The potential cognitive consequences of computers in education are just starting to emerge. The power and capabilities of computers change rapidly. Researchers often working with outmoded computer learning environments have just begun to catalog and analyze the activities that occur in these situations. There is clear agreement that computers can help students learn to solve problems and that computers might help to ameliorate the dearth of problem-solving activities in classrooms. A useful way to think about the potential advantages of the computer learning environments is in terms of a chain of cognitive accomplishments culminating in problem-solving skill. Such a chain can be identified and used to assess instruction using computers for programming, simulations, and tools such as spreadsheets. The chain emphasizes the need for students to learn templates or stereotypic sequences of actions for solving problems. It also makes clear that planning and testing are central components of problem solving. The articles in this issue illustrate how far along the chain students in typical computer learning environments progress. They offer conjectures about why students fail to proceed further and suggestions about how the situation can be improved.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
PapertS., Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas, Basic Books, New York, 1980.
2.
BeckerH. J., School Uses of Microcomputers (Issue 1), Center for Social Organizations of Schools, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 1983.
3.
BarbourA., Computing in America's Classrooms 1984, Electronic Learning, 4:2, pp. 39–44, 100, 1984.
4.
LinnM. C., The Cognitive Consequences of Programming Instruction in Classrooms, Educational Researcher, 14:5, pp. 14–16, 25–29, 1985.
5.
PeaR. D.KurlandD. M., On the Cognitive Effects of Learning Computer Programming, New Ideas in Psychology, 2, pp. 137–168, 1984.
6.
DalbeyJ.LinnM. C., Cognitive Consequences of Programming: Augmentations to BASIC Instruction, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2:1, pp. 75–93, 1986.
7.
DalbeyJ.LinnM. C., The Demands and Requirements of Computer Programming: A Review of the Literature, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1:3, pp. 253–274, 1985.
8.
KurlandD. M.MawbyR.CahirN., The Development of Programming Expertise in Adults and Children, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 1984.
9.
LinnM. C.DalbeyJ., Cognitive Consequences of Programming Instruction: Instruction, Access, and Ability. Educational Psychologist, 20:4, pp. 191–206, 1985.
10.
EnnalsR.BriggsJ., Fifth Generation Computing: Introducing Micro-Prolog into the Classroom, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1:1, pp. 97–111, 1985.
11.
BurtonR. R.BrownJ. S., An Investigation of Computer Coaching for Informal Learning Activities, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 11, pp. 5–24, 1979.
12.
MandinachE. B., “The Role of Strategic Planning and Self-Regulation in Learning an Intellectual Computer Game,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1984.
13.
MandinachE. B., Clarifying the “A” in CAI for Learners of Different Abilities, Journal of Educational Computing Research, in press.
14.
SteinJ. S.LinnM. C., Capitalizing on Computer-Based Interactive Feedback: An Investigation of Rocky's Boots, in Children and Microcomputers: Formative Studies, ChenM.PaisleyW. (eds.), Sage, Beverly Hills, 1985.
15.
McCannP. H., Learning Strategies and Computer-Based Instruction, Computers and Education, 5, pp. 133–140, 1981.
16.
MillerJ., Computer-Based Instruction: A Future-Oriented Tutorial, invited symposium at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, 1983.
17.
RagostaM., Computer-Assisted Instruction and Compensatory Education: A Longitudinal Analysis, Machine-Mediated Learning, 1, pp. 97–127, 1983.
18.
MandinachE. B.FisherC. W., Review of Research on the Cognitive Effects of Computer-Assisted Learning, ACCCEL Technical Report Number 4, Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley, 1984.
19.
LockheedM. E.MandinachE. B., Cognitive Consequences of Computer Applications, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, 1985.
20.
Learning Company, Rocky's Boots, Menlo Park, California, 1980.
21.
RoyerJ. M., Theories of Transfer of Learning, Educational Psychologist, 14, pp. 53–69, 1979.
22.
LepperM. R., Microcomputers in Education: Motivational and Social Issues, American Psychologist, 40, pp. 1–18, 1985.
23.
BeckerH. J., School Uses of Microcomputers (Issue 2), Center for Social Organizations of Schools, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 1983.
24.
BarrA.FeigenbaumE. A. (eds.), The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 2), William Kaufman, Los Altos, California, 1982.
25.
LepperM. R.MaloneT. W., Intrinsic Motivation and Instructional Effectiveness in Computer-Based Education, in Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction (Vol. 3), SnowR. E.FarrM. J. (eds.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, in press.
26.
MaloneT. W., What Makes Things Fun to Learn? A Study of Intrinsically Motivating Computer Games, Technical Report CIS-7, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, 1980.
27.
MaloneT. W., Toward a Theory of Intrinsically Motivating Instruction, Cognitive Science, 5, pp. 333–369, 1981.
28.
MaloneT. W.LepperM. R., A Taxonomy of Intrinsic Motivation: Making Learning Fun, in Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction (Vol. 3), SnowR. E.FarrM. J. (eds.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, in press.
29.
ChiM. R. H.FeltovichP. J.GlaserR., Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices, Cognitive Science, 5, pp. 121–152, 1980.
30.
AtwoodM. E.RamseyH. R., Cognitive Structures in the Comprehension and Memory of Computer Debugging, Technical Report Number TR-78-A210, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Alexandria, Virginia, 1978.
31.
LarkinJ.McDermottJ.SimonD. P.SimonH. S., Expert and Novice Performance in Solving Physics Problems, Science, 208, pp. 1335–1342, 1980.
32.
