Instructional design and emerging teaching models in higher education

Instructional design and emerging teachingmodels in higher education

Jorma Enkenberg

Savonlinna Department of Teacher Education, University of Joensuu, PO Box 55,

FIN-57101 Savonlinna, Finland

Abstract

Knowledge acquisition and participation are the two prominent metaphors that guide ourthinking about learning and relevant instruction. The first of them represents an individualand the latter a social basis of learning. Problem-based learning, case-based teaching, learning

by design and cognitive apprenticeship powerfully emphasise anticipation and participation asmain goals and perspectives into learning. Those perspectives seem to be typical of all theapproaches that can be related with the family of collaborative teaching models. However,the increasing popularity of the collaborative aspect in university education challenges us to

develop new approaches into instructional design. In the article the four mentioned, emergingcollaborative teaching models are studied and discussed from the perspective of instructionaldesign. The challenges of integration of new technologies in learning are also shortly pre-

sented. # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Participation; Problem-based learning; Learning by design; Case-based teaching; Cognitive

apprenticeship; Instructional design

1. Introduction

Research into learning has taken up two challenges faced by teaching. Modernworking life calls for a more through command of specific knowledge and skills—ina word—expertise. On the other hand new duties at work demand that employeesare more flexible, mobile and ready to learn and develop themselves continuously—life long learning. These challenges face not only professional but also academiceducation.

The new challenges have increased the need for reassessment of the of the targetsand forms of academic education. The problem of how to design learning environ-ments so that we can equip researchers and other academics with the knowledge and

Computers in Human Behavior 17 (2001) 495–506

www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

0747-5632/01/$ - see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PI I : S0747-5632(01 )00021 -8

E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Enkenberg).

skills they need in their work so that they can successfully meet the challenge ofcontinuous self-development in an increasingly open, complex world is a very realone. The teaching models we have applied traditionally in higher education do notnecessary let us to reach the new goals.

Designing teaching models and environments should take into account psycholo-gical, pedagogical, technological, cultural and pragmatic perspectives (c.f. Hannafin& Land, 1997). Conceptions of learning that relate to the psychological perspectivehave changed several times during the last 20–30 years. Behaviourism cannotexplain how the mind works in a problem situation or how a person learns complexproblem solving. As a consequence of that cognitivism and recently socio-culturaltheory have most often refereed as relevant learning theoretical perspectives. Validinstructional design should be based on relevant learning theoretical perspective.Emphasis in instruction has moved from acquisition of knowledge to mediation ofpractices and discourses (c.f. Sfard, 1998). On the other side a mind-orientedapproach in learning has been challenged by collaborative perspective.

In this paper we will shortly discuss the two prominent metaphors of learn-ing, choose one of them as a reference and present examples of emerging teachingmodels for higher education.

2. From metaphors of learning to teaching models

Classification of learning theories can also be based on what kind of metaphorthey support (Sfard, 1998). Acquisition metaphor presents learning as becoming apossessor of something (e.g. knowledge, concepts, skills). The theories that growout of participation metaphor conceptualise learning as becoming a skilful partici-pant of some well-defined, recurrent forms of human activity (practice, discourse,expert culture).

Traditional acquisition metaphor pictures learning as a change in one’s individualpossessions. Learning means filling one’s mind with some special entities. Onceencoded in mental representations and organised into structures they should beready for use whenever an appropriate situation arises.

From participationist’s perspective learning is first and foremost about the changeof ways in which an individual participates in well-established communal activities.This implies that a researcher of learning should be less interested in explanations,based in such unobservables as structures, than attention to ignore the dimension ofa learning situation that enables to create and sustain the relationship of mutualaccountability with other members of the community (Wenger, 1998) This followsthat while acquisitionists are interested in cross-contextual invariants of learning,participationists put the focus to the changing situation-sensitive factors (Sfard,1998).

Models of instructional design reflect the metaphors they have about learning. Welike to define learning as an activity that will produce relatively permanent changesin experiences related both with individual belief systems, values and thinking andaction models typically demonstrated by skilful people—experts as members of

496 J. Enkenberg / Computers in Human Behavior 17 (2001) 495–506

community. Learning will be happening in an individual’s mind and body but itwill also have collective aspects. In this case design of collaborative learningenvironments will be naturally established on the participationist’s metaphor aboutlearning.

As basic starting points that determine instructional goals should be antici-pationin the future and participation in the teaching and learning processes. This isbest achieved by models of instruction that support collaborative learning. As bestexamples about the kind of instruction we like to list problem-based learning, case-based teaching, learning by designing and cognitive apprenticeship.

3. Principles in design of instruction

How should instruction be designed on the basis of the participationistic meta-phor of learning? How should the role of the teacher and the dimensions of learningbe seen in this frame of reference? In the following tentative answers will be given tosome of these questions.

Central starting-points for the planning of instruction and learning environmentsare the questions of the targets of teaching, the character of the learning task, thesupported activities, the roles of the teacher and the learner, the connection betweenconceptual knowledge and its context, the importance of the social context tolearning, the forms of representing knowledge and the ways of carrying out assess-ment.

With a few exceptions, curricula in higher education are controlled by a con-ceptual model according to which the basic knowledge and skills should be learnedbefore application and authentic problem solving. Basic knowledge and skills, theirapplication, and authentic problem solving form a hierarchical system. In a manifestform, this system often appears as a list of courses with the associated set of mattersto be handled and tasks to be done. The participationist’s metaphor of learningemphasises the type of thinking in which the content to be learned are placed incontexts and in the situations, in which they normally occur in real life (includingdoing research). Teaching is most effective, when it takes place in the context offuture tasks or problems (anticipation; Glaser, 1984).

This perspective is linked to problem-based teaching. Let us say here that learningresearch even more generally supports the hypothesis according to which the plac-ing of new knowledge in the context of problem solving is favourable to the applica-tion of what has been learned (Adams, Kasserman, Yeawood, Perfetto, Bransford, &Franks, 1988). This principle is often referred to as ‘just-in-time learning’.

The mutual interaction between students themselves and between teacher andstudents seems to have a special importance to high-quality learning. A humanbeing is able to learn fairly complex skills provided the social context gives incen-tives to and is supportive of learning (Brown & Duduid, 1993). Social interactionsduring a group problem solving can enhance a person’s metacognitive skills throughreflective dialogue (Karpov & Haywood, 1998). Such reflective activity is central todevelopment of expert performance (Bruer, 1993; Schon, 1987).

J. Enkenberg / Computers in Human Behavior 17 (2001) 495–506 497

The social context also offers exceptional opportunities for supporting just-in-timelearning. In connection with joint discussions and activities, situation-specific ideasand solutions can be picked up on a continuous basis. Social interaction with asso-ciated negotiations of meaning can effectively convey ideas in a situation and con-sequently stimulate thinking (c.f. the socio-cultural theory, Vygotsky, 1978).

One of the problems of present-day university teaching is its being removed fromthe situations, discourse and culture in which experts function. For instance, theteaching and studying of students have been systematically separated from researchand the life of the research communities. Learning and research takes place at dif-ferent times and in different places—in different spaces. Normally students comeinto contact with research or a research group only when they start writing theirmaster’s theses. It is no exception for a student to go through his/her time at uni-versity without coming to know the research topics of his/her own department orwho the researchers are. Expertise is difficult to transfer from the expert to a non-expert through teaching and explanation. Expertise is primarily conveyed throughaction and best by becoming a member of a community of experts. In that commu-nity the student has the opportunity of on-going observation of what research is,where it is done, and how it is discussed.

