The purpose of this research was to investigate the effects of using cognitive and metacognitive prompting strategies in a web-based learning environment to engage college students in a complex, ill-structured task. The course context was a freshman/sophomore level Information Sciences and Technology course, and the topic was web design. Four ill-structured problem-solving outcomes were measured: problem representation, developing solutions, making justifications, and monitoring and evaluation. Findings showed significant effects of the prompting treatment on all four ill-structured problem solving outcomes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AzevedoR.MoosD.GreeneJ.WintersF.CromleyJ. (2008). Why is externally-facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia?Educational Technology Research & Development, 56, 45–72.
2.
ChiM. T. H.GlaserR. (1985). Problem-solving Ability. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Human abilities: An information-processing approach (pp. 227–248). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
3.
ChoiI.LandS. M.TurgeonA. (2005). Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate metacognition during online small group discussion. Instructional Science, 5–6, 1–29.
4.
ChoiI.LeeK. (2008). A case-based learning environment design for a real-world classroom management problem solving. TechTrends, 52(3), 26–31.
5.
DavisE. A.LinnM. C. (2000). Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.
6.
de JongT.van JoolingenW. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.
7.
GeX. (2001). Scaffolding students' problem-solving processes on an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Unpublished dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.
8.
GeX.LandS. (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.
9.
GeX.LandS. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 52(2), 5–22.
10.
HedgesL. V.OlkinI. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
11.
HongN. S. (1998). The relationship between well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in multimedia simulation. Unpublished dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.
12.
JonassenD. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 48(4), 63–85.
13.
KingA. (1991). Improving lecture comprehension: Effects of a metacognitive strategy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 331–346.
LandS. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 48(3), 61–78.
16.
LeeK.ChoiI. (2008). Learning classroom management through web-based case instruction: Implications for early childhood teacher education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 495–503.
17.
LinX.HmeloC.KinzerC. K.SeculesT. J. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 47(3), 43–62.
18.
PalinscarA. S.BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117–175.
19.
PillayH.BrownleeJ.WilssL. (1999). Cognition and recreational computer games: Implications for educational technology. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 203–216.
20.
QuintanaC.ReiserB.DavisE.KrajcikJ.FretzE.DuncanR. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.
21.
RosenshineB.MeisterC.ChapmanS. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221.
22.
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.
23.
ScardamaliaM.BereiterC.SteinbachR. (1984). Teachability of reflective processes in written composition. Cognitive Science, 8, 173–190.
24.
SchankR. C.ClearyC. (1995). Engines for education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25.
TabakI. (2005). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Science, 13(3), 305–335
26.
VanDeventerS. S.WhiteJ. A. (2002). Expert behavior in children's video game play. Simulation and Gaming, 33(1), 28–48.
27.
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.
28.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
