Abstract
Meaningful learning, as opposed to reproductive learning, is active, constructive, intentional, authentic, and collaborative. When learners engage in meaningful learning, they naturally construct mental models. When learners collaborate, they naturally construct group mental models. One method for engaging learners in meaningful learning is to have them construct computer-based models that externalize their mental models. Using tools such as databases, concept maps, expert systems, spreadsheets, systems modeling tools, microworlds and simulation tools, teachable agents, computer conferences, and hypermedia, learners can construct models of domain knowledge, problems, systems, semantic structures, and thinking processes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams-Webber, J. (1995). Constructivist psychology and knowledge elicitation. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 8(3), 237–249.
Barley, S. R., & Bechty, B. A. (1994). In the backrooms of science: The work of technicians in science labs. Work and Occupations, 21(1), 85–126.
Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Creativity: Shifting across ontological categories flexibly. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Conceptual Structures and processes: Emergence, Discovery and Change. (pp. 209–234). Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.
Confrey, J., & Doerr, H. M. (1994). Student modelers. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(3), 199–217.
DiSessa, A., & Abeson, H. (1986). Boxer: A reconstructible computational medium. Communications of the ACM, 29, 859–868.
Dole, J. A., Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109–128.
Durkheim, É. (1915) The elementary forms of the religious life (J. W. Swain, Trans.). New York and London: The Free press.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
Frederiksen, J. R., & White, B. Y. (1998). Teaching and learning generic modeling and reasoning skills. Journal of Interactive Learning Environments, 55, 33–51.
Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. L. (1983). Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 45(1), 65–95.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as Mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 362–381.
Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. A. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jonassen, D. H., & Henning, P. (1999). Mental models: Knowledge in the head and knowledge in the world. Educational Technology, 39(3), 37–42.
Kraiger, K., & Salas, E. (1993, April). Measuring mental models to assess learning during training. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA.
Larkin, J. H. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.). Mental models (pp. 75–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Modeling in mathematics and science. In R. Glaser (Ed.) Advances in instructional psychology: volume 5. Educational design and cognitive science (pp. 101–159). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lippert, R. C. (1988). An expert system shell to teach problem solving. Tech Trends, 33(2), 22–26.
McGuinness, C. (1986). Problem representation: The effects of spatial arrays. Memory & Cognition, 14(3), 270–280.
Mellar, H., Bliss, J., Boohan, R., Ogborn, J., & Tompsett, C. (1994). Learning with artificial worlds: Computer-based modeling in the curriculum. London: Falmer Press.
Penner, D. E., Giles, N. D., Lhrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1997). Building functional models: designing and elbow. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 125–143.
Ploetzner, R., Fehse, E., Kneser, C., & Spada, H. (1999). Learning to relate qualitative and quantitative problem representations in a model-based setting for collaborative problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(2), 177–214.
Ploetzner, R., & Spada, H. (1998). Constructing quantitative problem representations on the basis of qualitative reasoning. Interactive Learning Environments, 5, 95–107.
Rips, L. J. (1986). Mental muddles. In M. Brand & R.M. Harnish (Eds.), The representation of knowledge and beliefs (pp. 258–286). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.
Savelsbergh, E. R., De Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1998). Competence related differences in problem representations. In M. van Someren, P. Reimann, T. de Jong, & H. Boshuizen (Eds.), The role of multiple representations in learning and problem solving. (pp. 263–282).Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Schank, R. C. (1994). Goal-based scenarios. In R. C. Schank & E. Langer (Eds.), Beliefs, reasoning, and decision making: Psycho-logic in honor of Bob Abelson. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schwarz, C., & White, B. (2005). Meta-modeling knowledge: Develo** students′ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.
Schwartz, J. L., & Yerulshalmy, M. (1987). The geometric supposer: Using microcomputers to restore invention to the learning of mathematics. In D. Perkins, J. Lockhead, & J. C. Bishop (Eds.), Thinking: The second international conference (pp. 525–536). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shavelson, R. J. (1972). Some aspects of the correspondence between content structure and cognitive structure in physics instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 225–234.
Spector, J. M., Christensen, D. L, Sioutine, A. V, & McCormack, D. (2001, September-November) Models and simulations for learning in complex domains: Using causal loop diagrams for assessment and evaluation. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(5–6), 517–545.
Taylor, H. A., & Tversky, B. (1992). Spatial mental models derived from survey and route descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 261–292.
van der Veer, G. C. (1989). Individual differences and the user interface. Ergonomics, 32(11), 1431–1449.
White, B. (1993). ThinkerTools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10(1), 1–100.
Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jonassen, D.H. (2009). Externally Modeling Mental Models. In: Moller, L., Huett, J., Harvey, D. (eds) Learning and Instructional Technologies for the 21st Century. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09667-4_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09667-4_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-09666-7
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-09667-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)