A comparison of approaches to learning task selection in the training of complex cognitive skills

This paper presents a comparison of learning task selection approaches that have been used throughout the last three decades in the training of complex cognitive skills. In general, a development from static part-task selection to dynamic whole-task selection can be noticed. The four approaches of static part-task approaches, static whole-task approaches, dynamic part-task approaches, and dynamic whole-task approaches are identified and compared in terms of their flexibility and adaptability to the needs of the individual trainee during training. The comparison shows that dynamic whole-task approaches are the most flexible and adaptive. For each approach it is discussed to what complex cognitive skills they might be useful training methods.

[1]  J.J.G. van Merrienboer,et al.  Automating the planning and construction of programming assignments for teaching introductory computer programming , 1994 .

[2]  Maria Virvou,et al.  Student Modelling in an Intelligent Tutoring System for the Passive Voice of English Language , 2000, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[3]  Gavan Lintern,et al.  Part-Task Training for Tracking and Manual Control , 1985 .

[4]  Arjen P. de Vries,et al.  Fuzzy Logic Instructional Models: The Dynamic Construction of Programming Assignments in CASCO , 1995 .

[5]  D. Gopher,et al.  Practice under changing priorities: An approach to the training of complex skills☆ , 1989 .

[6]  Emanuel Donchin,et al.  The training of complex task performance , 1989 .

[7]  Katharina Scheiter,et al.  The impact of problem order: Sequencing problems as a strategy for improving one's performance , 2002 .

[8]  Fred Paas,et al.  Dynamic problem selection in air traffic control training: a comparison between performance, mental effort and mental efficiency , 2001, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[9]  Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer,et al.  Training Complex Cognitive Skills: A Four-Component Instructional Design Model for Technical Training , 1997 .

[10]  Paul Chandler,et al.  Levels of Expertise and Instructional Design , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[11]  Richard C. Atkinson,et al.  The Computer as a Tutorial Laboratory: The Stanford BIP Project. , 1976 .

[12]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design , 1998 .

[13]  Fred G. W. C. Paas,et al.  The Efficiency of Instructional Conditions: An Approach to Combine Mental Effort and Performance Measures , 1992 .

[14]  I. H. Öğüş,et al.  NATO ASI Series , 1997 .

[15]  Charles M. Reigeluth,et al.  Instructional Design Theories and Models : An Overview of Their Current Status , 1983 .

[16]  Howard T. Everson,et al.  Modeling the student in intelligent tutoring sytems: The promise of a new psychometrics , 1995 .

[17]  Peter Brusilovsky,et al.  A Framework for Intelligent Knowledge Sequencing and Task Sequencing , 1992, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[18]  Stanley R. Trollip,et al.  Computer-Based Instruction: Methods and Development , 1985 .

[19]  Robert M. Gagné,et al.  Presidential address of division 15 learning hierarchies , 1968 .

[20]  R. Proctor,et al.  Skill acquisition and human performance , 1995 .

[21]  Fred Paas,et al.  Mental Effort and Performance as Determinants for the Dynamic Selection of Learning Tasks in Air Traffic Control Training , 2004 .

[22]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive technology: Some procedures for facilitating learning and problem solving in mathematics and science. , 1989 .

[23]  Barbara Y. White,et al.  Causal Model Progressions as a Foundation for Intelligent Learning Environments , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[24]  P. Kirschner,et al.  Taking the Load Off a Learner's Mind: Instructional Design for Complex Learning , 2003 .

[25]  Charles M. Reigeluth,et al.  Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory , 1999 .

[26]  Tsukasa Hirashima,et al.  A cognitive load application in tutoring , 2005, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.