From the point of view of the university, the devising of an education that pro-duces high-quality knowhow and expertise constitutes a challenge difficult to meetwith traditional means. Lately, however, there have been signs of academic curriculathat from the outset pay attention to research and the work of professionals doingresearch. The basic idea is to put undergraduates from the very beginning of theirstudies into contact with professional researchers and the problems facing them.Becoming a researcher is seen to proceed along the dimension beginner—expert andthe goal of teaching is mediation of expertise.

4. Collaborative teaching models

The starting point for the planning and implementation of higher education is thegeneral and specific competences that the students should develop as a consequenceof instruction and study. From the perspective of the general goals and needs ofadult learning, coping with change, participation (working in teams) and self-directed learning are repeatedly mentioned as employee competences required by theneeds of present-day working life. Each of them is thought to be associated withcommunication skills, critical thinking, a logical analytical approach to problemsolving, and the evaluation of one’s own actions. It seems that they have manycontact points with targets that can can be naturally set to today’s university studies(c.f. Boud & Feletti, 1991; Hadgraft, 1998).

Problem-based teaching, learning by designing, case-based learning and cognitiveapprenticeship are united by an attempt to emphasise support to the construction ofknowledge instead of conveyance and transfer of knowledge. Generally in this con-text it has become customary to speak of learner-centred teaching, which emphasisesthe interactive character of activities associated with learning. Teacher and student


are both given the role of collaborator, when the traditional roles of the two may bereversed; on occasion the teacher will become a student and similarly the studentmay sometimes act as teacher.

Among the instructional strategies modelling, scaffolding, exploration andexperimentation often figure prominently. Information on phenomena must becontinuously processed in the direction of the goal and learning is thought tobe successful if the student has understood the object of study. As for evaluation oflearning outcomes, various portfolio-based, authentic methods of assessment areused. Alternatively, the learner may have to show by his behaviour that he/she hasacquired the target understanding or skill.

Support of communication in the context of knowledge-construction may beconsidered as the primary role of technology and other cultural tools. Beside beingtools of communication, they may significantly support the learner in the process ofnegotiating a viable interpretation of the object of study. Communication usuallyemphasises collaborative activities, retrieval and objectivation of knowledge, not toforget articulation of knowledge. In the following we will go into the earlier modelsof teaching in more detail. Special attention will be paid to how they realise colla-boration, transfer models of thinking and action, and the anchoring of the contentto be learned.

4.1. Problem-based learning

Approaches emphasising problem-basedness are characterised by the constructionof the learning process on the foundation of the processing of problems. The prob-lems may have arisen out of a situation, they may have been articulated by thestudents or have been designed in advance by the teacher. For instance, increasinglyin the training of doctors in the last few years, the problem-based approach isgrounded in the examination of authentic cases (patients). Here, the unsolvedproblem forms the basis for self-directed projects aimed at diagnosis of the patientand consequent planning of treatment (Barrows, 1986).

The method is to place the students in a situation in which they have to solve aproblem or take up a challenge as a starting-point for learning. Work related withlearning is thought to simulate the activities they will be called on to perform in theirfuture careers. Problem-based work emphasises the recognition of the research task,formulation of the research problem, self-directed work, abstraction and reflection(Koschman, Myers, & Feltovich, 1994). Previous knowledge about diseases and howto diagnose them is integrated with knowledge acquired and processed duringlearning activity. In reflection, the students assess their learning process (whatthey learned, what did not become clear, what they did not understand, how learn-ing progressed, etc.).

Problem-based work is characterised, among other things, by the fact that learn-ing and structuring of knowledge and thinking take place in their natural contextsdefined by real patients (anticipation; Williams, 1992). Problem-centredness acts asthe channel through which, in the learning process, expert skills are conveyed:hypothesis formation, testing of hypotheses, analysis and presentation of data


collected and the drawing of conclusions. This approach forces the students to con-struct for themselves a mental model of the object in order to be able to analysis theunderlying causes of the disease and their effects.

