Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2014 / The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes

The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes

Paper · 2014 · Michelene T. H. Chi and Ruth Wylie

Summary

Teachers are often told to make learning "active," but this advice rarely says which activities to design, how to choose among them, or how to adapt existing assignments. Chi and Wylie respond with ICAP, a theoretical framework previously called DOLA. It sorts student engagement by observable behavior into four modes: Passive (receiving), Active (manipulating), Constructive (generating) and Interactive (dialoguing). Each mode is linked to its own knowledge-change process. The framework predicts that learning deepens in the order I > C > A > P.

This is a conceptual and review article. It has no dataset, corpus or model of its own. Its support comes from published laboratory and classroom studies, which the authors organize around a trio of learning tasks: taking notes, building concept maps and explaining material to oneself. The authors also discuss limits of the hypothesis. They show how ICAP can explain conflicting findings, guide the choice of control conditions and help code student outputs. Finally, they compare it with cognitive load theory and the revised Bloom's taxonomy.

The work matters because it gives instructors a simple, domain-general, behavior-based tool for designing and assessing engaging lessons.

Key points

  • Four modes and processes: ICAP maps its four engagement modes to the processes storing, integrating, inferring and co-inferring. These lead to the outcomes recall, apply, transfer and co-create.
  • Mode depends on behavior, not task: Instructional tasks are orthogonal to engagement mode. When reading a text, a student might read silently (passive), underline (active), take notes in their own words (constructive) or question a peer (interactive).
  • Empirical grounding: The I > C > A > P hypothesis is tested against prior studies on note taking, concept mapping and self-explaining. The paper extends Chi (2009) by adding classroom evidence.
  • Cognitive load: A study by McEldoon (2014) found that a constructive worked-example condition produced higher reported cognitive load than an active one. In one lesson, the constructive condition also produced higher learning gains. This suggests ICAP can sometimes diverge from cognitive load theory.
  • Relation to Bloom's taxonomy: The authors see the two frameworks as complementary. Bloom's taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) targets learning goals, while ICAP targets the means of reaching them. The work was funded by the Institute of Education Sciences (Award #R305A110090).

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Institutions

🎓Arizona State UniversityTempe · United States58 works · 5,334 citations

 Fields, topics and concepts

📚 Shelves 5The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Social Sciences · 2,009 worksPsychology · 1,673 worksExperimental and Cognitive Psychology · 950 worksDevelopmental and Educational Psychology · 533 worksEducation · 221 works

Cite

Cite as Michelene T. H. Chi and Ruth Wylie. 2014. The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.1080/00461520.2014.965823

@inproceedings{chi2014icap,
  title = {{The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes}},
  author = {Michelene T. H. Chi and Ruth Wylie},
  booktitle = {Educational Psychologist},
  year = {2014},
  doi = {10.1080/00461520.2014.965823},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823}
}

