Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Promoting Constructive Activities that Support Vicarious Learning During Computer-Based Instruction

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article explores several ways computer-based instruction can be designed to support constructive activities and promote deep-level comprehension during vicarious learning. Vicarious learning, discussed in the first section, refers to knowledge acquisition under conditions in which the learner is not the addressee and does not physically interact in any way with the source of the content to be mastered. The second section describes cognitive constructivism from the standpoint of schema theory and the work of Bartlett (1932). The next section describes four principles of curriculum design that support constructive processes during vicarious learning and reviews the process of self-explanation and how computer prompted self-explanation supports constructive activities. Research showing the important role that overhearing deep-level reasoning questions plays in supporting constructive activities and deep-level learning is also described. In the next section, vicarious learning supported by deep-level reasoning questions is contrasted with tutoring as one kind of interactive learning. In the final section, some conclusions are drawn, a few empirical issues are discussed, and two caveats are noted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2000). The need for tutoring dialog to support self-explanation. In C. P. Rose, & F. Freedman (Eds.), Building dialog systems for tutorial applications. Papers from the 2000 AAAI Fall Symposium (pp. 65–73). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleven, V., Koedinger, K. R., & Cross, K. (1999). Tutoring answer explanation fosters learning with understanding. In S. P. Lajoie, & M. Vivet (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education, Open Learning Environments: New Computational Technologies to Support Learning, Exploration, and Collaboration, proceedings of AIED-99 (pp. 199–206). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 167–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ash, M. G. (1985). Gestalt psychology: Origins in Germany and reception in the United States. In C. Buxton (Ed.), Points of View in the Modern History of Psychology. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1962). Social learning through imitation. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium of Motivation (pp. 211–269). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of education objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2-sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13, 4–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1482–1493.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–726.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In Glaser, R. (Ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology (pp. 161–238). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., de Leew, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S. A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. C. (1999). Developing technical training (2nd edn.). Washington, DC: International Society for Performance Improvement.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Larkin, K. M. (1980). Inference in text understanding. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension (pp. 385–407). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). The effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, A. T. (2001). Cognitive computer tutors: Solving the two-sigma problem. User Modeling: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference (pp. 137–147).

  • Cox, R., McKendree, J., Tobin, R., Lee, J., & Mayes, T. (1999). Vicarious learning from dialogue and discourse. Instructional Science, 27, 431–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. D., Driscoll, D., & Gholson, B. (2004). Constructing knowledge from dialog in an intelligent tutoring system: Interactive learning, vicarious learning, and pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13, 163–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 428–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., & Sullins, J. (2004). Should we question them?: An investigation into the role of deep questions in vicarious learning environments. In J. Nall, & R. Robson (Eds.), Proceedings of E-learn 2004: Wold Conference on E-learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, & Higher Education (pp. 1836–1840). Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., Ventura, M., Graesser, A. C., & the Tutoring Research Group. (2000). Overhearing dialogues and monologues in virtual tutoring sessions: Effects on questioning and vicarious learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 242–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. D., Sullins, J., Witherespoon, A., & Gholson, B. (in press). The deep-level reasoning questions effect: The role of dialog and deep-level reasoning questions during vicarious learning. Cognition & Instruction.

  • Davey, B., & McBride, S. (1986). Effects of question generating training on reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 256–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derry, S. J. (1996). Cognitive schema theory in the Constructivist debate. Educational Psychologist, 31, 163–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derry, S. J., & Potts, M. K. (1998). How tutors model students: A study of personal constructs in adaptive tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 65–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, J. T. (1988). Questioning and Teaching: A Manual of Practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, D., Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., Ventura, M., Hu, X., & Graesser, A. (2003). Vicarious learning: Effects of overhearing dialogue and monologue-like discourse in a virtual tutoring session. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29, 431–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170–198). New York: Simon Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, S. A., Shinjo, M., & Myers, J. L. (1990). The effect of encoding task on memory for sentence pairs varying in causal relatedness. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 27–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, & Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6, 50–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M., & de Jong, T. (1990). Studying physics texts: Differences in study processes between good and poor solvers. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 41–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox Tree, J. E. (1999). Listening in on monologues and dialogues. Discourse Processes, 27, 35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gavelek, J. R., & Raphael, T. E. (1985). Metacognition, instruction, and the role of questioning activities. In D. L. Forrest-Presslet, G. E. MacKinnin, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, Cognitive, and Human Performance: Vol. 2 (pp. 103–136). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). Two decades of structure building. Discourse Processes, 23, 265–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Baggett, W., & Williams, K. (1996). Question-driven explanatory reasoning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, S17–S32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Chipman, P., Haynes, B. C., & Olney, A. (in press). Auto Tutor: An intelligent tutoring system with mixed initative dialog.IEEE Transactions in Education.

  • Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. In J. T. Spence, J. M. Darley, & D. J. Foss (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology (pp. 163–189). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., & Olde, B. (2003). How does one know whether a person understands a device? The quality of the questions the person asks when the device breaks down. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 524–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Person, N., Harter, D., & the Tutoring Research Group (2001). Teaching tactics and dialog in Auto Tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 257–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., & Magliano, J. P. (1995). Collaborative dialogue patterns in naturalistic one-on-one tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 495–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 3, 371–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Harter, D., Person, N., & the Tutoring Research Group. (2000). Using latent semantic analysis to evaluate the contributions of students in Auto Tutor. Interactive Learning Environments, 8, 129–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harp, S., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, J., & Trueman, M. (1985). A research strategy for text designers: The role of headings. Instructional Science, 14, 99–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausmann, R. G. M., & Chi, M. T. H. (2002). Can a computer interface support self-explaining? Cognitive Technology, 7, 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrington, J., & Standen, P. (2000). Moving from an instructivist to a constructivist multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9, 195–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, G., Wells, M., & Swackhammer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilton, D. J. (1990). Conversational processes and causal explanation. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 65–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, V. M., Kaplan, J. D., & Sams, M. R. (Eds.). (1995). Intelligent Language Tutors. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1969). The Early Growth of Logic in the Child. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39, 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1981). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. In J. W. Ellington (Ed. and Trans.), Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company. (Original work published 1785).

  • Kant, I. (1990). Critique of pure reason. In J. M. D. Meiklejon (Ed. and Trans.). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. (Original work published 1781).

  • Kant, I. (1996). Critique of practical reason. In T. K. Abbott (Ed. and Trans.). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. (Original work published 1788).

  • King, A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students’ comprehension of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 366–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 664–687.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effect of teaching children how to question and explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 338–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A., Staffieri, A., & Adelgais, A. (1998). Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 134–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Duel search space during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, W. (1925). The Mentality of Apes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Dineen, F., & McKendree, J. (1998). Supporting student discussions: It isn't just talk. Education and Information Technologies, 3, 17–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefrancias, G. R. (1997). Psychology for Teachers (9th edn.). Belmont CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesgold, A., Lajoie, S., Bunzo, M., & Eggan, G. (1992). SHERLOCK: A coached practice environment for an electronics troubleshooting job. In J. H. Larkin, & R. W. Chabay (Eds.), Computer-Assisted Instruction and Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Shared Goals and Complementary Approaches (pp. 201–238). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loman, N. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). Signaling techniques that increase the understandability of expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 402–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorch, R. F., Jr., & Lorch, E. P. (1995). Effects of organizational signals on text processing strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 537–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maulsby, D., Greenberg, S., & Mandler, R. (1993). Prototyping an intelligent agent through Wizard of Oz. In S. Ashlund, A. Henderson, E. Hollnagel, K. Mullet, & T. White, (Eds.) Proceedings of the INTERCHI’93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 277–284). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learners as information processors: Legacies and limitations of educational psychology's second metaphor. Educational Psychologist, 31, 151–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1999). Multimedia aids to problem-solving transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 611–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2002). Using illustrations to promote constructivist learning from science text. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The Psychology of Science Text Comprehension (pp. 333–356). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 390–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., Dow, G. T., & Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 806–812.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., Mautone, P., & Prothero, W. (2002). Pictorial aids for learning by doing in a multimedia geology simulation game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 171–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKendree, J., Good, J., & Lee, J. (2001). Effects of Dialogue Characteristics on Performance of Overhearers. Presented at International Conference on Communication, Problem-solving and Leaning, June 2001, Strathclyde.

  • McKendree, J., Stenning, K., Mayes, T., Lee, J., & Cox, R. (1998). Why observing a dialogue may benefit learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14, 110–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., Levinstein, I. B., & Boonthum, C. (2004). iStart: Interactive strategy training for active reading and thinking. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 222–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., & McDaniel, M. (2004). Suppressing irrelevant information: Knowledge activation or inhibition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 465–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 117–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, M. J., Mertz, K., & Ryan, R. (1994). Learning through self-explanation of mathematics examples: Effects of cognitive load (poster). Presentation to the American Educational Research Association (AERA) annual meeting.

  • National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National Cience Educational Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, G. M., Duffy, S. A., & Mack, R. L. (1985). Question asking as a component of text comprehension. In A. C. Graesser & J. B. Black (Eds.), The Psychology of Questions (pp. 219–228). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otero, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2001). PREG: Elements ofa model of question asking. Cognition & Instruction, 19, 143–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehensionfostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penney, C. G. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory. Memory and Cognition, 17, 398–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence. Madison, CT: International University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1962). Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1963). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1970a). Piaget's theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's Manual of Child Psychology (pp. 703–732). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1970b). Genetic Epistemology. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1973). To Understand is to Invent. New York: Grossman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirolli, P., & Recker, M. (1994). Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 235–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prawat, R. S. (1996). Constructivism, modern and postmodern. Educational Psychologist, 31, 215–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Instructional Design Theories and Models. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisbeck, C. K. (1988). Are questions just function calls? Questing Exchange, 2, 17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renwick, W. (1996). Informative Technology and the Future of Post Secondary Education. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, A. G., & Flagg, P. W. (1977). Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers, INC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1978). Social Learning and Cognition. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Brett, C., Burtis, P. J., Calhoun, C., & Smith-Lea, N. (1992). Educational applications of a network communal database. Interactive Learning Environments, 2, 47–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schober, M. F., & Clark, H. H. (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 211–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuh, K. L. (2003). Knowledge construction in the learner-centered classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 426–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shebilske, W., Jordan, J., Goettl, B., & Paulus, L. (1998). Observation versus hands-on practice of complex skills in dyadic, triadic, and tetradic training-teams. Human Factors, 40, 525–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Questioninig and intelligence. Questing Exchange, 1, 11–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional Design in Technical Areas. Australian Council for Educational Research: Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 4, 295–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load and selective attention as factors in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., & Cooper, M. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 59–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarmizi, R., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 424–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • TechSmith Camtasia (Version 3.0) (Computer software). (2001). East Lansing, Michigan: TechSmith Corporation.

  • Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychological Review, Monograph Suppl., 2(8).

  • Thorndike, E. L. (1903). Educational Psychology. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorndike, E. L., & Woodworth, R. S. (1901). The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of the other. Psychological Review, 8, 247–261, 381–395, 556–564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Meij, H. (1988). Constraints on question asking in classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 401–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training Complex Cognitive Skills. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K., Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., & Rosé, C. P. (in press). Natural language tutoring: A comparison of human tutors, computer tutors and text. Cognitive Science.

  • VanLehn, K., Jones, R. M., & Chi, M. T. C. (1992). A model of the self-explanation effect. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 1–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watzlawick (Ed.), The invented reality. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1990). An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on teaching and learning of mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education: Monograph 4, 19–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning. London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, M., & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked out examples. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 1–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wathen, S. H. (1997). Collaborative Versus Individualistic Learning and the Role of Explanation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Education Research, 13, 21–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. D. (1996). Learner control and instructional technologies. In D. H. Janassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 957–983). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witherspoon, A., Sullins, J., Craig, S. D., Brittingham, J., Lam, C., & Gholson, B. (in preparation). The Role of Deep-Level Reasoning Questions in the Learning of Newtonian Physics.

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 1, 87–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • WordNet 2.1. (2005). Princeton University.

  • Wundt, W. (1897). Outlines of Psychology. In C. H. Judd, (Ed. and Trans.). Leipzig, Germany: Voss.

  • Wundt, W. (1904). Principles of Physiological Psychology. In E. Titchner (Ed., Trans.). London: Swan Sonnenschein. (Original work published 1874).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research for this review article was supported by a grant from the Institute of Educational Sciences at the Department of Education (R305H050169). This review was also partially supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (SBR 9720314, REC 0106965, REC 0126265, ITR 0325428), and the DoD Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) administered by ONR under grant N00014–00–1–0600 awarded to the Tutoring Research Group (visit http://www.autotutor.org). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Education, ONR or NSF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 203 Psychology Building, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, 38152, USA

    Barry Gholson

  2. University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center, 3939 O’hara st, RM 523, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA

    Scotty D. Craig

Authors
  1. Barry Gholson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Scotty D. Craig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barry Gholson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gholson, B., Craig, S.D. Promoting Constructive Activities that Support Vicarious Learning During Computer-Based Instruction. Educ Psychol Rev 18, 119–139 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9006-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9006-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation