5 Things to Know About Constructivist Models and Strategies

5 THINGS YOU SHOULD
KNOW ABOUT…
Constructivist Pedagogical Models
and Instructional Strategies
GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY (IDT) PROGRAM

Introduction
This publication represents the work of graduate students in the Instructional Design and
Technology (IDT) program at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. The learning task
involved selecting a constructivist-based pedagogical model or instructional strategy and writing
a 2-page pedagogy brief that addresses the 5 Things You Need to Know About this pedagogy or
instructional strategy, namely:
(1) What is it?
(2) How does it work?
(3) Who is doing it?
(4) How effective is it?
(5) What are its implications for instructional design?
Twenty-three students participated in this activity in the fall semester of 2015 resulting in 16
briefs on pedagogical models and 7 briefs on instructional strategies. Selections included Cognitive
Apprenticeship, Cognitive FlexibilityHypertexts, Communities of Practice, Goal Based Scenarios,
Problem Based Learning, Situated Learning, Virtual Learning Environments, Authentic Learning
Activities, Collaboration and Social Negotiation, Game-Based Learning, Role Playing, and
Scaffolding.
The writing of these briefs enabled students to examine constructivist-based pedagogical models
and instructional strategies, describe their theoretical principles and instructional characteristics and
discuss their implications for the design of problem solving learning environments (PSLEs) through
research based practice.
We hope you find these briefs informative and useful for the design of PSLEs.
Nada Dabbagh, PhD.
Professor & Director
Division of Learning Technologies
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA, USA
May 20, 2016
This publication maybe cited as:
Dabbagh, N., David, L., Morgan, L., Campbell, A., Huber, B., Ahmed, N., … Butsay, A. (2016). 5
Things You Need to Know About Constructivist-Based Pedagogical Models and
Instructional Strategies. Available from: http://www.slideshare.net/NadaDabbagh/5-
things-you-should-know-about-cle-models-and-strategies
ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................ix
Dr. Nada Dabbagh ..................................................................................................................................ix
PART 1: PEDAGOGICAL MODELS
COGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIP (CA)
Leslie David ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Laura Morgan..........................................................................................................................................8
COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY HYPERTEXTS (CFH)
Anne Campbell .......................................................................................................................................12
Brenda Huber ........................................................................................................................................16
COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE (COP)
Nashrah Ahmed .....................................................................................................................................20
Chunhua Xiong......................................................................................................................................24
GOAL BASED SCENARIOS (GBS)
Dan Jackson ..........................................................................................................................................28
Katelyn Schreyer....................................................................................................................................32
PROBLEM BASED LEARNING (PBL)
Sakon Kieh.............................................................................................................................................36
Evgeniy Lekarev.................................................................................................................................... 40
Candido Mendes....................................................................................................................................44
Rebecca Szymanski ............................................................................................................................... 48
William Wick..........................................................................................................................................52
SITUATED LEARNING (SL)
Shakila Anwari ......................................................................................................................................56
Katrina Rainer.......................................................................................................................................60
VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS (VLES)
Tonya Hutson.........................................................................................................................................65
PART 2: INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES
AUTHENTIC LEARNING ACTIVITIES
Jennifer Kleiner .....................................................................................................................................69
COLLABORATION AND SOCIAL NEGOTIATION
Ellen Brown .......................................................................................................................................... 74
Jerry Prewitt ......................................................................................................................................... 77
GAME BASED LEARNING
Adam Strawn..........................................................................................................................................81
ROLE PLAYING
Dustin Norwood.....................................................................................................................................84
SCAFFOLDING
Doug Baldwin........................................................................................................................................88
Anna Butsay...........................................................................................................................................93

CLE PEDAGOGY BRIEF
Cognitive Apprenticeship
What is it?
Cognitive apprenticeship is taking the traditional
model of apprenticeship where the student was taught
by a master ofthe craft and, learned the skills in a
hands-on performance way.
Tacit knowledge was involved to teach the “tips and
tricks” of the trade. Cognitive apprenticeship involves
applying the process to cognitive skills. Learners are
invited into the actualknowledge domains and learn to
perform these practices as apprentices or interns. It
involves the showing and telling characteristics of
apprenticeship where the learners work with experts,
and where the showing is the modeling and the telling
is the explaining so the student learns where and when
to apply the knowledge. In this way students gradually
learn the skills and ultimately perform at master level.
By learning to perform these skills the apprentice is
also brought into the community ofpractice.
Additionally, apprentices learn when to apply the
skills in the correct situations during actual practice.
Cognitiveapprenticeship involves the use of
technology to enable reflection, articulation and
exploration.
How does it work?
Characteristics of cognitive apprenticeship are:
□ Modeling and explaining expertperformance
□ Extensive mentoring andcoaching
□ Scaffolding
□ Focusing on performance mastery of the
specificskill domain
□ Working from simple to complexproblems
□ Collaborative learning within the
communityof practitioners
□ Articulation and reflection on performance
□ Active participation in learning the skillset
□ Less supervision (fading) as the student
approaches masterylevel
Modeling involves experts performing tasks so
students can watch and create a conceptual model of
the process.
Coaching involves the expert observing or monitoring
the student’s performance while they are performing
LESLIE DAVID
the skill and can provide feedback in the form of
scaffolding. Scaffoldingprovides any hints or
assistance to the learner. Articulation provides an
opportunity for the learner to articulate in words and
actions their knowledge; reflection provides the
opportunity to compare their efforts to other cognitive
apprentices or the experts in the field. Exploration
allowsthe learner to explore how to develop and carry
out solutions.
Who is doing it?
Cognitive apprenticeship is a paradigm for teaching a
fairly complex task to students. It is not used to teach
any rote task. It has been used in the more traditional
sense by medical students, law students as interns,
and by instructional design students in a project
between a university and a corporate business.
Cognitive apprenticeship is being used by teachers to
teach reading, writing, and mathematical skills in
primary, secondary and college level education
courses. It is used in the science, technology,
mathematical and engineering fields at the post
graduate level. It is being used in corporate training in
order to situate problem solving in the context that the
learner will actively use in everyday life as a way of
avoiding the overly structured problems where the
learner is unable to make the jump from those types
of problems to actual problem solving. It is being
used by Dutch vocational schools. Dutch schools
range from short, verypractical prevocational and
vocational education (comparable to American
vocational high schools to a 6-year academic program
that permits entrance to a university study. It is being
used in the Department of Transportation to teach
bridge inspection by utilizing a virtual bridge where
the students have to perform inspection procedures.
This was developed by a former graduate of this
program.
http://dotnet.dot.gov/news/stories/2015/10/2015- 10-
30-nhi-innovation.html.
How effective is it?
This section is totally subjective. How effective is
cognitive apprenticeship? I would say very effective
based on the increased use in education and training.
The use of web and online course materials allow
E D I T 7 3 0

CLE PEDAGOGY BRIEF NOVEMBER 2015
cognitive apprenticeship to be used in more and more
fields and to minimize the time away from their
desks, more and more companies and universities are
going to online training as an alternative to traditional
training classes since they have the advantage of
being taken anywhere, anytime and linking the
learners to collaborate and share information through
forums, blogs, online chats using a variety of online
tools. The use of being able to observe a master user,
understand what and how they do, through
communication, create a scaffolding to understand
theprocess, to practice the skill and received coaching
and feedback from an expert, instructor, or
peers. In Collins, et. al.,they referenced a pilot study
to test the efficacy of reciprocal reading. They tested
four groups and all showed very large percentages of
improvement with little decrease after aperiod of
time. The Dickey study investigated integrating a
cognitive apprenticeship model into an educational
technology Web- based course for pre-service
primary and secondary teacher education and
described varying degrees of success. The Maher, et.
al. study used the cognitive apprenticeship
framework to explain the doctoral student’s skill
development and found that it supported the
cognitive component but not the apprenticeship
component. The Dutch study explored the issues of
how do teachers value elements of the cognitive
apprenticeship model in designing and delivering
competence- based prevocational secondary education
and what individual action theories to
teachers have regarding competence-based
prevocationalsecondaryeducation.
What are the implications for
instructional design?
The implications of cognitive apprenticeship for
instructional design are to provide learners with more
authentic situated problems where they will be able to
transfer skills to use what they have learned in a
variety of ways. It encompasses the use of dialogic
environments to exchange information. It allows
instructors to incorporate technology to provide online
course materials and as a means to integrate technology
into training. According to Michele
Dickey, cognitive apprenticeship methods may be well
suited for Web-based educational technology because
the students have to use educational technology to
learn about educational technology. The many online
tools that can be used such as blogs, wikis, chat rooms,
forums can create a community of practice that
apprentices can use to connect with experts and other
learners to not only share information but to also
reflect and articulate their experiences. It provides
audio and video tools to capture a master’s
performance that can be incorporated into the training
to provide more authentic experiences.
Scenario
CognitiveApprenticeship
Appreciative Inquiry
Charlotte Barner
Until recently within the company, learners havebeen
members of work teams that have moved through a
traditional development process. In these teams, the
members' focus has been on identifying problems and
developing solutions, the leadership roles may or may
not have been shared, members' authority and
influence may have been limited, and members
expected team leaders and project managers to give
specific direction and make final decisions. Team
building training provided by the company taught
members what it meant to be a "good team player"
and itemized problems to expect as the team
developed from stage to stage. Similarly, team
leaders were taught how to direct members, monitor
and evaluate individual and team performance, and
deal with problem behaviors. The traditional
employee development curriculum does not reflect
the new management style needed to cope with
shifting priorities, matrixed responsibilities, and short
production deadlines. A more flexible employee
development methodology is being instituted,
"Appreciative Inquiry."
Current members of various corporate teams and are
being groomed to hold the position of team leader or
project manager in their respective departments as
part of an initiative by the company to redefine these
roles across the organization. They will be matched
with mentors who will work with them in online
environments and in face-to-face meetings to help
them construct expert level knowledge of the
Appreciative Inquiry process. Multimedia resources
will be available for the learners to use to observe
modeled examples of the approach. Learners will
keep a journal of their attempts to apply the model to
their work situations and will submit role-play videos
for mentor critique. They will also participate in
developmental team projects and engage in
discussion forums andconversations.
Learning Outcomes
Learners will internalize the skills of
experienced leaders and managers who can use

the Appreciative Inquiry process to build
and support successful productive teams.
They will learnto:
□ Understand and apply the
Appreciative Inquiry's principles
and processes as these relate to
teamdevelopment
□ Acquire the higher-level skills and abilities
necessary for successful project
management
□ Hone competencies
necessary to balance and
communicate priorities, and
to makedecisions
□ Enrich their communication,
facilitation, and negotiation
abilities, especially when
dealingwith diverse teams and
divisiveissues
□ Appreciate multiple points of
view and be able to synthesize
differences into a coherent and
cohesive action plan
□ Use Appreciative Inquiry to
develop and guide cohesive
and collaborative teams
capable of sustaining high
levels ofperformance.

References
Chan, P., Miller, R., Monroe, E. (2009). Cognitive apprenticeship as an instructional strategy for solving
corporate training challenges.TechTrends,53(6),35-41.DOI10.1007/s11528-009-0341-
Collins, A., Holum, A., Brown, J. S. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: making thinking visible. American Educator,
reprinted with permission. Retrieved from
http://elc.fhda.edu/transform/resources/collins_brown_holum_1991.pdf
Dabbagh, N., & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2005) Online learning: Concepts, strategies, and application.
Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dickey, M. (2007). Barriers and enablers in integrating cognitive apprenticeship methods in a Web-based educational
technology course for K 12 (primary and secondary) teacher education, ALT-J, Research in Learning
Technology, 15(2), 119 130.
Jonassen, D.H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning
environment. New York, NY:Routledge.
Maher, M. A., Gilmore, J. A., Feldon, D. F., Davis, T. E., (2013) Cognitive apprenticeship and the
supervision of science and engineering research assistants. Journal of Research Practice, 9(2)
Article M5. Retrieved from http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/354/311
Seezink, A., Poell, R.F., Kirschner, P.A. (2009). Teachers' individual action theories about competence-
based education: The value of the cognitive apprenticeship model. Journal of Vocational
Education and Training, 61(2), 203-215.

CLE PEDAGOGY BRIEF
What is it?
In cognitive apprenticeships (CAs), novices learn
from experts in authentic learning environments. As
in traditional apprenticeships, experienced
practitioners model how to handle real, complex
tasks, then observe and coach the students as they
attempt the tasks on their own. Eventually, the
students become practitioners and mentors
themselves. In cognitive apprenticeships, there is an
additional focus on the internal mental processes
involved in learning. Experts attempt to make these
cognitive processes visible so apprentices can
understand and use them. For example, reading
teachers might think aloudas they read and analyze
a literary passage. CAs also focus on generalizable
skills and knowledge so that learning can be applied
in various contexts.
The cognitive apprenticeship instructional model is
rooted in the constructivist theories of situated
cognition and sociocultural learning. Situated
cognition emphasizes that learning take place in
authentic physical and social contexts, and
encourages learning to be embedded in activity.
This “situated” learning arguably leads to more
efficient and effective transfer (Brown, Collins, &
Duguid, 1989). Sociocultural learning theory
focuses on the importance of social interactions for
passing on cultural tools and constructing
knowledge. In Vygotsky's (1978) sociocultural
theory, cognitive change occurs in the zone of
proximal development when experts and novices
work together on a task. Also related to CAs is Lave
and Wenger’s (1991) concept of legitimate
peripheral participation in a community of practice.
They explain that newcomers who are not directly
part of an activity still learn from their position in
the outer limits of the community.
How does it work?
The cognitive apprenticeship framework focuses on
four dimensions: content, method, sequencing, and
sociology (Collins, 2006). The first, content, refers
not only to the concepts, facts, and procedures that
an expert knows (domain knowledge), but how the
LAURA MORGAN
expert uses them to solve real-world problems
(strategic knowledge). In a CA, apprentices learn
both types of knowledge.
The second dimension, method, refers to the six
instructional strategies used in CAs: modeling,
coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflection,
and exploration. Modeling requires the expert to
both perform the task and make explicit the
internal cognitive processes needed to complete
the task so that the novice can create a conceptual
model. The expert coaches the novice by observing
the novice perform the task and offering hints,
feedback, advice, and reminders. Scaffolding
refers more specifically to the supports that the
expert provides the novice, which are gradually
removed as the novice learns in a process called
fading. Articulation occurs when novices explain
and clarify their understanding, reasoning, and
problem-solving strategies in their own words.
This could occur through group discussion or
writing a blog post, for example. Reflection
encourages novices to revisit their performance
and compare it with expert performances, a set of
established criteria, their peers, and/or their own
mental models to identify where they could
improve. Finally, in exploration, the novices are
encouraged to create their own goals based on
problems of special interest to them.
The third dimension, sequencing, suggests that
learning activities progress with increasing
complexity, with increasing diversity, and from
global to local skills. Lastly according to Collins,
the dimension of sociology refers to the social
characteristics of CA learning environments. CAs
should be situated in an authentic context, involve
a community of practice, support intrinsic
motivation to perform, and foster cooperative
problem solving.
Who is doing it?
The cognitive apprenticeship model has been used
in many instructional settings. Many internship
programs and academic research assistantships
employ CAs to onboard novice practitioners.
E D I T 7 3 0

Education professors at Mercer University
developed a CA model for supporting dissertation
writing with activities like think-aloud literature
analyses with students and scholars, writing tasks
with feedback sessions, and writing workshops that
incorporate scaffolding, coaching, and reflection
(Swanson, West, Carr, & Augustine, 2015). Nursing
education also uses the CA approach. The School of
Care Sciences at the University of Glamorgan used
CA to teach students clinical nursing skills by
recording video of expert practitioners performing
and explaining procedures, recording and coaching
students as they practiced, encouraging articulation
through think-aloud practice, and using videos and
discussions to reflect on performance (Woolley &
Jarvis, 2007).
Large companies also employ the cognitive
apprenticeship model. Google trains new software
engineers using a complex and robust program that
includes CA. Google provides new hires with a
mentor, encourages them to seek out other role
models to coach and advise them, scaffolds their
learning with check-lists, forums, and tutorials,
provides opportunities for feedback, articulation,
and reflection during a series of performance
management procedures, and provides multiple
opportunities for exploration, including Tech Talks
(community-organized sharing events that are
recorded and posted) and career development
projects. Google found that these practices reduced
isolation, enhanced collegiality, and increased
employee morale and job satisfaction (Johnson &
Senges, 2009).
Research generally supports the effectiveness of
cognitive apprenticeships in learning (Dennen &
Burner, 2008). Seel and Schenk (2003) used CA in
a multimedia environment and the results indicated
that effective design-type problem solving took
place, although scaffolding was difficult to employ
in the digital environment. Liu (2005) studied an
online CA for preservice teachers and found it to
lead to better performance and attitudes towards
instructional planning than classroom-based
learning. Hendricks (2001) compared CA to
traditional instruction and found that CA learners
performed better on post-tests, but this advantage
did not appear in a transfer activity two weeks later.
Teong (2003) found that young students using a
CA-based program called WordMath outperformed
the traditional learning group in word problem-
solving skills. Bonnett et al. (2006) compared 20
mentor-apprentice pairings of research scientists
and undergraduate biology students who used an
online CA program. The findings indicated that
mentoring relationships were more successful when
they focused on discipline-related topics instead of
relationship management issues. The example of
cognitive apprenticeship at Google is another
success story in learning and engagement in a
community of practice.
Most of the research on CAs focuses on higher
education, teacher training, and K-12 education,
leaving room for research in the government and
private sectors.
Cognitive apprenticeships can be considered for a
variety of learning problems. Some of the model’s
strong points are its emphasis on enculturation and
making explicit the knowledge of an experienced
practitioner, which are useful for novices achieving
performance mastery in a specific knowledge
domain (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2005). For
example, an instructional designer might
recommend a CA to a company with high turnover
rate or expected large growth in human resources in
order to maintain institutional memory. Companies
might also benefit from cognitive apprenticeships
for people transitioning to new roles or departments
within the organization where there is a distinct
work culture and set of expectations. CAs could
also help learners to solve decision-making
problems in complex environments. New teachers,
for example, might benefit from mentoring
relationships with more experienced teachers,
especially in terms of classroom management,
instructional planning, and communication with
parents. Additionally, cognitive apprenticeships
could fulfill learning needs for students that require
added enculturation into a community of practice.
For example, after-school mentoring programs for
youth that are struggling in school could provide

