178 en transfer ondersteunen. De verklar<strong>in</strong>g hiervoor is niet zozeer dat leren een begeleid proces is maar juist dat KM Quest een actieve en doelgerichte houd<strong>in</strong>g vergt. Wat betreft metacognitie is de conclusie dat het vooral van <strong>in</strong>vloed is op leren wanneer er geen taakmodel aanwezig is. De meerwaarde van het taakmodel is dat het de acquisitie van taakkennis faciliteert en dat het de rol overneemt van metacognitieve vaardigheden. Deze dissertatie heeft het belang aange<strong>to</strong>ond van het taakniveau <strong>in</strong> het leren oplossen van problemen. Het feit dat de empirische resultaten kunnen worden ge<strong>in</strong>terpreteerd met dat taakniveau levert ondersteun<strong>in</strong>g voor het theoretisch model.
References Akhras, F. and Self, J. (2002). Beyond <strong>in</strong>telligent tu<strong>to</strong>r<strong>in</strong>g systems: situations, <strong>in</strong>teractions, processes and affordances. Instructional science, 30:1–30. Anderson, J. (1983). <strong>The</strong> architecture <strong>of</strong> cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Anjewierden, A., Shostak, I., and de Hoog, R. (2002). Kmsim: A meta-modell<strong>in</strong>g approach and environment for creat<strong>in</strong>g process-oriented knowledge management simulations. In Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> the 13th European Conference on Knowledge Acquisition, Management and Modell<strong>in</strong>g (EKAW) Siguenza, Italy. Anzai, Y. and Simon, H. (1979). <strong>The</strong> theory <strong>of</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g by do<strong>in</strong>g. Psychological Review, 86:124–140. Artzt, A. and Armour-Thomas, E. (1992). Development <strong>of</strong> a cognitive-<strong>metacognitive</strong> framework for pro<strong>to</strong>col analysis <strong>of</strong> mathematical problem solv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> small groups. Cognition and <strong>in</strong>struction, 9:137–176. Ausubel, D., Novak, J., and Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology; a cognitive view. Holt, R<strong>in</strong>ehart and W<strong>in</strong>s<strong>to</strong>n, NY. Baker, E. and Mayer, R. (1999). Computer-based assessment <strong>of</strong> problem solv<strong>in</strong>g. Computers <strong>in</strong> human behavior, 15:269–282. Bednar, A., Cunn<strong>in</strong>gham, D., Duffy, T., and Perry, J. (1992). <strong>The</strong>ory <strong>in</strong><strong>to</strong> practice: how do we l<strong>in</strong>k? In Duffy, T. and Jonassen, D., edi<strong>to</strong>rs, Constructivism and the technology <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>struction: a conversation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. Breuker, J. (1994). A suite <strong>of</strong> problem solv<strong>in</strong>g types. In Breuker, J. and van de Velde, W., edi<strong>to</strong>rs, CommonKads library for expertise modell<strong>in</strong>g, pages 57–88. IOS Press, Amsterdam. Brown, A. (1978). Know<strong>in</strong>g when, where, and how <strong>to</strong> remember: A problem <strong>of</strong> metacognition. In Glaser, R., edi<strong>to</strong>r, Advances <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>structional psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mysterious mechanisms. In We<strong>in</strong>ert, F. and Kluwe, R., edi<strong>to</strong>rs, Metacognition, motivation and understand<strong>in</strong>g, pages 65–116. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. Brown, A., Bransford, J., Ferrara, A., and Campione, J. (1983). Learn<strong>in</strong>g, remember<strong>in</strong>g, and understand<strong>in</strong>g. In Flavell, J. and Markman, E., edi<strong>to</strong>rs, Handbook <strong>of</strong> child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognitive development, pages 77–166. Wiley, NY, 4th edition. 179
- Page 1 and 2:
The role of metacognitive skills in
- Page 3 and 4:
The role of metacognitive skills in
- Page 5 and 6:
Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. THEOR
- Page 7:
Contents ix 6. STUDY III: ADDED VAL
- Page 10 and 11:
xii Rienke Schutte, zonder de medew
- Page 12 and 13:
2 in realistic settings and everyda
- Page 14 and 15:
4 use a trade-off between efforts i
- Page 16 and 17:
6 of this thesis are described. In
- Page 18 and 19:
8 First an overview of relevant lit
- Page 20 and 21:
10 In research concerning reading a
- Page 22 and 23:
12 problem has actually been found
- Page 24 and 25:
14 or whether domain specific metac
