognitive Science, 8(2), 173–190.
39.
ShoenfeldA. H. (1985). Mathematical problem-solving. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
40.
SinnottJ. D. (1989). A model for solution of ill-structured problems: Implications for everyday and abstract problem solving. In SinnottJ. D. (Ed.), Everyday problem solving: Theory and application (pp. 72–99). New York: Praeger.
41.
StakeR. E. (2000). Case studies. In DenzinN. K. & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
42.
van den BoomG.PaasF.van MerriënboerJ. J. G., & van GogT. (2004). Reflection prompts and tutor feedback in a web-based learning environment: Effects of students' self-regulated learning competence. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 551–567.
43.
van MerriënboerJ. J. G.KirschnerP. A., & KesterL. (2003). Taking the load off a learner's mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5–13.
44.
VossJ. F., & PostT. A. (1988). On the solving of ill-structured problems. In ChiM. H.GlaserR., & FarrM. J. (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 261–285). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45.
VossJ. F.WolfeC. R.LawrenceJ. A., & EngleR. A. (1991). From representation to decision: An analysis of problem solving in international relations. In SternbergR. J. & FrenschP. A. (Eds.), Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46.
YinR. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
47.
ZellermayerM.SalomonG.GlobersonT., & GivonH. (1991). Enhancing writing-related metacognitions through a computerized writing partner. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 373–391.