them with the types of metacognitive, motivational,
and self- regulating skills required to succeed in
class.
Various technologies could be used to facilitate a
cognitive apprenticeship. Experienced practitioners
could be either audio or video recorded as they
model a task so that novices can repeatedly go back
and refer to the expert demonstration. Wikis,
discussion boards, journals, blogs, and video blogs
could support collaborative learning and student
articulation and reflection.
Email, synchronous video, and instant messaging
could be leveraged for coaching. Links to related
resources could provide scaffolding and encourage
exploration.
Scenario
A large pharmaceutical company is transitioning
to a more flexible employee development model
called Appreciative Inquiry. Current members of
various corporate teams are being groomed to
hold the position of team leader or project
manager in their respective departments as part
of the initiative by the company to redefine these
roles across the organization. They will be
matched with mentors who will work with them
in online environments and in face-to-face
meetings to help them construct expert level
knowledge of the Appreciative Inquiry process.
Multimedia resources will be available for the
learners to use to observe modeled examples of
the approach. Learners will keep a journal of
their attempts to apply the model to their work
situations and will submit role-play videos for
mentor critique. They will also participate in
developmental team projects and engage in
discussion forums and conversations.
Learners will internalize the skills of
experienced leaders and managers who can use
the Appreciative Inquiry process to build and
support successful productive teams. They will
learn to:
 Understand and apply the Appreciative
Inquiry's principles and processes as these
relate to team development
 Acquire the higher-level skills and abilities
necessary for successful project management
 Hone competencies necessary to balance and
communicate priorities, and to make
decisions
 Enrich their communication, facilitation, and
negotiation abilities, especially when dealing
with diverse teams and divisive issues
 Appreciate multiple points of view and be
able to synthesize differences into a coherent
and cohesive action plan
 Use Appreciative Inquiry to develop and
guide cohesive and collaborative teams
capable of sustaining high levels of
performance.
(Adapted from Dabbagh and Bannan-Ritland,2005)

References
Bonnett, C., Wildemuth, B. M., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2006). Interactivity between protégés and scientists
in an electronic mentoring program. Instructional Science, (34), 21-61.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational
Researcher, 18(1), 32- 42.
Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the
learningsciences (pp. 47- 60). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Dabbagh, N., & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2005). Online learning: Concepts, strategies, and application.
Upper Saddle River N.J.: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Dennen, V. P., & Burner, K. J. (2008). The cognitive apprenticeship model in educational practice. In M. J.
Spector, M.D. Merrill, M. J. J. G. Van, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on
educational communications and technology (pp. 425- 439). Abingdon, NY: Springer.
Hendricks, C. C. (2001). Teaching causal reasoning through cognitive apprenticeship: What are
results from situated learning? Journal of Educational Research, 94(5), 302-311.
Johnson, M. & Senges, M. (2009). Learning to be a programmer in a complex organization: A case study
on practice-based learning during the onboarding process at Google. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 22(3), 180-194.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Liu, T. C. (2005). Web-based cognitive apprenticeship model for improving pre-service teachers'
performances and attitudes towards instructional planning: Design and field experiment.
Educational Technology & Society, 8(2), 136-149.
Seel, N. M., & Schenk, K. (2003). An evaluation report of multimedia environments as cognitive learning
tools. Evaluation and Program Planning, 26(2), 215-224.
Swanson, K. W., West, J., Carr, S., & Augustine, S. (2015). Supporting dissertation writing using a cognitive
apprenticeship model. In V. C. X. Wang (Ed.), Handbook of research on scholarly publishing and
research methods (pp. 84-104). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Teong, S. K. (2003). The effect of metacognitive training on mathematical word-problem solving.Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 46-55.

CLE PEDAGOGY BRIEF
Cognitive Flexibility Hypertext
What is it?
Cognitive Flexibility Hypertext (CFH) is a
constructivist learning environment that “stimulates
creative and critical thinking by allowing users to look
at the same problem-situations from multiple
perspectives within a self-controlled, interactive
environment” according to Spiro, Lima, Koehler, who
helped to develop the model (2004, p. 375). The
model originated from Cognitive Flexibility Theory
(CFT), which was conceived by Rand Spiro, Coulson,
Feltovich and Anderson in 1988, basing it on the
following main tenets: 1) uses multiple case studies to
insure that a variety of possible situations are
presented, 2) focuses on cross-case differences in how
concepts and principles are applied, and 3) gives
consideration to multiple perspectivesas an aid to
understand the connected nature of the domain
concepts and promoting flexible knowledgebuilding.
Cognitive flexibility theory focuses on the nature of
learning in complex and ill-structured domains. Spiro
& Jehng (1990, p. 165) state: "By cognitive flexibility,
we mean the ability to spontaneously restructure one's
knowledge, in many ways, in adaptive response to
radically changing situationaldemands...This is a
function of both the way knowledge is represented
(e.g.,along multiple rather single conceptual
dimensions) and the processes that operate on those
mental representations (e.g., processes of schema
assembly rather than intact schemaretrieval).”
Hypertext is the medium for representing cognitive
flexibility theory. Due to the non-linear learning
approach in CFT, itmost often uses multimedia and
interactive technology for learning. CFH is a unique
pedagogical model which is best suited for extremely
complex problems, such as dilemmas or highly
subjective, contextualized cases that do not have a
clear-cut or linear pathway to a solution, such as those
in psychology and medicine.
How does it work?
CFHs are unique environments defined by the critical
need for representing multiple perspectives, the
emphasis on learner- directed study vs. instructor-led,
and the rich, interconnected, specific resources
present in the learning environment. It ismost often
ANNE CAMPBELL
used as a supplemental tool as part of a course of
instruction.
Jonassen, Ambruso & Olesen (1992) describe an
original application of cognitive flexibility theory to the
design of a hypertext program on transfusion medicine.
The program provides a number of different clinical
cases which studentsmust diagnose and treat using
various sources of informationavailable (including
advice from experts). The learning environment
presents multiple perspectives on the content, is
complex andill- defined, and emphasizes the
construction of knowledge by the learner. A key
defining characteristic of CFH learning environments
is that the learning activities provide multiple
perspectives and representations of content as evident
in the example above.
Instruction by an instructor is limited, and the
construction of knowledge is on the learner to create.
“Hypertext” itself is a term coined by Theodor
Nelson to describe a user-directed approach to
organize and sequence text, versus the traditional
reading approach which is author-directed (Jonassen,
2011, p. 212). This exemplifies the ownership in
PSLEs, where “the onus is placedon the student to
create a model to capture in meaningful ways the
complexity presented in the learning task” (Dabbagh
& Dass, 2013, p. 162).
The instructor should also provide sources, or ensure
the multimedia environment has such sources, with a
high level of interconnection between the information
sources to enable the learner to construct broader
applications from the highly specific scenarios
presented. The materials and hypertext sources
should be very rich and detailed in nature and support
context-dependent case knowledge. In essence, the
hypertext environment needs to provide as much
information or access to information to allowthe
learner to consider as many vantage points to the
problem as possible.
Who is doing it?
The original applications in CFHs have been in
reading comprehension, history, biology and
medicine. These are all very complex, contextually
dependent domains with interrelated tasks and
knowledge structures where CFT has proven to be an
effective learning theory for mastery of complex
knowledge transfer. Using hypertext as a medium for
E D I T 7 3 0

CFT learning has become more prevalent in education
to supplement courseworkon highly complexsubjects.
Today most social media environments are essentially
CFHs. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, and
others are ill- structured, hypermedia environments
which offer multiple perspectives, timely and realistic
problem solving opportunities and links to
contextualized, specific cases. While non-
controversial topics are also discussed using social
media platforms, these hypertext environments have
become knownfor being the first place most people
turn to in order to learn more about the toughest issues
of today and offering their perspective on matters like
racial injustice, local and global politics, among many
others.
Most interactive technologies are CFHs by design, such
as interactive smartboards which are increasingly
prevalent in classrooms all across the world. Interactive
whiteboards support non-linear learning in two main
ways, by accessing hypertext and multimedia external to
the classroom, and by allowing for non- linear movement
between the smartboard files related toquestions and
answers of students (Blau,2011).
CFHs are best for raising awareness and understanding
the complexities of specific societal issues. Learners
must take multiple perspectives on issues and construct
their own opinions and approaches to finding a
solution to the problem. As Dabbagh and Dass found
in their 2013 study, “CFH case problems did not guide
learners toward a specific external product or concrete
solution; rather, CFH case problems evoked internal or
tacit outcomes and changes in understandings that
cannot be readily detected or measured, such as raising
awareness and developing opinions on a specific
societal issue, or understanding cultural differences and
analyzing debates on alternative energy sources” (p.
172). The study also revealed that students spent on
average one and a half times longer in a heterarchical
(network-like) case problem design, such as a CFH,
and this design also resulted in greater collaboration
between users (Dabbagh & Dass, p. 162). For 21st
century learning objectives, CFHs are ideal
environments for instilling critical thinking and
collaboration inlearners.
In 2004, Godshalk, Harvey, and Moller studied the
effectiveness of a complex problem like sexual
harassment in the workplace. They found that learning
tasks that required learners to explore several opinions
and options were more effective in raising learners’
awareness and understanding of sexual harassment
than learning tasks that required learners to explore the
issueby taking a more defined and judgmental task”
(Dabbagh & Dass, 2013, p. 163).
In a 2013 study by Rinaldo, Laverie, Tapp, and
Humphrey, Twitter was used as the CFH to enhance
the classroom experience. The study found that
students who engaged morewith Twitter throughout
the semester realized a variety of benefits which
included positive shifts in their motivations towards
the course and task mastery, as well as shaping goals
related to future careers (Rinaldo et al, 2013).
As CFT believes that the transfer of knowledge and
skills beyond their initial learning situation is very
important and that thenature effective learning in
complex problems are highly context- dependent, the
instructional designer must make it a priority to
include information from multiple perspectives and
use of many case studies that present diverse and
specific examples. CFT also proposes at its core that
learners must be able to construct their own
representations of information and construct
knowledge for themselves, and must be given
opportunities to do so. “CFT suggests that learning is
most successful when students are applying
knowledges to new situations independently”
(Rinaldo, Laverie, Tapp, Humphrey, 2013, p.19).
Dabbagh and Dass found in their study of case
problems that problem topics that were controversial,
consequential, timely, realistic, and possessing
multiple perspectives were found most often in CFHs
(2013, p. 171). CFH case problem tasks were also
found to be less tangible or overt than problem tasks
conveyedin the case problems of the other models
examined in theirstudy.
However, with the advent of hypermedia and the
internet, designers are finding that there is
unexplored territory withvery few guidelines for the
practice of using CFHs in the classroom. They have
the technology and connections to the world at their
fingertips, but being able to decipher credible sources
and knowing how to link all of the information
together is lessclear. New interactive technologies are
expanding to personal devices connected by the
Internet of Things, and should be utilized to provide
greater detail and increase the number of perspectives