- Page 26 and 27:
16 learners should be able to artic
- Page 28 and 29:
18 piece of origami paper. Both mat
- Page 30 and 31:
20 tion given to the problem solver
- Page 32 and 33:
22 is rather directive. It does not
- Page 34 and 35:
24 The problem solver has declarati
- Page 36 and 37:
26 problem and the fact that studen
- Page 38 and 39:
28 learn from them. In terms of Jan
- Page 40 and 41:
30 This model is called DORMOBILE (
- Page 42 and 43:
32 Second, the meta-level in proble
- Page 44 and 45:
34 Figure 2.8. Theoretical model of
- Page 46 and 47:
36 task-level. In order to keep the
- Page 49 and 50:
Chapter 3 KM QUEST The goal of this
- Page 51 and 52:
KM Quest 41 Figure 3.1. The Knowled
- Page 53 and 54:
KM Quest 43 the fact that some plan
- Page 55 and 56:
KM Quest 45 a dynamic simulation-ga
- Page 57 and 58:
KM Quest 47 Quest. They are visuali
- Page 59 and 60:
KM Quest 49 cesses in Coltec. For e
- Page 61 and 62:
KM Quest 51 Figure 3.5. The Knowled
- Page 63 and 64:
KM Quest 53 3.3.1.3 The IMPLEMENT p
- Page 65 and 66:
KM Quest 55 process in an electroni
- Page 67 and 68:
Chapter 4 STUDY I: PILOT This chapt
- Page 69 and 70:
Study I: Pilot 59 the spontaneous o
- Page 71 and 72:
Study I: Pilot 61 Also, the questio
- Page 73 and 74:
Study I: Pilot 63 however, to what
- Page 75 and 76:
Study I: Pilot 65 ceived 12 questio
- Page 77 and 78:
Study I: Pilot 67 objective, a seco
- Page 79 and 80:
Study I: Pilot 69 other. It also ex
- Page 81 and 82:
Study I: Pilot 71 In conclusion, th
- Page 83 and 84:
Study I: Pilot 73 Finally, the othe
- Page 85 and 86:
Study I: Pilot 75 Figure 4.2. Scree
- Page 87 and 88:
Study I: Pilot 77 Figure 4.4. Scree
- Page 89 and 90:
Study I: Pilot 79 Figure 4.5. Scree
- Page 91 and 92:
Study I: Pilot 81 Figure 4.7. Scree
- Page 93:
Study I: Pilot 83 alizations of the
- Page 96 and 97:
86 of meaningful learning which can
- Page 98 and 99:
88 opportunity events (instead of t
- Page 100 and 101:
90 different occasions or settings.
- Page 102 and 103:
92 conceptual correctness (54) the
- Page 104 and 105:
94 The score on KMQUESTions indicat
- Page 106 and 107:
96 is a variable that influences th
- Page 108 and 109:
98 5.4 Discussion The hypothesis fo
- Page 110 and 111:
100 mal company results. In the fol
- Page 112 and 113:
102 more inclined to regulate domai
- Page 114 and 115:
104 these skills in order to solve
- Page 116 and 117:
106 Hypothesis 1: students acquire
- Page 118 and 119:
108 KMQUESTions of study II was per
- Page 120 and 121:
110 The second measurement of game
- Page 122 and 123:
112 T-PROS because they did not occ
- Page 124 and 125:
114 Category Rule Example Task Indi
- Page 126 and 127:
116 vised by one experimenter in or
- Page 128 and 129:
118 6.3 Results 6.3.1 Game results
- Page 130 and 131:
120 to Coltec. Only threats have a
- Page 132 and 133:
122 6.3.2.1 Effects of learning and
- Page 134 and 135:
124 Prospective Pre-test Post-test
- Page 136 and 137:
126 Distribution Frequency 1 high 2
- Page 138 and 139: 128 No − model Model Retrospectiv
- Page 140 and 141: 130 model condition. Perhaps, perfo
- Page 142 and 143: 132 Cog Tas Meta Total No-model con
- Page 144 and 145: 134 Condition * Metacognition G MET
- Page 146 and 147: 136 Figure 6.5. Relations between m
- Page 148 and 149: 138 in the model condition: Visuali
- Page 150 and 151: 140 Figure 6.7. Overview of relatio
- Page 152 and 153: 142 ‘monitoring’. Prospective s
- Page 154 and 155: 144 learning. Finally, in the no-mo
- Page 156 and 157: 146 inclusion of a task model speci
- Page 158 and 159: 148 interpreting the results on met
- Page 160 and 161: 150 When no task model is available
- Page 162 and 163: 152 Another perhaps more valid expl
- Page 164 and 165: 154 havioural measures prove to be
- Page 167 and 168: Appendix A Solving a problem in KM
- Page 169 and 170: APPENDIX A: Solving a problem in KM
- Page 171: APPENDIX A: Solving a problem in KM
- Page 174 and 175: 164 to learning to solve problems.
- Page 176 and 177: 166 cognition in a constructivist l
- Page 178 and 179: 168 forward. The most important one
- Page 181 and 182: Chapter 9 SAMENVATTING Het huidige
- Page 183 and 184: Samenvatting 173 De aanwezigheid va
- Page 185 and 186: Samenvatting 175 gebruik van metaco
- Page 187: Samenvatting 177 nificant leereffec
- Page 191 and 192: REFERENCES 181 Duffy, T. and Cunnin
- Page 193 and 194: REFERENCES 183 Nelson, T. (1999). C
- Page 195: REFERENCES 185 van Harmelen, F., Wi
- Page 198 and 199: Prototyping of CMS Storage Manageme
- Page 200 and 201: Human-Computer Interaction and Pres
- Page 202: A Model-driven Approach for Buildin