Normally study takes place in groups of 4–8 students as a collaborative activity. Itforces everybody to take into account other people’s interpretations and ideas, to actresponsibly, and to bring forward their own opinion on the matters and viewpointsthat have a bearing on the problem. It is no surprise that these are the very compe-tences that experts in any field are called upon to develop even today. The role of theteacher is to create the learning environment, act as a resource person and tutor and,where necessary, as an expert in the field.

4.2. Learning by designing

The learning by designing model (c.f. Rodrıguez (2001) as another article in thisissue) is often justified with Perkins’ conception of knowledge: knowledge as design(Perkins, 1986). Under this conception, design has four dimensions: purpose, struc-ture, typical instance and justification. According to this conception, knowledge isconstrued in connection with practices, that is, theory is practice-oriented and seeksto explain the latter. Knowledge is structured and purpose is intertwined withstructure—structure serving purpose. What we know consists of models and casesexemplifying knowledge. In addition to this, knowledge always contains the tools bywhich it is developed, evaluated and justified.

For instance, knowledge about a knife can be structured as follows. The purposeof a knife is to cut something. All knives have the same basic structure and the breadknife is a type of knife. Similarly, the functioning of a knife can be understood if weknow the laws of physics and their varying usability for cutting can be explained bythe same laws of mechanics. A similar analysis about language is possible to makeeasily (Perkins, 1986).

The conception that knowledge is design implies that knowledge is no longerinformation nor teaching transfer of information. Design relates teaching to exper-tise culture and experts in a natural way. This perspective also emphasises a criticalattitude towards knowledge. Not all designs serve a purpose. One of the con-sequences of a conception of knowledge is that the definition of a problem is givenspecial emphasis in teaching. In design, the problem is difficult to define since designis a process.

In practice, teaching by design is characterised by the collaboration of teacher andstudents in order to produce technical devices (Kolodner, 1997), computer programs(Harel, 1991) or hypermedia environments (Koehler, Petrosino, & Lehrer, 1998;Lehrer, 1993; Lehrer, Ericsson, & Connell, 1994). Students normally work in smallgroups. Basically they have to decide for themselves what they must learn in order toreach the goal. This implies that study involves a great deal of experimentation,reading and examination of the matter. In the course of the construction of theproduct students learn to cope with conflict situations. If the plan fails or somethingfunctions in a manner not desired, they have to reflect on what is lacking, what isincomplete or needs to be specified, or what has been misunderstood. On the whole


a lot of reconstruction and retesting, explication and correction of the solutionis needed. Repeated processes in learning by designing are planning, processingof knowledge, critical assessment of relevant knowledge and implementation, andcorrection.

Learning by designing has recently become popular in general education mainlyin the field of computer-assisted instruction. It has been increasingly adopted also inengineering studies. Indeed, learning by design can be seen as a model of teachingrepresenting the participationist’s metaphor in learning. It has much the same func-tion as provider of solutions to existing training in engineering sciences as problem-based teaching in medical faculties.

Learning by design has connections with case-based learning and the problem-based approach. From the point of view of development of expertise it has theobjective of conveying to students skills in designing. The special role of the teacheris to bring these areas of expertise to the learning situation.

4.3. Case-based teaching

Case-based teaching is based on the theory that experts face with the interpreta-tion of a new situation resort to case-based reasoning (Leake, 1996). In other words,in a given situation experts have recourse to a library of cases on the basis of whichthey do their reasoning. Typical examples of of this are for instance doctors andlawyers, who make use of prototypical cases when making a diagnosis or investi-gating a case (Schank, Fano, Bell, & Jona, 1993/1994).

Any important matter or experience can be considered a case. So for instance therelationship with one’s first girlfriend forms a case. Similarly, the car owned by one’sparents that used to break down when one borrowed it can be considered a case.Under the definition of this paper, a case is a holistic, semantically rich descriptionof a real-life situation or object that combines different points of view and fields ofknowledge. But what is case-based teaching?

One can characterise case-based teaching as student-centred research and actionwhich emphasises interaction and is associated with realistic objects of specialimportance. The learners commit themselves to encountering emotionally and ana-lysing intellectually a complex phenomenon within limits set by a real situation. Theinformation available on the object is limited and there is limited time available. Inthe learning situation the learners look at the object from different perspectives,analysing its structure and behaviour. When looking for a solution they must reflecttogether on the object, process the information collected about it, use different tools,reflect on the previous experiences of each learner and convey thought patterns fromone situational context to another.

By way of a summary it can be said that in addition to construction of knowledge,case-based teaching seeks to develop analytic reasoning, collaborative action, gettinga perspective on the object, and communication skills. What does case-based teach-ing mean in practice? In the following we are going to look at one particular appli-cation of case-based teaching, namely issue analysis (Ramsey, Hungerford, & Volk,1990).


Issue analysis has become a popular teaching method in the subject Science,Technology and Society. Examples of possible topics for a case study would be forinstance the following:

1. Is computer-held information on individuals a threat to privacy?2. Should nuclear waste be stored in the bedrock?3. Are the advantages of industrial robots greater than the disadvantages?4. Should other countries interfere in the domestic affairs of another country if

the leadership of that country uses violence against its own citizens?

As can be seen from the examples, study of topical world problems is character-istic of the learning tasks.

In general, study begins with the definition of the dimensions of issue analysis,after which follows the actual handling of the problem. Important topics of discus-sion are also who are the players in the situation, what are their positions, what aretheir perspectives based on, what is the system of values guiding their thinking andwhat solutions they are suggesting for the problem (Ramsey et al., 1990).

The problem is dealt with in small groups through discussion and debate, thestudents name the actors and their positions, make a precis of their beliefs andthe values these beliefs are based on. Finally, each group draws up a report to bepresented to the others.

In general, the teacher of the group has made up a list of articles which can beused individually and in a small group for finding an answer to the problem. Value-related perspectives include the aesthetic, ecological and economic dimensions, edu-cation, culture and leisure. Good questions in the discussion of a problem might besome of the following: is the information given by the actors well-founded (forinstance in relation to research results), what background information is necessaryfor assessment of conclusions, or whether the solutions have a bearing on the prob-lem and whether they are relevant to it.

4.4. Cognitive apprenticeship model

This model of teaching is based on a fact observed by researchers: in the learningof expert behaviour, too little attention has been paid to the processes applied by theexpert in their activities. Cognitive apprenticeship training aims at teaching theseprocesses. Underlying this idea is the traditional, widely applied model of appren-ticeship training, which emphasises observation, training and practice, first under amaster and later independently. The method is characterised by the fact that appli-cation takes place in a social setting.

In comparison with traditional apprenticeship training, the difference is that theproblems are selected on pedagogical grounds, not from the economic viewpoint.Teaching emphasises contextualisation of the things to be learned so that theresulting knowledge or skill is applicable in different content fields. In general, cog-nitive apprenticeship is seen as a model complementing traditional teaching (Collins,Brown, & Newman, 1989).


Cognitive apprenticeship training applies several teaching and learning strategies.These can be briefly described as follows:

1. Modelling, meaning the demonstration of the temporal processing of thinking.2. Explanation: explaining why activities take place as they do.3. Coaching: meaning the monitoring of students’ activities and assisting and

supporting them where necessary.4. Scaffolding: meaning support of students so that they can cope with the task

situation. The strategy also entails the gradual withdrawal of teacher from theprocess, when the students can manage on their own.

5. Reflection: the student assesses and analyses his performance.6. Articulation: the results of reflection are put into verbal form.7. Exploration: the students are encouraged to form hypotheses, to test them, and

to find new ideas and viewpoints.

The following is a brief description of one possible application of this model ofteaching: the modelling of an electric and peat power plant technological system.