available to everyone to help tackle complex
problems. Scenario
Sophomores taking a political science class at
American University are failing to understand all
of the factors which affect an individual
government’s decision-making process in an
international crisis. The professor asks them to
formulatean argument, either for, against, or
undecided, on whether the United States should
accept more Syrianrefugees.
They will be given a constrained web
environment which contains hyperlinks to web
resources on the most currentstate of the crisis in
Syria, current U.S. government programs and
stances on refugees, statistics on immigrants to
the U.S. inthe last ten years, popular opinions
from highly regarded media outlets, historical
cases of similar past crises with actions taken by
the U.S., cultural differences between our two
countries, surrounding countries’ Syrian refugee
numbers, immigration programs and resources,
and current statisticson
U.S. unemployment rates and resources. The
links andTwitter feed will show perspectives
from government officials, everyday citizens,
refugees and immigrants, and respected
journalists. A Twitter feed showing Syrian-
related threadswill also be embedded in the web
environment.
The students will discuss opinions on an online
discussion forum with each other, and they will
be able to talk with classmates and the professor
in class as well. For the final project, they will
present a two minute argument to the professor
and class of their recommendation and detail the
perspectives and information they used to make
theirdecision.

References
Antonenko, P. D., & Niederhauser, D. S. (2010). The influence of leads on cognitive load and learning ina hypertext
environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2),140-150.
Blau, I. (2011). [Chais] Teachers for "smart classrooms": The extent of implementation of an interactive whiteboard-
based professional development program on elementary teachers' instructional practices. Interdisciplinary
Journal of E- Learning and Learning Objects, 7(1), 275-289.
Dabbagh, N., & Dass, S. (2013). Case problems for problem-based pedagogical approaches: Acomparative analysis.
Computers & Education, 64, 161-174.
Godshalk, V. M., Harvey, D. M., & Moller, L. (2004). The role of learning tasks on attitude changeusing cognitive
flexibility hypertext systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(4),507-526.
Jonassen, D., Ambruso, D . & Olesen, J. (1992). Designing hypertext on transfusion medicine using cognitive
flexibility theory. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1(3), 309-322.
Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning
environments.New York, NY:Routledge.
Rinaldo, S. B., Laverie, D. A., Tapp, S., & Humphrey Jr, W. F. (2013). The benefits of social media in marketing
education: Evaluating Twitter as a form of cognitive flexibility hypertext. Journal for Advancement of
Marketing Education, 21(1), 16.
Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J., & Coulson, R.L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and
hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T.M.
Duffy & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 57-
75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Retrieved from:http://postgutenberg.typepad.com/files/spiro92.pdf

CLE PEDAGOGY BRIEF
What is it?
Cognitive Flexibility Hypertext/Hypermedia isa
web-based constructivist learningenvironment
proposed by Spiro, Coulson, Feltovich, & Anderson in
1988. When researching biomedical cognition, Spiro
and his fellow researchers discovered that medical
school students frequently developed misconceptions
because of the various forms of oversimplification
used during their instruction. Spiro et al., proposed
Cognitive Flexibility Theory (CFT) to facilitate
complex knowledgeacquisition in ill-structured
domains. Spiro & Jehng (1990) claimed hypertext to
be the most appropriate medium for representing
cognitive flexibility theory. CFT utilizes a real-world
case to convey an advanced concept. The complexity
of the concept is retained by integrating multiple
mental and pedagogical representations (Spiro et al.,
1988).
Learners are able to flexibly accessrelated information
through hypertexts. Instead of accepting an oversimplified,
“pre- packaged” schema, learners must construct their own
unique schemas. Cognitive Flexibility Hypertext/
Hypermedia (CFHs) were introduced in 1992 as a
problem-solving learning environment to support the
BRENDA HUBER
theory (Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson,
1992).
With a CFH learning environment, students encounter
an authentic, complex case which features
multiple perspectives and no clear solution. The
juxtaposition of the perspectives creates themes for
the learner to explore. The case, and the
interconnected perspectives and themes are presented
in documents, graphics, videos, audio files,
photographs, etc.,and are accessible through
hypertext links. Learners can enter the
multidimensional CFH at any point and “crisscross”
their way in a non-linear fashion through the
information, examining it repeatedly, in different
orders, for different purposes, and in different
contexts (Jonassen, Dyer, Peters, Robinson, Harvey,
King, & Loughner, 1996). To solve the problem,
students must evaluate and synthesize all the
perspectives. It requires cognitive flexibility for the
learners to accommodate multiple perspectives as
they construct their own interpretation of and solution
to the problems (Jonassen,2011).
How does it work?
Learners enter a CFH through a web page that
introduces a realistic case that lays thefoundation for
the problem. The scenario is representative of
something a professional would encounter in the
workplace. It can be presented in any number of ways:
as a video, business report, meeting dialog, etc.
Learners sometimes find they are assigneda role to
play and their task is outlined. They are free to click
on any hyperlink to gather the background knowledge
they need by exploring the different perspectives of
the problem. Each perspective is a mini-case of the
overarching case, as each represents a unique reality of
the situation and contributes a different opinion,
possible solution, or facts that must be taken into
consideration. The perspectives are presented in the
form of primary case material: interviews, emails,
maps, letters, reports, etc. The more varied the mini-
cases are, the more likely it is for learners to be able to
transfer problem solving skills (Jonassen, et al., 1996).
Underlying themes are based on the points made by
different perspectives and learners must navigate
through competing viewpoints. Hot words and phrases
link the themes and perspectives, perspective to
Scenario
What do the Statue of Liberty, Devil’s Tower, and Cesar
Chavez’s home all have in common? They are all United
States’ National Monuments. President Obama recently
named three other places of historical or geological
significance to the list of 117 monuments around the U.S.
There are several more under consideration. However, it is
not an easy task to declare a site a national monument. It
takes a Presidential proclamation or Congressional
legislation for it to happen. There are conflicting opinions
about the designation of land as a monument as itrestricts
its use and future development. Cranberry Wilderness
stretches over 48,000 acres in West Virginia and is home to
both an important aquifer and valuable shale deposits.
Should this federally-protected wilderness area join the list
of National Monuments or should several proposed natural
gas pipelines be allowed to cross its boundaries? Through a
Cognitive Flexibility Hypermedia activity you can explore
the debate about the financial, cultural, and environment
impact on Cranberry Wilderness and decide whether you
support or are opposed the proposed Birthplace of Rivers
NationalMonument.
E D I T 7 3 0