References

135 references, 3 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26, 147–179.
  2. Alibali, M., & DiRusso, A. (1999). The function of gesture in learning to count: More than keeping track. Cognitive Development, 14, 37–56. find
  3. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2005). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. London, England: Longman. find
  4. Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 774–783. find
  5. Azevedo, R., Greene, J. A., Moos, D. C., Winters, F. I., Cromley, J. G., & Godbole-Chaudhuri, P. (2006). Is externally-regulated learning by a human tutor always effective in facilitating learning with hypermedia? In S. Barab, K. Hay, & D. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conferen… find
  6. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307–359. find
  7. Bartlett, F. C. (1958). Thinking: An experimental and social study. London, England: Allen & Unwin. find
  8. Bauer, A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2007). Selection-based note-taking applications. CHI 07 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY: ACM. find
  9. Beal, C. R., & Stevens, R. H. (2010). Improving students’ problem solving in a web-based chemistry simulation through embedded metacognitive messages. Technology, Instruction, Cognition & Learning, 8, 255–271. find
  10. Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P. L., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 221–252. find
  11. Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., Schwartz, D., & Vye, N. (2005). Learning by teaching a new agent paradigm for education software. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19, 363–392. find
  12. Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475–488). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. find
  13. Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Feuerlein, I., & Spada, H. (2004). The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualisations. Learning and Instruction, 14, 325–341. find
  14. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. Washington, DC: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University. find
  15. Bonwell, C. C., & Sutherland, T. E. (1996). The active learning continuum: Choosing activities to engage students in the classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1996(67), 3–16. find
  16. Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. find
  17. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21–32. find
  18. Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 182–197. find
  19. Chang, K.-E., Sung, Y.-T., & Chen, I.-D. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71, 5–23. find
  20. Chi, M., Dohmen, I., Shemwell, J. T., Chase, C. C., & Schwartz, D. L. (2012, April). Seeing the forest from the trees: A comparison of two instructional models using contrasting cases. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC, Canada. find
  21. Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. Advances in Instructional Psychology, 5, 161–238. find
  22. Downloaded by [Arizona State University Libraries] at 15:42 12 February 2016 find
  23. Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-Constructive-Interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105. find
  24. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self–explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182. find
  25. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H. & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477. find
  26. Chi, M. T. H., & Kang, S. (2014). The learning benefits of dialogue videos over monologue videos: Implications for designing online videos. Manuscript submitted for publication. find
  27. Chi, M. T. H., & Menekse, M. (in press). Dialogues as interactions. In C. Asterhan & L. Resnick (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. Washington, DC: AERA. find
  28. Chi, M. T. H., Roscoe, R. D., Slotta, J. D., Roy, M., & Chase, C. C. (2012). Misconceived causal explanations for emergent processes. Cognitive Science, 36, 1–61. find
  29. Chi, M. T. H., Roy, M., & Hausmann, R. G. M. (2008). Observing tutorial dialogues collaboratively: Insights about human tutoring effectiveness from vicarious learning. Cognitive Science, 32, 301–341. find
  30. Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S. A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471–533.
  31. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218. find
  32. Chularut, P., & DeBacker, T. K. (2004). The influence of concept mapping on achievement, self-regulation, and selfefficacy in students of English as a second language. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 248–263. find
  33. Cobb, P. (Ed.). (1994). Learning mathematics: Constructivist and interactionist theories of mathematical development. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. find
  34. Coffey, J. W., Carnot, M. J., Feltovich, P. J., Feltovich, J., Hoffman, R. R., & Ca~ nas, A. J. (2003). A summary of literature pertaining to the use of concept mapping techniques and technologies for education and performance support (Tech. rep. submitted to the US Navy Chief of Naval Education and… find
  35. Coleman, E. B., Brown, A. L., & Rivkin, I. D. (1997). The effect of instructional explanations on learning from scientific texts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 347–365. find
  36. Conati, C., & Carenini, G. (2001). Knowledge encapsulation: Studies on the development of medical expertise. In 17th International Joint Conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1301–1306). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. find
  37. Conati, C., & VanLehn, K. (2000). Toward computer-based support of meta-cognitive skills: A computational framework to coach self-explanation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 389–415. find
  38. Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 88–108. find
  39. Czerniak, C. M., & Haney, J. J. (1998). The effect of collaborative concept mapping on elementary preservice teachers’ anxiety, efficacy, and achievement in physical science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9, 303–320. find
  40. Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: The untapped potential. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 5, 331–343. find
  41. Dawson, I. (2004). Time for chronology? Ideas for developing chronological understanding. Teaching History, 117, 14–24. find
  42. Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332, 862–864. find
  43. D’Mello, S., Olney, A., Williams, C., & Hays, P. (2012). Gaze tutor: A gaze-reactive intelligent tutoring system. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70, 377–398. find
  44. Docktor, J. L., Strand, N. E., Mestre, J. P., & Ross, B. H. (2010, October). A conceptual approach to physics problem solving. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1289, p. 137). Portland, OR: American Institute of Physics. find
  45. Doymus, K. (2008). Teaching chemical equilibrium with the jigsaw technique. Research in Science Education, 38, 249–260. find