The goal of activities is to enhance the skills of solving complex, semantically richproblems involving several fields of knowledge by modelling high-technologyequipment and products in the Legologo environment (c.f. Enkenberg, 1993). Theunderlying assumption is that the process makes the students’ skills and knowledgeabout the object richer and deeper.

The learning environment consists of the object under study and Lego technicsseries, a microcomputer (PC or Macintosh) that can be coupled to them and theLOGO programming language. In this case the object of study was the peat powerplant of the town of Joensuu generating both heat for the district heating network ofthe town and electricity for the national network. The activities were based on thehypothesis that this model of teaching can be a good instance of instruction basedon the cognitive–constructivist conception of learning. The learning project lastedabout 30 h. The learners were students of the university of Joensuu on the degreeprogramme for primary teacher education.

The learning began with a visit to the Joensuu power plant and an explanation ofits structure and functioning through observation and interviews with employeesand foremen. Using the literature and other written or pictorial material the stu-dents examined the products of the plant, details of production and use of rawmaterials. They found out who the clients were, how raw material was transportedand the products transported to clients. On the basis of this they drew up a briefreport for further use.

The learning continued with articulation of the mental model by representingassociated knowledge in different forms (text, picture and concept map). On thebasis of this the students formed a conceptual model of the object (tree diagram ofthe structure and functioning of the plant).

The learning proceeded with the drawing up of a conceptual model—constructionof a prototype. The prototype was implemented by means of Lego bricks andthe LOGO programming language. In other words, the students built a model of


the plant with Lego bricks and linked it to a computer with sensors. This phase wasfollowed by the programming of the model.

Once the programmed model of the functioning of the plant was completed, thestudents proceeded to draw up a summary report of the project. When making it theyhad to critically assess their model in comparison with the real plant and reflect ontheir own learning experiences, which were also portrayed in the report. Finally, thereport was presented to the other students and published as web pages on the Internet.

In short, the project was a huge success compared with the previous learningexperiences of the students. With the exception of a few males, the studentswere women with very limited experience of technology. On the whole the studentsfound the project exceptionally interesting and thought-provoking. The cognitiveresults of the project have not been reported yet.

The following features were emphasised in the learning activities:

1. support of the continuous reorganisation of the student’s knowledge;2. just-in-time learning: knowledge and skills were learned as they needed for

coping with the problem encountered or with managing a situation;3. modelling of expert skills and models of action through training and situation-

specific support; and4. support of development of a well-structured mental model about the target

phenomena.

5. Conclusion

In the foregoing we have discussed ideas on knowledge and learning raised bycognitive research on learning with special emphasis on four models suited fordeveloping university learning and instruction. All of them share participationist’smetaphor about learning. Of these, problem-based learning is widely used in uni-versity-level teaching. The other models presented are newer and are currentlylooking for fields of application. Systematic study of the effects they have in practiceis also called for.

Generally speaking it is true to say that learners learn what they are taught.Therefore, it is safe to assume that the previously mentioned methods whichemphasise encounter with reality, the collaborative aspect, anticipation and partici-pation produce better learning results especially in the domain of high-level skills ashas been empirically verified in the case of problem-based learning (Mennin, Fried-man, Skipper, Kalishman, & Snyder, 1993; Vernon, & Blake, 1993). On the otherhand, the importance of attitudinal perspectives and the challenges of learning tolearn should not be forgotten when we talk about models of teaching (Bernstein,Tipping, Bercovitz, & Skinner, 1995). What has been found true of problem-basedteaching and has shown as the students’ positive attitudes towards study can beexpected to be true of other models of teaching with similar features.

Some problems still remain without good answer. Increasing interest in highereducation towards open and distance learning challenges instructional designers to


construct relevant models and procedures that could be applied in implementingearlier presented teaching models and learning environments in network-basedenvironments. There is a very limited amount of research in this field. Generallydesigning collaborative learning environments is not a well understood domain area.Therefore it is always a very challenging task for instructional designers. Much moredifficult will be the task in the situation where most of the teaching will be done inthe environments where the students and the teachers have very limited possibilitiesto interact with each other in face-to-face situations.