perspective, themes to themes, and back to the main
case. The interconnectedness of the mini- case
elements allows learners to recognize patterns and
analogies that can be applied to new cases (Graddy,
Lee, & Timmons, 2001).
Users can navigate back and forth between the themes
and perspectives and review the scenario at anytime.
Some CFHs further engage learners by providing
a place totake notes or providing access to search
engines so learners can locate additional
information and add their own hyperlinks to the
system.
The ultimate goal is for the learner to synthesize
the information in the case to make a decision
and be able to justify it. The final product may be
a report, a design document, an essay, or other
artifact that demonstratesboth knowledge
acquisition and transfer of knowledge.
Who is doing it?
The original research that spawned both
Cognitive Flexibility Theory andCognitive
Flexibility Hypertext/Hypermedia was on medical
school students. The need to convey the complex
thinking of expert dental anesthesiologists to Korean
dental students was accomplished with a CFH that was
part of a cognitive apprenticeship program. It featured
mini-cases in the form of video segments that featured
expert performances and reasoning. Using the
knowledge gained by examining the different variables
in the mini-cases and the experts’ reasoning at critical
junctures, the dental students were expected to model
the reasoning process used by an expert and make
decisions asa dental surgeon to improve the outcome
in the test case (Choi, Hong, Park & Lee, 2013).
Several colleges and universities have adopted CFH
learning platforms to meet the advance learning needs
of their students. Jonassen (2011) developed several
CFH programs including one for a geography course
and another for a sociology course. The would-be
geographers were asked to take on the role of a
member of a consulting firm that had been asked to
design an alternate route for an intersection and later
to choice the location of a newcommunity landfill.
The perspective included soil maps, traffic and
accident reports, and the opinions of citizens and
public leaders. The sociology students were asked to
solve three problems: 1) chose which renter to lease a
house to; 2) decide which person to hire as a sales
director; and 3) decide which person to admit to the
final freshman slot. The perspectives included
sociological theories, and applicants’ personal
viewpoints.
Toy & McShay (2003) created a CFH for pre-service
teachers so they could identify and explore the many
multicultural themes that are present in different
school settings and the ways, as teachers, they could
applytheir new knowledge in other educational
contexts.
CFHs have been found to be effective inavoiding
the oversimplification in instruction andstudent
misconceptions that can develop when attempting to
present complex or ill-structured information in a
linear format (Spiro et al., 1988). Because of the
cognitive load they demand of learners, CFHs are not
recommended for introductory learning situations
(Spiro et al.,1992).
Compared to students who participated in learning
designs that emphasized mastery of declarative
knowledge, students who used CFHs were superior in
transferring their problem solving skills to new
situations. However, the control group performed better
on traditional recall assessments (Jacobson & Spiro,
1995). It should be noted that students do not always
use the learning tool as designed without appropriate
guidance (Choi, et al., 2013; and Strobel, Jonassen &
Ionas, 2008). Because the system is designed to be used
independently, some users may struggle to actively
construct knowledge and make meaning of the themes
and perspectives (Strobel, et al., 2008).
CFHs are powerful instructional models for
understanding the complexities of ill-defined, real-
life problems and making choices for medical
diagnoses, public policy decisions, and legal and
ethical conundrums. They support the development
of flexible thinking that is required to analyze and
synthesize multiple perspectives. Because the goal is
for a learner to develop a unique schema through
which to approach new problems or situations, a CFH
would be inappropriate for group learning
environments. CFH were designed as a computer-
based learning model, and internet access and search
engines increase the accessibility of materials to add
details to perspectives. Word processing, computer

aided designsoftware, and other programs can be
combined with a CFH to provide opportunities for
learners to demonstrate their flexible decision making
and itsramifications.

References
Choi, I., Hong, Y., Park, H., & Lee, Y. (2013). Case-based learning for anesthesiology: Enhancing dynamicdecision
making skills through cognitive apprenticeship and cognitive flexibility. In Luckin, R., Goodyear, P.,
Puntambeker, R., Grabowski, B., Understood, J., & Winters, N. (Eds.), Handbook of design in educational
technology. (pp. 230-240). New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from
https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/handbook-of-design/9780415807340/xhtml/Ch023.xhtml
Graddy, D.B., Lee, J.T., & Timmons, J.D., (2001). Cognitive flexibility hypertext as a learning environment in
economics: A pedagogical note. Journal for Economic Educators 2001, 3(3). Electronic journal.
Retrieved from http://capone.mtsu.edu/jee/PDF_Files/TEAcogpaper.pdf
Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of
complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(4):301-
333.
Jonassen, D.H., Strobel, J., & Ionas, I.G. (2008). The evolution of a collaborative authoring system for non-
linear hypertext: A design-based research study. Computers & Education: An International Journal,
5(1), 67-85.
Jonassen, D.H., Dyer, D., Peters, K., Robinson, T., Harvey, D., King, M., & Loughner, P. (1996). Cognitive
flexibility hypertexts on the web. In B. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction. (pp. 120-133). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Educational TechnologyPublications.
Jonassen, D.H., (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning
environments. New York, NY:Routledge. Spiro, R.J., Cousin, R.I., Feltovich, P.J., & Anderson, D.K.
(1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Tech Report
No. 441. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, Center for the Study of Reading.
Retrieved fromhttp://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED302821.pdf
Spiro, R.J. & Jehng, J. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the non-linear and
multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. D. Nix & R. Spiro (eds.), Cognition, education, and
multimedia. (pp. 163-205). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J., & Coulson, R.L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and
hypertext: random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T.M.
Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. (pp. 57-
75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Toy, S. & McShay, J. (2003). Using Cognitive Flexible hypertext environments to provide virtual field experiences
for preservice teachers in a multicultural course. In C. Crawford, N. Davis, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis
(Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference
2003. (pp. 2427-2430). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Retrieved fromhttp://www.editlib.org/p/18465

CLE PEDAGOGY BRIEF
Communities of Practice
What is it?
A community of practice (COP) is an age-old learning
model, which was defined by Etienne Wenger and
Jean Lave in the early 1990s. They identified COPs as
a unique model in the process of studying
apprenticeships and knowledge sharing within a
research project run at the Institute for Research on
Learning (IRL) (Corso, n.d.). They discovered that
there need not be only two people involved in an
apprenticeship: a novice and an expert. Rather, a
community can serve as a “living curriculum” for
novices and experts at various levels (Wenger, 2006).
As it was researched further, Wenger and Lave
discovered this model virtually everywhere, often
without a formal apprenticeship structure and without
the dichotomy between novice and expert. They
identified three distinct characteristics of COPS: (1)
domain, (2) community, and (3) practice. A COP is
when practitioners of a certain domain come together
on a regular and on-going basis to discuss and share
strategies, resources, and best practices. As an off-
shoot of apprenticeships, this learning model is
authentic and largely dependent on participants that
directand construct their own learning. It is for this
reason that it falls under constructivist epistemology,
although it also has implications for connectivism in
the modern age. In essence, Wenger and Lave did not
invent a new learningmodel. Rather, they discovered
and defined anaturally-occurring model used
everywhere.
How does it work?
COPs do not lend themselves to traditional roles of
“instructor” and “student.” Rather, all practitioners
come to the table with their unique levels of expertise.
There may be core members who actively and
frequently participate and peripheral members
who come and go or eventually become core
members. Although COPs can be “cultivated,” the
members are responsible for sustaining it over time
(Cambridge, Kaplan, & Suter, 2005). The community
ranges from various levels of “connectivity” and
“institutionalization” (Jonassen, 1999). For example,
NASHRAH AHMED
nurses that meet for lunch daily to discuss issues is an
example of low institutionalization and high
connectivity. On the other hand, a national association
of nurses that has annual gatherings is an example
of high institutionalization and low connectivity.
The types of domain, community, and
practice vary drastically. Learning happens through
social interaction and situated learning. It is authentic
in that practitionersdrive the learning and discuss
topics that are most relevant totheir practice and that
will enhance learning in that domain. Knowledge-
sharing is also an essential component. In fact,
“theory and evidence suggest that knowledge creation
and sharing are processes that involve often
spontaneouslyformed groups of individuals” (Corso,
n.d.).
Finally, COPs are considered living, breathing entities
that evolve over time. There are five loose
stages of evolution: potential, coalescing, maturing,
stewardship and transformation. In a nutshell, a
“loose network” of individuals eventually coalesce
into a community, mature over time, and become
stewards of knowledge in a particular area (Corso,
n.d.). Even with institutionalization and orchestration,
these stages can only come into existence through
socialinteractions that are authentic andspontaneous.
Who is doing it?
Communities of practice have always existed and
continue to exist in every aspect of life, from local
knitting clubs to international associations of law or
medicine. Since its introduction by Lave and Wenger,
it has been used heavilyin business and management
settings. Wenger argues that an organization’s most
valuable resource is people and “[e]ven when people
work for large organizations, they learn through their
participation in more specific communities made up
of people with whom they interact on a regular basis”
(1998).
COPs are also used in government, non-profit
organizations, and associations. One example is the
World Bank’s knowledge management strategy,
which incorporates an increasing number of COPs
(Wenger, 1999). COPs alsooccur informally within
organizations across functional units. For example,
the group of colleagues one interacts with on a
regular basis to share experiences and discuss ideas
E D I T 7 3 0