  46. Ebert-May, D., Brewer, C., & Allred, S. (1997). Innovation in large lectures: Teaching for active learning. Bioscience, 47, 601–607. find
  47. Ferguson-Hessler, M., & de Jong, T. (1990). Studying physics texts: Differences in study processes between good and poor performers. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 41–54. find
  48. Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons. find
  49. Fonseca, B. & Chi, M. T. H. (2011). The self-explanation effect: A constructive learning activity. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), The handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 296–321). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor and Francis. find
  50. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109. find
  51. Gobert, J. D., & Clement, J. J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 39–53. find
  52. Goldstone, R. L., & Day, S. (Eds.) (2012). New conceptualizations of transfer of learning [Special issue]. Educational Psychologist, 47(3). find
  53. Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104–137. find
  54. Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 36, 93–103. find
  55. Guastello, E. F., Beasley, T. M., & Sinatra, R. C. (2000). Concept mapping effects on science content comprehension of low-achieving inner-city seventh graders. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 356–364. find
  56. Hausmann, R. G. M., & Chi, M. T. H. (2002). Can a computer interface support self-explaining? Cognitive Technology, 7, 4–14. find
  57. Hausmann, R. G. M., van de Sande, B., & VanLehn, K. (2008). Shall we explain? Augmenting learning from intelligent tutoring systems and peer collaboration. In B. P. Woolf, E. Aimeur, R. Nkambou, & S. Lajoie (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 636–645). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS. find
  58. Hendricks, C. C. (2001). Teaching causal reasoning through cognitive apprenticeship: What are results from situated learning? Journal of Educational Research, 94, 302–311. find
  59. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379–432. find
  60. Horton, P. B., McConney, A. A., Gallo, M., Woods, A. L., Senn, G. J., & Hamelin, D. (1993). An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool. Science Education, 77, 95–111. find
  61. James, K. H., Humphrey, G. K., Vilis, T., Corrie, B., Baddour, R., & Goodale, M. A. (2002). “Active” and “passive” learning of three-dimensional object structure within an immersive virtual reality environment. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 383–390. find
  62. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 31, 28–33. find
  63. Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Playing and making games. Games and Culture, 1, 36–40. find
  64. Kam, M., Wang, J., Iles, A., Tse, E., Chiu, J., Glaser, D., . . ., Canny, J. (2005, April). Livenotes: A system for cooperative and augmented note-taking in lectures. In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’05) (pp. 531–540). Portland, OR. find
  65. Downloaded by [Arizona State University Libraries] at 15:42 12 February 2016 find
  66. Kastens, K. A., & Liben, L. S. (2007). Eliciting self-explanations improves children’s performance on a field-based map skills task. Cognition and Instruction, 25, 45–74. find
  67. Katayama, A. D., Shambaugh, R. N., & Doctor, T. (2005). Promoting knowledge transfer with electronic note taking. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 129–131. find
  68. King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41, 30–35. find
  69. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86. find
  70. Kitchner, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition. Human Development, 26, 222–232. find
  71. Kobayashi, K. (2006). Combined effects of note-taking/reviewing on learning and the enhancement through interventions: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology, 26, 459–477. find
  72. Kramarski, B., & Dudai, V. (2009). Group-metacognitive support for online inquiry in mathematics with differential self-questioning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40, 377–404. find
  73. Loyens, S. M. M., & Gijbels, D. (2008). Understanding the effects of constructivist learning environments: Introducing a multi-directional approach. Instructional Science, 36, 351–357. find
  74. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T., Mohler, L., Beranek, M., Spencer, V., Boon, R. T., & Talbott, E. (2001). Can middle school students with serious reading difficulties help each other and learn anything? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 18–27. find
  75. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Spencer, V., & Fontana, J. (2003). Promoting success in high school world history: Peer tutoring versus guided notes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 52–65. find
  76. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14–19. find
  77. Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. find
  78. McEldoon, K. L. (2014). Supporting novice learning through focused processing of worked examples and explanations. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. find
  79. McEldoon, K. L., Durkin, K. L., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2013). Is self-explanation worth the time? A comparison to additional-practice. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 615–632. find
  80. Menekse, M., Stump, G., Krause, S., & Chi, M. T. H. (2013). Differentiated overt learning activities for effective instruction in engineering classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 102, 346–374. find
  81. Mestre, J. P. (2002). Probing adults’ conceptual understanding and transfer of learning via problem posing. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 9–50. find
  82. Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting Active Learning. Strategies for the College Classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. find
  83. Milrad, M. (2002). Using construction kits, modeling tools and system dynamics simulations to support collaborative discover learning. Educational Technology and Society, 5, 76–87. find
  84. Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413–448. find
  85. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 937–949. find
  86. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. find
  87. Oakhill, J. V., Cain, K., & Bryant, P. E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: Evidence from component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 443–468. find
  88. O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 71–86. find
  89. Okada, T., & Simon, H. A. (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 21, 109–146. find
  90. Okebukola, P. A., & Jegede, O. J. (1988). Cognitive preference and learning mode as determinants of meaningful learning through concept mapping. Science Education, 72, 489–500. find
  91. O’Reilly, T., Symons, S., & MacLatchy-Gaudet, H. (1998). Brief research report: A comparison of self-explanation and elaborative interrogation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 434–445. find