References

Adams, L., Kasserman, J., Yearwod, A., Perfetto, G., Bransford, J., & Franks, J. (1988). The effects of

fact versus problem-oriented acquisition. Memory & Cognition, 16, 167–175.

Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20, 481–486.

Brown, J. S., & Duduid, P. (1993). Stolen knowledge. Educational Technology, March, 10–15.

Bernstein, P., Tipping, J., Bercovitz, K, & Skinner, H. (1995). Shifting students and faculty to a PBL

curriculum: attitudes changed and lessons learned. Academic Medicine, 70(3), 245–247.

Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1991). The challenge of problem-based learning. London: Kogan Page.

Bruer, J. T. (1993). Schools for thought: a science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: the teaching of reading, writing

and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction. Essays in honor of Robert

Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Enkenberg, J. (1993). Situation graphs as tools for ordering of students thinking and understanding of

actual existing servo mechanisms. In B. Dennis (Ed.), Control technology in elementary education.

NATO ASI Series (pp. 133–150). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking. The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 32(February),

93–104.

Hadgraft, R. (1998). Problem-based learning: a vital step towards a new work environment. International

Journal of Engineering Education, 14(1), 14–23.

Hannafin, M., & Land, S. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology enhanced student-

centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167–202.

Harel, I. (1991). Childrens designers. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Karpov, Y. V., & Haywood, H. C. (1998). Two ways to elaborate Vygotsky’s concept of mediation.

Implications for instruction. American Psychologist, January, 27–36.

Koehler, M., Petrosino, A., & Lehrer, R. (1998). Hypermedia design principles for case-based teacher edu-

cation environments. Poster presented at the third international conference on the learning sciences

(ICLS-98), 16–19 December, Atlanta, Georgia Tech.

Kolodner, J. (1997). Educational implications of analogy. A view of case-based reasoning. American

Psychologist, 52, 57–66.

Koschman, T. D., Myers, A. C., & Feltovich, P. J. (1994). Using technology to assist in realizing effective

learning and instruction: a principled approach to use of computers in collaborative learning. The

Journal of Learning Sciences, 3(3), 227–264.

Leake, D. B. (1996). Case-based reasoning: experiences, lessons & future directions. Menlo Park: The MIT

Press.

Lehrer, R. (1993). Author of knowledge: patterns of hypermedia design. In S. P. Lajoie, & S. J. Derry

(Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 197–227). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lehrer, R., Ericsson, J., & Connell, T. (1994). Learning by designing hypermedia documents. Computers

in Schools, 10(1–2), 227–252.

Mennin, S., Friedman, M., Skipper, B., Kalishman, S., & Snyder, J. (1993). Performances on the NBME

I, II and III by medical students in the problem-based learning and conventional tracks at the Uni-

versity of New Mexico. Academic Medicine, 68(8), 616–624.


Perkins, D. (1986). Knowledge as design. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

Ramsey, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Analyzing the issues of STS. The Science

Teacher, March, 61–63.

Rodrıguez Illera, J. L. (2001). Collaborative environments and task design in the university. Computers in

Human Behaviour, 17(5–6), 481–493.

Schank, R. C., Fano, A., Bell, B., & Jona, M. (1993/1994). The design of goal-based scenarios. The

Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(4), 305–346.

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational

Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.

Wenger, E. (1998). Practice. In E. Wenger (Ed.), Communities of practice: learning, meaning and commu-

nity. NY: Cambridge University Press.

Vernon, D. T., & Blake, R. L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluate

research. Academic Medicine, 68(7), 550–563.

Williams, S. (1992). Putting case-based instruction into context: examples from legal, business and medi-

cal education. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 2, 367–427.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.


Documents

Instructional design and emerging teaching models in higher education