Designing Learning Environments That Support Thinking: The Jasper Series as a Case Study

  • Thomas M. Duffy
  • Joost Lowyck
  • David H. Jonassen
  • Thomas M. Welsh
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 105)


Most instructional design efforts involve a minimum of four components; namely, a specification of (a) the goals to be met, (b) materials to be used, (c) teaching strategies to be employed and (d) items and procedures for assessment. These components seem to be important for any domain of instruction imaginable. Specific curricula involve specific values for each of the four components of instruction. Thus, curriculum designers often specify in great detail the goals, materials, teaching procedures and assessments. The strength of such well-specified efforts is that they make a complete curriculum package that is relatively easy to implement and evaluate. There is also a potential problem with such efforts. The more complete the specification of the values for each instructional component, the less inclined teachers may be to map into the unique features of particular students and communities.


Word Problem Technology Group Teaching Model Generative Learning American Educational Research Association 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, L., Kasserman, J., Yearwood, A., Perfetto, G., Bransford, J., & Franks, J. (1988). The effects of facts versus problem-oriented acquisition. Memory & Cognition, 16, 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Science for all Americans. A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  3. Barrow, H. S. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Borasi, R. (1987, November). Exploring mathematics through the analysis of errors. For the learning of mathematics, 7(3), 1–8.Google Scholar
  5. Borasi, R. (in press). Learning mathematics through inquiry: A study of practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinmann Educational Books.Google Scholar
  6. Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Morris, C. D., & Stein, B. S. (1979). Some general constraints on learning and research. In L. S. Cermak and F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing and human memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., & Vye, N. J. & Sherwood, R. D. (1989). New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom can’t be told. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bransford, J.D., Goin, L.I., Hasselbring, T.S., Kinzer, C.K., Sherwood, R.D., & Williams, S.M., (1988). Learning with technology: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Peabody Journal of Education, 64 (1) 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bransford, J. D., Goldman, S. R., & Vye, N. J. (in press). Making a difference in peoples’ abilities to think: Reflections on a decade of work and some hopes for the future. In L. Okagaki & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Directors of development: Influences on children. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R., Vye, N., & Rieser, J. (1986). Teaching thinking & problem solving: Research foundations. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1078–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bransford, J., Sherwood, R., Hasselbring, T., Kinzer, C., & Williams, S. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Explorations in high technology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1984). The IDEAL problem solver. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co. 3 Information on how to obtain the Jasper Adventures may be obtained by contacting the authors at the Learning Technology Center, Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
  13. Bransford, J.D. & Vye, N. J. (1989). A perspective on cognitive research and its implications for instruction. In L. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  14. Bransford, J.D., Vye, N., Kinzer, C., Risko, V. (1990). Teaching thinking and content knowledge: Toward an integrated approach. In. B. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Teaching thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Brown, J. S. Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 17, 32–41.Google Scholar
  16. Brown, S. I. & Walters, M. I. (1983). The art of problem posing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Charles R., & Silver, E. A., (Eds. (1988). The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum & National Council for Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  18. Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clement, J. (1982). Algebra word problem solutions: Thought processes underlying a common misconception. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 13, 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (in press(a)). Anchored instruction and science education. In R. Duschl & R. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology and educational theory and practice. NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  21. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (in press(b)). Anchored instruction approach to cognitive skills acquisition and intelligent tutoring. In W. Regian &V. J. Shute (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to automated instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition, Educational Researcher, 19(3), 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1991a). Technology and the design of generative learning environments, Educational Technology, 51(5), 34–40.Google Scholar
  24. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1991b). Video environments for connecting mathematics, science, and other disciplines. Paper presented at the Wingspread Conference on Integrated Science and Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Racine, WI.Google Scholar
  25. Cole, M., & Griffin, P. (1987). Contextual factors in education. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.Google Scholar
  26. Cosden, M. A., Goldman, S. R., & Hine, M. S. (1990). Learning handicapped students’ interactions during a microcomputer-based writing activity. Journal of Special Education Technology, 10, 220–232.Google Scholar
  27. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: Restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: Heath.Google Scholar
  28. Dick, W. (1991). An instructional designer’s view of constructivism. Educational Technology, 31(5), 41–44.Google Scholar
  29. Frederiksen, J. R., & Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18, 27–32.Google Scholar
  30. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordance. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford, (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Gick, M. L. & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gick, M. L. & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Goldman, S. R., Cosden, M. A., & Hine, M. S. (1987, April). Writing groups: A context for interactive communication among learning disabled children. Poster presented at the meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development. Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  34. Goldman, S. R., Mertz, D. L., & Pellegrino, J. W. (1989). Individual differences in extended practice functions and solution strategies for basic addition facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 481–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goldman, S. R., Pellegrino, J. W., & Bransford, J. (in press). Assessing programs that invite thinking. In H. O’Neill & E. Baker (Eds.), Technology assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Goldman, S. R., Pellegrino, J. W., & Mertz, D. L. (1988). Extended practice of basic addition facts: Strategy changes in learning disabled students. Cognition & Instruction, 5, 223–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Goldman, S. R., Vye, N. J., Williams, S. M., Rewey, K., Pellegrino, J. W., & the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1991, April). Solution space analyses of the Jasper problems and students attempts to solve them. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  38. Hanson, N. R. (1970). A picture theory of theory meaning. In R. G. Colodny (Ed.), The nature and function of scientific theories. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hasselbring, T., Goin, L., & Bransford, J. D., (1988). Developing math automaticity in learning handicapped children: The role of computerized drill and practice. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20 (6).Google Scholar