  92. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books. find
  93. Pea, R., & Kurland, M. (1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New Ideas in Psychology, 2, 137–168. find
  94. Pelech, J. (2010). The comprehensive handbook of constructivist teaching: From theory to practice. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. find
  95. Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Generative effects of note-taking during science lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 34–38. find
  96. Piaget, J. (1930). The child’s conception of physical causality. Oxford, England: Harcourt Brace. find
  97. Pillow, B. H., Mash, C., Aloian, S., & Hill, V. (2002). Facilitating children’s understanding of misinterpretation: Explanatory efforts and improvements in perspective taking. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163, 133–148. find
  98. Pine, K. J., & Messer, D. J. (2000). The effect of explaining another’s actions on children’s implicit theories of balance. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 35–52. find
  99. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivation and self regulation components of academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40. find
  100. Rafal, C. T. (1996). From co-construction to takeovers: Science talk in a group of four girls. Journal of Learning Sciences, 5, 279–293. find
  101. Renkl, A., Stark, R., Gruber, H., & Mandl, H. (1998). Learning from worked-out examples: The effects of example variability and elicited self-explanations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 90–108. find
  102. Rickards, J. P., & Friedman, F. (1978). The encoding versus the external storage hypothesis in note taking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 3, 136–143. find
  103. Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 534–574. find
  104. Rosenthal, J. S. (1995). Active learning strategies in advanced mathematics classes. Studies in Higher Education, 20, 223–228. find
  105. Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., Mason, R. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 478–493. find
  106. Rowles, C. J. (2013). Strategies to promote critical thinking and active learning. Teaching in nursing: A guide for faculty, 258–279. find
  107. Rubin, J., & Herbert, M. (1998). Peer teaching-model for active learning. College Teaching, 48, 26–30. find
  108. Russell, I. J., Caris, T. N., Harris, G. D., & Hendricson, W. D. (1983). Effects of three types of lecture notes on medical student achievement. Academic Medicine, 58, 627–636. find
  109. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of Research in Education, 23, 1–24. find
  110. Scardamalia, M. (1992, July). The role of adaptation and understanding in knowledge-building communities. Paper presented at conference of NATO Advanced Science Institute, Kolymbari Crete, Greece. find
  111. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Journal of the learning students’ understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 131–166. find
  112. Schmid, R. F. & Telaro, G. (1990). Concept mapping as an instructional strategy for high school biology. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 78–85. find
  113. Downloaded by [Arizona State University Libraries] at 15:42 12 February 2016 find
  114. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling a time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 475–522. find
  115. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right . . . if they argue together! Cognition and Instruction, 18, 461–494. find
  116. Siegler, R. (1995). How does change occur: A microgenetic study of number conservation. Cognitive Psychology, 28, 225–273. find
  117. Stark, R. (1999). Lernen mit L€ osungsbeisplielen: Einfluss unvollst€ andiger L€ osungsbeispiele auf Beispielelaboration, Motivation and Lernerfolg [Learning by worked-out examples: The impact of completion tasks on example elaboration, motivation and learning outcomes]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber. find
  118. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 183–218. find
  119. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312. find
  120. Trafton, J. G., & Trickett, S. B. (2001). Note-taking for self-explanation and problem solving. Human–Computer Interaction, 16, 1–38. van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10, 31… find
  121. VanLehn, K., Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., & Ros e, C. P. (2007). When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading? Cognitive Science, 31, 3–62.
  122. VanLehn, K., Jones, R. M., & Chi, M. T. H. (1992). A model of the self-explanation effect. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 1–59. find
  123. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121–140. find
  124. Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction, problem solving, and cognition: Multidisciplinary perspectives. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 1–119. find
  125. Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York, NY: Macmillan. find
  126. Whitten, W. B., II. (2011). Learning from and for tests. In A. S. Benjamin (Ed.), Successful remembering and successful forgetting: A festschrift in honor of Robert A. Bjork (pp. 217–234). New York, NY: Psychology Press. find
  127. Willerman, M., & Mac Harg, R. A. (1991). The concept map as an advance organizer. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 705–711. find
  128. Wilson, B. G. (1997, March). Reflections on constructivism and instructional design, instructional development paradigms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology. find
  129. Wong, R. M. F., Lawson, M. J., & Keeves, J. (2002). The effects of self-explanation training on students’ problem solving in high-school mathematics. Learning and Instruction, 12, 233–262. find
  130. Wylie, R. (2011). Examining the generality of self-explanation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. find
  131. Yaron, D., Karabinos, M., Lange, D., Greeno, J. G., & Leinhardt, G. (2010). The ChemCollective—virtual labs for introductory chemistry courses. Science, 328, 584–585. find
  132. Yetter, G., Gutkin, T., Saunders, A., Galloway, A., Sobansky, R., & Song, S. (2006). Individual practice for complex problem solving: A cautionary tale. Journal of Experimental Education, 74, 137–159. find
  133. Yin, Y., Vanides, J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, C. C., & Shavelson, R. J. (2005). Comparison of two concept-mapping techniques: Implications for scoring, interpretation, and use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 166–184. find
  134. Zhang, Z. H., & Linn, M. C. (2013). Learning from chemical visualizations: Comparing generation and selection. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 2174–2197. find
  135. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 21, 3–17. find

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/chi-2014-icap-framework-linking-cognitive-engagement/