would be considered an informal COP. Although it
is not generally used in K-12 education for students,
teachers often work within COPs centered on
planning and instruction. In today’s increasingly
globalized world, online platforms have
further expanded COPs beyond geographic
boundaries. Many COPs contain both online and
face-to-face components. For example, teachers may
meet weekly in person and also use a Google Drive
to share resources discussed. There are professional
circles that mostly interact online but may have an
occasional live webinardiscussion.
The effectiveness and impact of communities of
practice is difficult to measure because its “primary
‘output’ –knowledge is intangible” (Wenger, 1999).
However, there are certain indicators of an effective
COP such as “knowledge assimilation, creation,
transfer, sharing, capitalization, and reuse” (Corso,
n.d.). A successful COP connects people, “capture[s]
and diffuses existing knowledge,” and generates new
knowledge (Cambridge, Kaplan, & Suter, 2005).
Snyder and Wenger outlines ways in which COPs
have added valueto various businesses and
organization such as the World Bank, Buckman Labs,
and Chrysler. In particular, they have helped
organizations develop hubs of strategic knowledge and
create new lines of business by fostering the exchange
of entrepreneurial insight. COPs have also streamlined
problem- solving processes by connecting
practitioners to experts in their fields. They have also
aided in the transfer of knowledge as participants
exchange context-specific bestpractices.
Although COPs have been around for centuries and
are increasingly gaining momentum in organizational
environments, there are a number of challenges or
unresolved issues that may impede the development of
effective COPs in today’s fast-paced globalized
workforce. Kerno identifies three limitations or
challenges: (1) time constraints that don’t allow
participants to “engage in prolonged, sustained
discourse,” (2) the hierarchical structure of
organizations that has the potential to be at odds with
the fluid, horizontalnature of COPs, and (3) the role of
varying cultures, some of which may emphasize
individualismovercommunity.
Communities of practice are a naturally occurring
model in organizations and in everyday life. They can
be a valuable structure for instruction and their
“organic, spontaneous, and informal nature” do not
warrant a great deal of “supervision and interference”
(Wenger, 1999). In this regard, it is ideal for cases
when resources to provide formal learning
interventions are limited and there is a great deal of
collective expertise ona topic. It is also ideal for
continuing education for adults because it is
embedded in a shared real-world practice or area of
expertise. COPs focus on the distribution, transfer,
and generation of knowledge through collaboration,
resource- sharing, and dialogue. However, “managers
cannot mandate communities or practice; they [must]
bring the right people together, provide an
infrastructure in which communities can thrive, and
measure the communities’ value in nontraditional
ways” (Wenger, 1999). Instructors or managers
ultimately serve as facilitators on an on-going basis
and they are cognizant of the phases or life cycle of
COPs: inquire,design, launch, grow, and sustain
(Cambridge, Kaplan, & Suter, 2005).
Technology has greatly enhanced the scope and
functionality of COPs. The “technical architecture” is
as important as the “social architecture.” In fact,
many COPs exist entirely online on social media
platforms, interactive websites, or discussion boards.
Online resource-sharing platforms such as Google
Drive are used to share resources and collectively
work on projects. Social media groups on Pinterest or
Facebook can also be used as resource-sharing and
collaboration tools respectively. For COPs that are
virtual or cannot meet face-to- face on a regular
basis, Skype, Adobe Connect, WebEx, or any similar
web conferencing tool provides a “sense ofplace”.

Scenario
ABC is a two-year alternative teacher preparation
and leadership development program that places
highly qualified young college graduates in high-
needs schools. Teachers in their second year, 60 in
total, have traditionally received less support and
professional development than first-year teachers.
Unlike first-year teachers who are focused on
mastering the foundations of instruction and
pedagogy, second-year teachers are refining skills
and preparing to become future leaders in the
movement for education equity, whether they stay in
the classroom or pursue related careers. They have
expressed a need for more differentiated support
because the information that is useful for first-year
teachers does not feel relevant to them. Additionally,
they have different interests based on the career
trajectory they have decided to pursue after finishing
the program. For example, some are interested in
school leadership, some are interested in curriculum
design, and others are interested in leveraging
community relationships. ABC does not have the
resources and capacity to provide robust
differentiated support. However, they realized that
second-year teachers have benefited from interacting
with each other as well as the large alumni base in
the region. Many of the second- year and alumni
teachers are finding effective and innovative ways to
design instruction, connect with communities, and
take on leadership roles in their schools. ABC would
like to leverage this collective expertise to provide
more authentic and differentiated support to second-
yearteachers.

References
Cambridge, D., Kaplan, S., & Suter, V. (2005). Community of practice design guide: A step-by-step guide
for designing & cultivating communities of practice in higher education (pdf file). Retrieved from
https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/nli0531.pdf.
Corso, M., & Giacobbe, A. (n.d.). Building communities of practice that work: A case study based research
[pdf file]. Retrieved from
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/conf/olkc/archive/oklc6/papers/corsogiacobbe.pdf
Jonassen, D., & Land, S. (2012). Preface. Theoretical foundations of learning environments (p. vii-x). New
York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from
http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781136702600_sample_844583.pdf
Kerno, S.J. (2008). Limitations of communities of practice: A consideration of unresolved issues and
difficulties in the approach. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(1) 69-78. Retrieved
from http://www.knowledgemobilization.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/8.-Limitations-of-
Communities-of-Practice-.pdf.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. The Systems Thinker, 9(5).
Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. (1999). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved from
http://www.rareplanet.org/sites/rareplanet.org/files/Communities_of_Practice_The
_Organizational_Frontier%5B1%5D.pdf.
Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of practice: A brief introduction (pdf file). Retrieved from http://wenger-
trayner.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/10/06-Brief-introduction-to-communities-of-practice.pdf.

CLE PEDAGOGY BRIEF
What is it?
A community of practice is a group of people who
share a common concern, a set of problems, or interest
in a topicand who come together to fulfill both
individual and group goals (Wenger et al., 1998).
Participating in these ‘communities of practice’ is
essential to our learning (Wenger,2000b).
Online collaborative forums offer just-in-time training
solutions and are often represented in the form of
discussion boards, collaborative software programs,
and centers for feedback. These forums have
consequentially evolved into CoPs wherein interested
stakeholders can interactively problem solve, create
new knowledge, or troubleshoot any issues facing
field practitioners (Wenger,1998).
Wenger pointed out that CoPs can also be considered
as apart of broader conceptual framework for thinking
about learning in its social dimensions. CoPs are
theoretically grounded in social constructivism. While
as pedagogical model, it is consistent with the
epistemological assumptions of constructivism, which
stipulate that meaning is a function of how the
individual creates meaning from his or her experiences
and actions (Jonassen,1991).
How does it work?
CoPs often focus on sharing best practices and creating
new knowledge to advance a domain of professional
practice.
Arising out of learning, Wenger considered that CoPs
exhibits many characteristic of systems more
generally: emergent of learning, complex
relationships, self-organization, dynamic boundaries,
ongoing negotiation identity and culturalmeaning.
When designing itself, a community should look at the
following elements: events, leadership, connectivity,
membership, projects, and artifacts (Wenger,2000b).
Following are the instructional characteristics ofCoPs:
□ Control of learning is distributed amongthe
participants in the community and is not in the
hands ofa single instructor or expert.
□ Participants are committed to the generationand
CHUNHUA XIONG
sharing of newknowledge.
□ Learning activities are flexible andnegotiated.
□ The participants exhibit high levels of dialogue,
interaction, collaboration, and socialnegotiation.
□ A shared goal, problem, or project bindsthe
participants and provides a common focus and an
incentiveto work together as acommunity.
□ Diversity, multiple perspectives, and epistemic
issues are appreciated.
□ Traditional disciplinary and conceptual
boundariesare crossed.
□ Innovation and creativity are encouragedand
supported.
Who is doing it?
Many studies show that CoPs have existed in a very
wide range of domains in academe, business,
government, education, health and the civil sector.
Following are a few examples of the applications of
CoPs: First of all, CoPs have been applied widely in
companies or organizations. For example, when a
company reorganized into a team-based structure,
employees with functional expertise may create
communities of practice as a way of maintaining
connections with peers. Elsewhere, people may form
communities in response to changes originating
outside or inside the organization, such as the rise of
e-commerce, computer makers offering consulting
service,etc.
Moreover, in order to develop a knowledge sharing
culture, a case study explores how NASA's Office of
theChief Engineer established communities of
practice on the NASA Engineering Network, from
establishing simple websites that compiled discipline-
specific resources to fostering a knowledge-sharing
environment through collaborative and interactive
technologies (Topousis et al.,2012).
Last but not least, Polin’s (2008) study illustrates
ways in which social computing applications enable
the use of aCoP model in graduate professional
education, which offers a perspective on graduate
professional education as anactivity arising in a
community of professionalpractice.
E D I T 7 3 0

Combined with Wenger’s view of the application of
the CoPs, the effectiveness can be discussed from
following aspects:
To begin with, in organization in the private and
public sectors, CoPs have provided a vehicle for peer-
to-peer learning among practitioners. CoPs have been
seen toimprove organizational performance at
companies as diverse as international bank, a major
car manufacturer, and the U.S. government agency.
(Wenger & Synder,2000b)
Secondly, in education, CoPs are increasingly used for
professional development, but they also offer a fresh
perspective on learning and education more generally.
New thinking about the role of educational institutions
anddesign of learning opportunities is arising by
applying the CoPs in educational field. Finally, in
international development, cultivating horizontal
communities of practice among local practitioners
presents an attractive alternative to the traditional view
of vertical transmission of knowledge (Wenger, 2009).
Actually, NASA’s CoPs showed that the collaborative
exchanges in CoPs “have already offered significant
discoveries in how to reduce risk in space exploration
and optimize engineering designs.” (Topousis et al.,
2012).
Today, organizations, workgroups, teams, and
individuals must work together in new ways. Inter-
organizational collaboration is increasingly important
(Cambridge et al., 2005). Studies indicated that CoPs
can be cultivated to address the needs of sharing
information, exchange of opinions, and peer-to-peer
learning in a varietyof contexts through appropriate
technologies, in particular the rise of social media. By
applying CoPs as a pedagogical approach, members of
community attempt to unveil tacitskills and abilities
that often only evolve from experience (Hildreth et al.,
2000; Wenger, 2000a; Wenger,2000b).
In order to develop quality CoPs, Harvey et al
mention that the organizational model, culture, and
context must be considered (Harvey et al., 2012).
While successfully facilitating a CoP involves
understanding its lifecycle phase (inquire, design,
prototype, launch, grow, and sustain) and ensuring
that the expectations, plans, communications,
collaborative activities, technologies, and measures
ofsuccess map to the current phase of the
community’s.
The technical architecture of the community supports
it in providing a platform for communication and
collaboration, while the social architecture enlivens
it. Therefore, the roles, processes, and approaches
that engage people—whether face- to-face or
online—are essential in relationship building,
collaborative learning, knowledge sharing, and action
(Cambridge et al., 2005).
Scenario
“Engaging in Cultural Inquiry” (by Kristin
Percy-Calaff)
Introduction
A national professional teaching society estimates
thatmore than half the public schools in America
are wrestling with cultural diversity issues and
learning needs stemming from differences in
students’ educational and ethnicbackgrounds. Some
diversity issues come from the fact that the families
of many school-aged children emigrated from
foreign countries and do not speak English. Other
issues arise because American families are more
mobile than they were 25 years ago. Many students
spend only 1 or 2 years in the same school system.
When they arrive at a new school, they
havediffering academic backgrounds and
expectations.
Teachers need to be able to analyze student
problemsand identify whether they are
developmental issues, cultural differences, or
learning disabilities. Perhaps the “difficulties” are
the result of the teacher’s overlynarrow
expectations. Educators must be able to locate
resources and use these resources to flexibly solve
problems that interfere withtheir students’learning.
This year’s public school educational conference
will address this issue; the theme is “Cultural Inquiry
and Effective Education (CIEE).”
Continued on next page…

The goal of the CIEE conference is “to support
teachers working in culturally diverse classrooms so
that they might provide effective educational
opportunities for all students.” The conference will
be divided into tracks geared to four audiences:
teachers in K–7, teachers in 8–12, school
administrators, and technology support
professionals.Presenters and participants will be
encouraged to collaborate and share their
experiences, and to recommend resources and
methods for supporting culturally diverse
classrooms. As the conference organizer, you want
this event to lay the groundwork for a teacher
support base for culturalissues.
Learning Outcomes
The task force will be charged with designing an
environment that will enable teachers to do the
following:
 Identify appropriate cultural
approaches,knowledge domains, and
intervention strategies used in
different educationalsituations
 Develop a research plan and identify
relevant resources, including other
teachers, to solve a culturally based
educationalproblem
 Decide how and when resources should
be used to support decisions, methods,
and information given ina situation
 Envision alternative ways of
viewingeducational processes
 Provide experiential guidance to instructors
whoare unfamiliar with the cultures of the
studentsthey
are encountering
 Identify strategies to improve educational
practice
 Reflect on strategy outcomes and
refinetheir solutions for future
practice.

References
Cambridge. D., Kaplan. S., & Suter, V. (2005). Community of practice design guide: A step-by-step guide for
designing &cultivating communities of practice in higher education. Retrieved from EDUCAUSE
website: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/NLI0531.pdf
Harvey, J. F., Cohendet, P., Simon, L., & Dubois, L. E. (2013). Another cog in the machine: Designing
communities of practice in professional bureaucracies. European Management Journal, 31, 27–40.
Hildreth, P., Kimble, C., & Wright, P. (2000). Communities of practice in the distributed international environment.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 27–38.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational
Technology Research and Development, 39(3),5–14.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge England:
Cambridge UniversityPress.
Polin, G. L. (2008) Graduate professional education from a community of practice perspective: The role of
social and technical networking. In C. Blackmore (Eds.), Social learning systems and communities
of practice (pp. 163-177). London: Springer.
Topousis, D., Dennehy, C.J., & Lebsock, K.L. (2012). NASA’s experiences enabling the capture and
sharing of technical expertise through communities of practice. Acta Astronautica, 81(2),499–
511.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, London: Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000a). Communities of Practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business
Review, 78(1), 139-145.
Wenger, E. (2000b). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225 –246.

CLE PEDAGOGY BRIEF
Goal-Based Scenarios
What is it?
Goal-based scenarios (GBS) are, first and foremost, a
pedagogical model grounded in constructivism.
According to Anne K. Bednar, constructivism is a
theory that associates learning with creating meaning
from experience (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). Building
on this concept, GBS provideslearners with
meaningful and authentic goals in the context of a
real- world scenario. Originally proposed by Roger
Schank, GBS accounts for the idea that too often,
natural learning goals are overshadowed by artificial
ones (Schank, 1992). They create a more authentic
learning experience by providing learners with specific
goals to work towards in solving aproblem.
Additionally, goal-based scenarios allow for learning
to occur throughout the scenario on a variety of
different subjects; not just directly related to the
specific goal. Learners are forced to build a skillset as
they progress through the scenario, and make choices
utilizing their newly acquired skills. As Schank notes,
GBS is truly learning by doing and learning in real
life, which tends to be a very effective way that people
learn naturally.This also allows learners to take control
of their own learning experience, since they are
the ones that need to pursue the achievement of the
goals (Abelson et al.,1994).
How does it work?
Goal-based scenarios typically have seven very well
structured and well defined instructional
characteristics. First are learning goals, which defines
what students should learn from the GBS. Often,
learning goals can be broken up into both process and
content knowledge. Process knowledge describes
how to practice skills that contribute to learner
success, and content knowledge describes the
information that learner success requires, respectively.
The second instructional characteristic
is a mission, which is the actual goal that will
motivate the learner to solve the problem. Ideally, the
mission is something relatable to the learner, but also
realistic. Third is a cover story, which provides the
background and context for the scenario thatcreates
the need for the mission to be successfully
DAN JACKSON
accomplished. This is a critical step, since a good
cover story can be key in allowing the learner to
become immersed in thescenario.
The fourth instructional characteristic of a GBS is a
role, which defines the character the learner is
participating as during the scenario. Fifth is the
scenario operations, which lay out all of the tasks the
learner needs to complete in working towards the
mission goal. The sixth characteristic is resources,
which provide learners with additional information
they needto accomplish their mission goal. Lastly, the
seventh instructional characteristic is feedback, which
is given to the learner in anyof three following ways as
they complete the scenario. First, they can receive
feedback as a direct consequence of an action they’ve
taken or a decision they’ve made. Second, a coach or
instructor can deliver feedback to the learner. Finally,
feedback can be delivered in the form of relevant
stories with similar experiences and learning outcomes
(Reigeluth,1999).
Within a GBS, the roles of the instructor and the
learner arewell defined. The primary job of the
instructor is to design the scenario, and then to
explain it to the learners. One critical aspect for the
instructor when explaining the scenario is that in
order for the learner to be successful, they need to
make sure to motivate them. The more engaged the
learner is, the more successful they are at achieving
the goal. The role of the learner, on the other hand, is
to drive their own learning by doing. The learner
needs to explore options and test solutions, acquiring
new skills along the way to achieving thegoal.
Who is doing it?
Goal-based scenarios can be used in a multitude of
educational settings, including both academia and
business. One such example from academia describes
Bill Purves, a Professor of Biology at Harvey Mudd
College. Roger Schank encouraged Professor Purves
to take a look at the skills a professional biologist
needed to be successful, and then to create a GBS
supporting the cultivation of those skills. Together,
they created a scenario in which the student needed to
develop a way to make bacteria produce insulin which
would be then administered to a diabetic patient
E D I T 7 3 0

(Schank,1992).
Another example of a GBS is from the National
Museum of Wildlife Art. In this example, learners
write original stories using museum art as illustrations
and inspiration for theirstories. While they use these
pieces as part of the story, they are responsible for
creating their own interpretations. They are also given
a specific role from which the narrative is written,
which allows them to learn about the artwork from the
context of that particular role. The goal of this scenario
is to learn more about the artwork and to understand it
in context (Schaller et al., 2001).
While these examples are vastly different, such is the
scopeof use cases for goal-basedscenarios.
Just like any training course, the effectiveness ofgoal-
based scenarios often depends on the situation in
which it is being used. However, when correctly
employed, educational technology studies have shown
that learning is often considerably enhanced in such
real-worldenvironments.
Additionally, this research supports the concept thatrole-
playing in such real-world environments encourages
learners to practice and internalize skills that they can
eventually transfer into everyday situations (Kaufman &
Sauvé, 2010).
It is important to note that while the research supports
GBS asa successful and effective training solution,
there are a number of factors that can influence its
effectiveness. First and foremost, as mentioned
previously, it is critical for the instructor to not only
explain the scenario, but also motivate and engage the
learners. If the learners are not fully immersed in the
scenario and in achieving the goal, the GBS’s
effectiveness diminishes considerably. Another factor
that can influence effectiveness is the scenario itself. If
the scenario is not grounded in reality and authentic
context, it will most likely not resonate with learners.
Thus, learners will not be engaged or motivated to
achieve the goal. One additional factor that can
possibly influence effectiveness is the level of
involvement from theinstructor.
The learning in a goal-based scenario needs to be
primarily learner-driven. If the instructor is too
heavily involved in hand- holding the learners, it is
easy for the learners to become disengaged and
unmotivated. The intrinsic motivation of the learners
driving themselves towards a solution cannot be
forgotten, and this can significantly impact the
effectiveness ofa goal-based scenario.
With the advancements in technology over the last
several decades, the field of instructional design has
benefited greatly. While traditional brick and mortar
classroom settings can never be eliminated,
technology has allowed instructional designers to
create unbelievably immersive learning solutions
across every imaginable industry. Goal-based
scenarios lend themselves perfectly to a technology-
supported solution, primarily because the learning is
almost entirelylearner-driven. Technology can allow
the learner to take on multiple roles and make
decisions easily and seamlessly, without being
confined to a classroom. This encourages learning to
take place anywhere and everywhere, which opens up
a whole new world of possibilities for real-world and
authentic learning.
Scenario
Many organizations are currently very concerned
about cyber security, and multi-family housing
real estate investment trusts (REITs) are no
different. Hackers know that REITs have a digital
treasure trove of resident and employee
information (e.g. credit card numbers, social
security numbers, tax information, etc.) stored on
their networks. In response to the imminent data
threat, the IT department in one particular national
REIT sent out a number of fake phishing emails
trying to gauge the organization’s susceptibility to
a cyber-attack, and the results were appalling.
Employees willingly shared their intimate
personal information (e.g. social security
numbers, computer passwords, etc.); information
which a hacker could use to cause major damage
both for the individual and for the organization.
As a result, it became evident that a significant
training effort was necessary. A goal-based
scenario computer based training course was

chosen as the most effective way to reach the
employeesand emphasize the importance of
datasecurity.
The scenario requires employees to perform a
number of tasks and make choices based on
problems that arise in order to protect the
organization from a series of damaging cyber-
attacks. These problems range anywhere from
locking their computer when they leave to go
to lunch, to adjusting privacy settings on their
social media pages. The scenario is designed
for employees to complete it individually,
since it is each employee’s responsibility to
keep themselves andorganization secure. As
they progress through the scenario, they
receive real-time feedback on their choices.
They are not able to move forward in the
scenario without completing a task and
proving that they understand the concept being
discussed at that point intime.
By the time the employee completes the
course, they should be well versed in the
different methods hackers can use to access
information, as well as how to prevent such
attacks. They are of course assessed along the
way during the scenario, but there is an
additional layer of assessment following
completion of the course. The IT department
again sends out fake phishing emails to the
organization at random intervals in the months
following course completion. This gives them
the ability to evaluate the effectiveness of the
cyber security goal-based scenario in teaching
employees to maintain a high level ofdata
security, even after training hasconcluded.

References
Abelson, R. P., Schank, R. C., & Langer, E. J. (1994). Beliefs, reasoning, and decision making: Psycho-logic in honor of Bob
Abelson. Hillsdale, N.J: L.Erlbaum.
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an
instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 1(2), 43-71. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002piq.21143
Kaufman, D., & Sauvé, L. (2010). Educational gameplay and simulation environments: Case studies and lessons learned.
Hershey, PA: Information ScienceReference.
Reigeluth, C.M. (1983). Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
Schaller, D. T., Allison-Bunnell, S., & Nagel, S. (2001). Developing goal-based scenarios for web education. Retrieved from
http://www.eduweb.com/goalbasedscenarios.html
Schank, R. C. (1992). Goal-based scenarios. Technical Report #36. Evanston, IL: The Institute for the Learning
Sciences, Northwestern University. Retrieved fromhttp://cogprints.org/624/1/V11ANSEK.html

CLE PEDAGOGY BRIEF
What is it?
Roger Schank (1994) observed that young children are
natural learners, but all their learning is associated with
a goal. Children want to go places, therefore they learn
to walk, and they tolerate much failure in the process.
They want to communicate, so they learn to talk, and
they keep refining this skill over many years. This kind
of personal goal has much more motivating power than
learning a seemingly random assortment of skills to
earn a grade. Shank proposed a pedagogical model
where scenarios are constructed around meaningful,
authentic goals, and these goals would require the
target skills to be learned as a necessary step. He called
this model Goal-Based Scenarios. These scenarios
feature learners as active participants in constructing
both their knowledge and the methods by which the
goal is achieved. Schank proposes that Goal-Based
Scenarios is a pedagogy that can “provide motivation,
a sense of accomplishment, a support system, and a
focus on skills rather than facts.”
This constructivist model builds on the concept of
Situated Learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991) in that
learning objectives are situated in the context in which
they are used in the “real world.” However, Goal-Based
Scenarios is distinct from situated learning in the
presence of the titular goal; there is an overt objective
that is driving the learning, which may be absent in a
situated learning environment.
How does it work?
A Goal-Based Scenario consists of four components:
Mission, Mission Focus, Cover Story, and Scenario
Operations (Schank et al, 1994). The mission is the
goal the learner is trying to accomplish, and it should
be broad enough to entice a number of different
activities. Most critically, it should be relevant and
meaningful to the learner; no one mission will be
meaningful to everyone. The mission focus describes
the kinds of activities that the learner will need to
undertake in order to complete the goal. The four kinds
of mission focus are explanation, control, design, and
KATELYN SCHREYER
discovery. The cover story is the scenario that is built
up around the goal, to explain why the learner is
pursuing the goal and define its context. For example,
the cover story may include the background of a town
with a polluted water supply, and it will also establish
the learner as taking on the role of an expert consultant
to solve the problem. The scenario operations are the
actual activities that the students will undertake in
the process of achieving the goal.
In a Goal-Based Scenario, the instructor designs and
explains the goal, with special care to create a goal
that learners will engage with and become motivated
to solve. A Goal-Based Scenario should have many
viable solutions, which the learners will spend time
exploring, and the skills that the instructor intends to
teach should be aligned to the goal such that students
will simply have to learn that skill, among others, on
the way to completing the goal. The instructor must be
sensitive to the interests of the learners, and design
each Goal- Based Scenario to appeal to them, with the
knowledge that no one scenario will be of interest to
all students.
Who is doing it?
Goal-Based Scenarios can be used effectively in a
wide variety of formal and informal educational
settings and all educational levels, ranging from K-12
to workplace training and professional development to
informal learning environments such as museums.
With some imagination in designing the scenario, the
model can be used to almost any skill.
To provide some examples, the model has been used
to teach financial accounting practices to MBA
students by placing them in the role of a bank manager
evaluating lending deals (Foster, 1995), and to teach
about Sickle Cell Anemia and about health- care
counseling to museum visitors of all ages (Bell, et al.,
1994). It has been used to teach a government-
mandated ethics program to high school students in
Japan (Umeda, et al., 2012), and to teach
undergraduates in a computer science program how to
select computer equipment and components based on
user requirements (Beriswell, 2014). It has also been
E D I T 7 3 0

used in a computer-based environment to teach about
the Central Limit Theorem to students in a statistics
class (Hsu & Moore, 2010).
Goal-Based Scenario are, when correctly implemented,
a highly engaging and effective instructional approach.
Zumbach & Reimann (1999) conducted a study
comparing a computer based GBS, a computer-based
rote drill program, and a hypertext environment
covering the same material. Students grasp of basic
facts was best in the drill program, but Schank (1994)
argues that memorization of facts isn’t as significant a
learning outcome as mastery of skills. Along those
lines, this study showed that participants in the Goal-
Based Scenario group had better structural knowledge
of the target activity than the other two groups, and the
Goal-Based Scenario group showed better
argumentation in their discussion of the activity later.
Most interestingly, both the drill and hypertext group
showed a distinct drop in intrinsic motivation that did
not manifest in the Goal-Based Scenario group.
Furthermore, Goal-Based Scenarios have been shown
to be effective for all students, regardless of ethnicity,
gender,orprior coursework(Schoenfeld-Tacher,Jones,
& Persichitte, 2001), so this use pedagogical model is
an opportunity to minimize the achievement gap.
Research has also shown when GBS’s are designed
with Cognitive Load Theory in mind, motivational and
academic outcomes are further improved (Kilic &
Yildirim,2012).
Goal-Based Scenarios are ideal for teaching skills, and
are less suited to teaching a corpus of facts for
memorization. Furthermore, because the model centers
on learning by doing, the target skill must be one that
students can reasonably do, or that can be adequately
reproduced in a simulator. For example, Goal-Based
Scenarios are a poor choice for the skill of learning how
to operate a nuclear reactor, as the cost of failure is
extraordinary. Likewise, the skills of avionics and
navigation for an aircraft would only fit into the Goal-
Based Scenarios model with the extensive use of
simulators prior to or entirely in place of flying an
actual aircraft.
Multiple learning technologies can benefit from this
model. Most notably, almost all video games are goal-
based scenarios, although they are not all educational in
nature. This indicates that to develop an effective
educational video game, the designer should keep the
design criteria of Goal-Based Scenarios in mind.
Simulations can also benefit from incorporating Goal-
Based Scenarios to ensure that the learners can
contextualize the skills the simulation is designed to
teach.
Goal-Based Scenarios are particularly helpful to teach
skills that learners would have trouble contextualizing
or appreciating the utility of if the skills were learned
in a rote fashion. The motivating aspect of these
scenarios can be useful for teaching skills that are in
and of themselves “boring,” especially when removed
from an authentic context, such as arithmetic.
Scenario
Ms. Jones is a computer science teacher at a high
school, and she is teaching a unit on internet skills.
She wishes to her students to learn how to use
HTML, CSS, FTP, and how these basic building
blocks of the internet work. Notably, her focus is
that students learn to use these tools in an authentic
and meaningful way, not that they memorize facts
about them.
She designs a Goal Based Scenario where the
students will act as designers and producers of their
own websites. The mission is for the student to
create a website on a topic of their choice. The
mission focus is on the design of a website. The
cover story that she constructs for her students is
that they are website developers creating a site to
disseminate information about a given topic, with
example topics given as a popular video game,
book, or TV show. The scenario operations inherent
in this scenario are: encoding desired content in
HTML, applying formatting controls in CSS, using
FTP and provided website to publish the site, and
writing and compiling the website content.

5 Things to Know About Constructivist Models and Strategies

5 Things to Know About Constructivist Models and Strategies

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to 5 Things to Know About Constructivist Models and Strategies

Similar to 5 Things to Know About Constructivist Models and Strategies (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

5 Things to Know About Constructivist Models and Strategies