CornoL.MandinachE. B., The Role of Cognitive Engagement in Classroom Learning and Motivation, Educational Psychologist, 18, pp. 88–108, 1983.
33.
GlaserR., Education and Thinking, American Psychologist, 39, pp. 93–104, 1984.
34.
BurbulesN.ReeseP., Cognitive Consequences of Software: “Rocky's Boots”, ACCCEL Technical Report Number 11, Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley, 1984.
35.
YobG., Hunt the Wumpus, Creative Computing, 2, pp. 51–54, 1975.
36.
CarrB., WUSOR II: A Computer Aided Instruction Program with Student Modeling Capabilities (AI Memo 417), Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1977.
37.
GoldsteinI., The Computer as Coach: An Athletic Paradigm for Intellectual Education (AI Memo 389), Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1976.
38.
GoldsteinI., The Genetic Graph: A Representation for the Evolution of Procedural Knowledge, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 11, pp. 51–77, 1979.
39.
GoldsteinI., Developing a Computational Representation for Problem-Solving Skills, in Problem Solving and Education: Issues in Teaching and Research, TumaD. T.ReifF. (eds.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1980.
40.
GoldsteinI.CarrB., The Computer as Coach: An Athletic Paradigm for Intellectual Education, Proceedings of the 1977 Annual Conference of the Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 227–233, Seattle, 1977.
41.
StansfieldJ. L.CarrB. P.GoldsteinI. P., Wumpus Advisor I: A First Implementation of a Program that Tutors Logical and Probabilistic Reasoning Skills (AI Memo 381), Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1976.
42.
FriedmanB.SlesnickT., Creative Play: Problem Solving Activities with the Computer, Mathematics and Science Education Project, Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley, 1982.
43.
GreenoJ. G., A Study of Problem Solving, in Advances in Instructional Psychology (Vol. 1), GlaserR. (ed.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1978.
44.
GreenoJ. G., Some Examples of Cognitive Task Analysis with Instructional Implications, in Aptitudes, Learning, and Instruction (Vol. 2), SnowR. E.FedericoP-A.MontagueW. E. (eds.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1980.
45.
PutnamR. T.SleemanD.BaxterJ. A.KuspaL. K., Summary of Misconceptions of High School BASIC Programming, Journal of Educational Computing Research, in press.
46.
LinnM. C.PulosS., Male-Female Differences in Predicting Displaced Volume: Strategy Usage, Aptitude Relationships, and Experience Influences, Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, pp. 86–96, 1983.
47.
LinnM. C., The Cognitive Consequences of Microcomputer-Based Labware, Computers and Problem Solving Project, Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley, 1985.
48.
CronbachL. J.SnowR. E., Aptitudes and Instructional Methods, Irvington, New York, 1977.
49.
MandinachE. B.FisherC. W., Individual Differences and Acquisition of Computer Programming Skill, ACCCEL Technical Report Number 30, Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley, 1985.
50.
WebbN. M., Microcomputer Learning in Small Groups: Cognitive Requirements and Group Processes, Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, pp. 1076–1088, 1984.
51.
MandinachE. B.LinnM. C., Cognitive Consequences of Programming: Achievements of Experienced and Talented Programmers, in press.
52.
LockheedM. E. (ed.), Sex Roles (special issue on Women, Girls, and Computers), 1985.
53.
LockheedM. E. (ed.), Women, Girls, and Computers: A First Look at the Evidence, Sex Roles, 13, pp. 115–122, 1985.
54.
HessR. D.MiuraI. T., Gender Differences in Enrollment in Computer Camps and Classes: The Extracurricular Acquisition of Computer Training, Sex Roles, 13, pp. 193–204, 1985.
55.
RockD.EkstromR.GoertzM.PollackJ.HiltonT., A Study of Excellence in High School Education: A Longitudinal Study, unpublished report under review by the National Center for Educational Research, 1985.
56.
LockheedM. E.NielsenA.StoneM. K., Sex Differences in Microcomputer Literacy, paper presented at the National Educational Computer Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, 1983.
57.
LockheedM. E., Determinants of Student Computer Use: An Analysis of Data from the 1984 National Assessment of Educational Progress, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, 1985.
58.
FetlerM., Sex Differences on the California Statewide Assessment of Computer Literacy, Sex Roles, 13, pp. 181–192, 1985.
59.
WilderG.MackieD.CooperJ., Gender and Computers: Two Surveys of Computer-Related Attitudes, Sex Roles, 13, pp. 215–228, 1985.
60.
ChenM., Gender Differences in Adolescents' Uses of and Attitudes Toward Computers, in Communication Yearbook, 10, McLaughlinM. (ed.), Sage, Beverly Hills, 1985.
61.
LockheedM. E.FraktS. B., Sex Equity: Increasing Girls' Use of Computers, The Computing Teacher, 11:8, pp. 16–18, 1984.
62.
MiuraI. T., “Processes Contributing to Individual Differences in Computer Literacy,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1984.
63.
LinnM. C., Fostering Equitable Consequences from Computer Learning Environments, Sex Roles, 13, pp. 229–240, 1985.
64.
MandinachE. B.CornoL., Cognitive Engagement Variations among Students of Different Ability Level and Sex in a Computer Problem Solving Game, Sex Roles, 13, pp. 241–251, 1985.
65.
LockheedM. E.NielsenA.StoneM. K., Determinants of Microcomputer Literacy in High School Students, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1, pp. 81–96, 1985.
66.
BeckerH. J., School Uses of Microcomputers (Issue 3), Center for Social Organizations of Schools, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, 1983.