  40. Hasselbring, T., Sherwood, R., Bransford, J., & Fleenor, K., Griffith, D., Goin, L., (1988). An evaluation of a level-one instructional videodisc program. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 16(2), 151–169.Google Scholar
  41. Hine, M. S., Goldman, S. R., & Cosden, M. A. (1990). Error monitoring by learning handicapped students. Journal of Special Education, 23, 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jenkins, J. J. (1979). Four points to remember: A tetrahedral model and memory experiments. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels and processing in human memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. Lipman, M. (1985). Thinking skills fostered by Philosophy for Children. In J. Segal, S. Chipman, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Relating instruction to basic research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Lockhart, R.S., Lamon, M., & Gick, M.L. (1988). Conceptual transfer in simple insight problems. Memory & Cognition, 16, 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McLarty, K., Goodman, J., Risko, V., Kinzer, C. K., Vye, N., Rowe, D., & Carson, J. (1990), Implementing anchored instruction: Guiding principles for curriculum development. In J. Zuteil & S. McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: Analyses from multiple paradigms. Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.Google Scholar
  46. Minstrell, J. A. (1989). Teaching science for understanding. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  47. Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1979). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  49. Porter, A. (1989). A curriculum out of Balance: The case of elementary school mathematics. Educational Researcher, 18(5), 9–15.Google Scholar
  50. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1989). Instruction for self-regulated reading. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  52. Perfetto, G., Yearwood, A., Franks, J., & Bransford, J. (1987). The effects of generation on memory access. Bulletin of the Psychonomics Society, 25(3), 151–154.Google Scholar
  53. Pellegrino, J. W., Heath, A., & Warren, S., with the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1991). Collaboration at a distance: A Jasper implementation experiment in nine states. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  54. Porter, A. (1989). A curriculum out of balance: The case of elementary school mathematics. Educational Researcher, 18(5), 9–15.Google Scholar
  55. Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  56. Resnick, L. B. & Klopfer, L. E. (Eds.), (1989). Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  57. Resnick, L. B., & Resnick, D. P. (in press). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In. C. O’Connor & B. Gifford (Eds.), New approaches to testing: Rethinking aptitude, achievement and assessment. New York: National Committee on Testing and Public Policy.Google Scholar
  58. Rewey, K. L. (1990). Scripted cooperation and anchored instruction: Interactive tools for improving mathematics problem solving. Unpublished Manuscript, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas.Google Scholar
  59. Risko, V. J., Kinzer, C. K., Goodman, J., McLarty K., Dupree, A., & Martin, H. (1989). Effects of macrocontext on reading comprehension, composition of stories, and vocabulary development. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  60. Salomon, G. & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1985). Fostering the development of self-regulation in children’s knowledge processing. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Research and open questions (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  63. Schank, R. C, & Jona, M. Y. (1991). Empowering the student: New perspectives on the design of teaching systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 7–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  65. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). Problem solving in context(s). In R. I. Charles, & E. A. Silver (Eds.), The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving (Vol. 3.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum & National Council for Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  66. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Teaching mathematical thinking and problem solving. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  67. Schwab, J. J. (1960). What do scientists do? Behavioral Science, 5, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Silver, E. A. (1990, April). Discussant: Reflections on directions of mathematics curriculum reform from the cognitive and social sciences. Invited Address at the American Educational Research Association meetings, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  69. Simon, H. A. (1980). Problem solving and education. In D. T. Tuma & R. Reif (Eds.), Problem solving and education: Issues in teaching and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  70. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. L., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in illstructured domains. Educational Technology, 31(5), 24–33.Google Scholar
  71. Van Haneghan, J., Barron, L., Young, M., Williams, S., Vye, N., & Bransford, J. (in press). The Jasper series: An experiment with new ways to enhance mathematical thinking. In D. Halpern (Ed.), Concerning: The development of thinking skills in the sciences and mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  72. VanLehn, K. (1990). Mind bugs: The origins of procedural misconceptions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  73. VanLehn, K., & Brown, J. S. (1980). Planning nets: A representation for formalizing analogies and semantic models for procedural skills. In R. E. Snow, P. A. Federico, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Vol 2: Cognitive process analyses of learning and problem-solving. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  74. Vye, N. J., Sharp, D. M., McCabe, K., & Bransford, J. D. (in press). Discussion: Exploring a reasoning-based program for teaching arithmetic. In B. Means (Ed.), Models for teaching advanced skills to disadvantaged students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.Google Scholar
  75. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York: MacMillan.MATHGoogle Scholar
  77. Williams, S. M. (1991). Case-based approaches to instruction in medicine and law. Unpublished manuscript, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
  78. Williams, W. M., & Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Group intelligence: Why some groups are better than others. Intelligence, 12, 351–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Yackel, E., Cobb, P., Wood, T., Wheatley, G., & Merkel, G. (1990). The importance of social interaction in children’s construction of mathematical knowledge. Teaching and learning mathematics in the 1990s. 1990 yearbook of the national council of teachers of mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas M. Duffy
    • 1
  • Joost Lowyck
    • 2
  • David H. Jonassen
    • 3
  • Thomas M. Welsh
    • 4
  1. 1.Instructional Systems TechnologyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.Instructional Psychology and TechnologyCatholic University of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.Instructional TechnologyUniversity of ColoradoDenverUSA
  4. 4.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations