Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Thresholds of knowledge development in complex problem solving: a multiple-case study of advanced learners’ cognitive processes

Bogard, Treavor, Liu, Min, Chiang, Yueh-hui Vanessa·2013·Educational Technology Research and Development
DOI 10.1007/s11423-013-9295-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11423-013-9295-4

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Research works printed but not linked: 83

  1. Alibali, M. W., Phillips, K. M. O., & Fischer, A. D. (2009). Learning new problem-solving strategies leads to changes in problem representation. Cognitive Development, 24(2), 89–101. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.12.005 . · DOI
  2. Anderson, J. R. (2009). Expertise. In Cognitive psychology and its implications (7th ed., pp. 242–271). New York: W. H. Freeman.
  3. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
  4. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. (2005, November). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition: Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5), 367–379. doi: 10.1007/s11251-005-1272-9 . · DOI · Paper page
  5. Bannert, M., & Reimann, P. (2011). Supporting self-regulated hypermedia learning through prompts. Instructional Science, 40(1), 193–211. · DOI
  6. Belland, B. (2010). Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: The impact of computer-based scaffolds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 285–309. doi: 10.1007/s11423-009-9139-4 . · DOI
  7. Belland, B., Glazewski, K., & Richardson, J. (2011). Problem-based learning and argumentation: Testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students’ creation of evidence-based arguments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 667–694. doi: 10.1007/s11251-010-9148-z . · DOI
  8. Bixler, B. A., & Land, S. M. (2010). Supporting college students’ ill-structured problem solving in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 39(1), 3–15. doi: 10.2190/ET.39.1.b . · DOI
  9. Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. B., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals: Handbook I—Cognitive Domain. New York: McKay.
  10. Borkowski, J. G., Johnston, M. B., & Reid, M. K. (1987). Metacognition, motivation, and controlled performance. In S. J. Ceci (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social, and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 2, pp. 147–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  11. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How experts differ from novices. In J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (pp. 31–50). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
  12. Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1984). The IDEAL problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning, and creativity. New York: W. H. Freeman.
  13. Calderhead, J. (1981). Stimulated recall: A method for research on reaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(2), 211–217. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1981.tb02474.x . · DOI · Paper page
  14. Charness, N. (1976). Memory of chess positions: Resistance to interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2(6), 641–653. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.2.6.641 . · DOI
  15. Chase, W. G., & Ericsson, K. A. (1982). Skill and working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 16, pp. 1–58). New York: Academic Press.
  16. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). The mind’s eye in chess. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 215–281). New York: Academic Press. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Chi, M. T. H., & Bassock, M. (1991). Learning from examples vs. self-explanations. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 251–282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  18. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovitch, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2 . · DOI · Paper page
  19. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 7–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  20. Cho, K., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002, September). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22. doi: 10.1007/BF02505022 . · DOI · Paper page
  21. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: Sage.
  22. de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1991). Knowledge of problem situations in physics: A comparison of good and poor novice problem solvers. Learning and Instruction, 1(4), 289–302. doi: 10.1016/0959-4752(91)90010-6 . · DOI
  23. Derry, S. J. (1996). Cognitive schema theory in the constructivist debate. Educational Psychologist, 31(3), 163–174. · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3103&4_2
  24. Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. Oxford: B. Blackwell.
  25. Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13(4), 277–287. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Ericsson, K. A., Prietula, M. J., & Cokely, E. T. (2007). The making of an expert. Harvard Business Review, 85(7/8), 114.
  27. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Ericsson, K. A., & Staszewsli, J. J. (1989). Skilled memory and expertise: Mechanisms of exceptional performance. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 235–267). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  29. Flavell, J. H. (1971). Stage-related properties of cognitive development. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 421–453. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(71)90025-9 . · DOI · Paper page
  30. Foshay, R., & Kirkley, J. (1998). Principles for teaching problem solving. Edina, MN: TRO Learning.
  31. Funke, J., & Frensch, P. A. (1995). Complex problem solving research in North America and Europe: An integrative review. Foreign Psychology, 5, 42–47.
  32. Gillespie, M. (2002). EFF research principle: An approach to teaching and learning that builds expertise. In Equipped for the future (Vol. 2, pp. 1–8). Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Literacy.
  33. Glaser, R. (1989). Expertise and learning: How do we think about instructional processes now that we have discovered knowledge structures? In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 269–282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  34. Henning, P. H. (2004). Everyday cognition and situated learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 143–168). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  35. Iiyoshi, T., Hannifin, M. J., & Wang, F. (2005). Cognitive tools and student-centered learning: Rethinking tools, functions, and applications. Educational Media International, 42, 281–296. doi: 10.1080/09523980500161346 . · DOI
  36. Ionescu, T. (2012). Exploring the nature of cognitive flexibility. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(2), 190–200. doi: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.11.001 . · DOI · Paper page
  37. Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  38. Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 362–381. · DOI · Paper page
  39. Jonassen, D. H. (2005). Tools for representing problems and the knowledge required to solve them. In S. Tergan & T. Keller (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3426, pp. 93–95). Berlin: Springer.
  40. Jonassen, D. H. (2006). Modeling with technology: Mindtools for conceptual change. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
  41. Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693–719). New York: Macmillan.
  42. Jonassen, D. H., & Strobel, J. (2006). Modeling for meaningful learning. In D. Hung & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Engaged learning with emerging technologies (pp. 1–27). Dordrecht, South Holland: Springer. · DOI
  43. Kapur, M., & Rummel, N. (2012). Productive failure in learning from generation and invention activities. Instructional Science, 40(4), 645–650. doi: 10.1007/s11251-012-9235-4 . · DOI · Paper page
  44. Kim, M. K. (2012). Theoretically grounded guidelines for assessing learning progress: Cognitive changes in ill-structured complex problem-solving contexts. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 601–622. doi: 10.1007/s11423-012-9247-4 . · DOI
  45. Kim, B., & Reeves, T. (2007). Reframing research on learning with technology: In search of the meaning of cognitive tools. Instructional Science, 35(3), 207–256. doi: 10.1007/s11251-006-9005-2 . · DOI
  46. Kleinmuntz, D. N., & Schkade, D. A. (1993). Information displays and decision processes. Psychological Science, 4(4), 221–227. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00265.x . · DOI · Paper page
  47. Kluwe, R. H. (1995). Single case studies and models of complex problem solving. In P. A. Frensch & J. Funke (Eds.), Complex problem solving: The European perspective (pp. 269–291). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  48. Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205–226. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00021-X . · DOI · Paper page
  49. Lajoie, S. P. (1993). Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 261–288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  50. Lajoie, S. P. (2000). Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  51. Lajoie, S. P. (2008). Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: A rose by any other name? Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 469–475. doi: 10.1007/s10648-0089088-1 . · DOI
  52. Larkin, J. H. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 75–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  53. Lee, H., Lim, K., & Grabowski, B. (2010). Improving self-regulation, learning strategy use, and achievement with metacognitive feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 629–648. · DOI
  54. Liu, M., & Bera, S. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in a hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 5–21. · DOI
  55. Liu, M., Bera, S., Corliss, S., Svinicki, M., & Beth, A. (2004). Understanding the connection between cognitive tool use and cognitive processes as used by sixth graders in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 309–334. · DOI
  56. Liu, M., Horton, L., Corliss, S. B., Svinicki, M. D., Bogard, T., Kim, J., et al. (2009). Students’ problem-solving as mediated by their cognitive tool use: A study of tool use patterns. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(1), 111–139. · DOI
  57. Liu, M., Horton, L., Kang, J., Kimmons, R. & Lee, J. (2013a). Using a Ludic simulation to make learning of middle school space science fun. The International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 5(1). · doi:10.4018/jgcms.2013010105
  58. Liu, M., Yuen, T. T. Horton, L., Lee, J., Toprac, P. and Bogard, T. (2013b). Designing technology-enriched cognitive tools to support young learners’ problem solving. The International Journal of Cognitive Technology.
  59. Livingston, E., & Borko, H. (1989). Expert-novice differences in teaching: A cognitive analysis and implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(4), 36–42. doi: 10.1177/002248718904000407 . · DOI · Paper page
  60. Lyle, J. (2003). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 861–878. doi: 10.1080/0141192032000137349 . · DOI · Paper page
  61. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59, 43–64. doi: 10.3102/00346543059001043 . · DOI · Paper page
  62. Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26(1–2), 49–63. · DOI · Paper page
  63. Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 47–62). New York: Macmillan.
  64. Merriënboer, J., & Stoyanov, S. (2008). Learners in a changing learning landscape: Reflection from an instructional design perspective. In J. Visser, M. Visser-Valfrey, D. N. Aspin, & J. D. Chapman (Eds.), Lifelong learning book series (Vol. 12, pp. 69–90). Dordrecht, South Holland: Springer.
  65. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  66. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. doi: 10.1037/h0043158 . · DOI · Paper page
  67. Patel, V. L., & Groen, G. J. (1991). The general and specific nature of medical expertise: A critical look. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 93–125). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  68. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 92–104. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1017 . · DOI · Paper page
  69. Prawat, R. S. (1989). Promoting access to knowledge, strategy, and disposition in students: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 59, 1–41. doi: 10.2307/1170445 . · doi:10.3102/00346543059001001 · Paper page
  70. Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1 . · DOI · Paper page
  71. Ramdass, D., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Developing self-regulation skills: The important role of homework. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(2), 194–218. · DOI · Paper page
  72. Savelsbergh, E. R., de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1998). Competence-related differences in problem representations. In M. van Sommeren, P. Reimann, T. de Jong, & H. Boshuizen (Eds.), The role of multiple representations in learning and problem solving (pp. 262–282). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  73. Schkade, D. A., & Kleinmuntz, D. N. (1994). Information displays and choice processes: Differential effects of organization, form, and sequence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57(3), 319–337. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1994.1018 . · DOI
  74. Simons, K., & Klein, J. (2007, January). The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 35(1), 41–72. doi: 10.1007/s11251-006-9002-5 . · DOI · Paper page
  75. Spector, J. M. (2008). Expertise and dynamic tasks. In H. Qudrat-Ullah, J. M. Spector, & P. I. Davidsen (Eds.), Understanding complex systems series: Complex decision making 2008 (pp. 25–37). Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-73665-3_2 . · DOI
  76. Spector, J. M. (2010). Mental representations and their analysis: An epistemological perspective. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & N. M. Seel (Eds.), Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge 2010 (Part 1, pp. 27–40). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-5662-0_3 . · DOI
  77. Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
  78. van Gog, T., Ericsson, K., Rikers, R., & Paas, F. (2005, September). Instructional design for advanced learners: Establishing connections between the theoretical frameworks of cognitive load and deliberate practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 73–81. doi: 10.1007/BF02504799 . · DOI · Paper page
  79. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  80. Xun, G., & Land, S. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interaction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5–22. doi: 10.1007/BF02504836 . · DOI · Paper page
  81. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed., Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  82. Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 179–217. · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2102_3 · Paper page
  83. Zimmerman, B. J., & Campillo, M. (2003). Motivating self-regulated problem solvers. In J. E. Davidson & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of problem solving (pp. 233–262). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

See all 28

Metadata

Authors
Bogard, T., Liu, M., & Chiang, Y.-H. V.
Venue
Educational Technology Research and Development
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2013-05-01
Volume
61
Issue
3
Pages
465-503
ISSN
  • 1042-1629
  • 1556-6501
DOI
10.1007/s11423-013-9295-4
Cited by
28
References
8
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Thresholds of knowledge development in complex problem solving: a multiple-case study of advanced learners’ cognitive processes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11423-013-9295-4
The paper
Bogard, T., Liu, M., & Chiang, Y.-H. V. (2013). Thresholds of knowledge development in complex problem solving: a multiple-case study of advanced learners’ cognitive processes. Educational Technology Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9295-4

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.