Rodríguez SJ, Fajardo DG, Higuera RF, González MJF

Language: Spanish
References: 24
Page: 141-149
PDF size: 116.85 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The field of instructional design has enjoyed considerable success over the last two decades, but is now facing some problems expected along with its growth and the automated development systems complexity. Based largely on behavioral premises, it is adjusting to cognitive ways of viewing the learning process. Originally a primarily linear process, now is embracing new methods through computer design tools that allow greater flexibility in the management and order of design activities. In the present climate of change, many practitioners and theorists are unsure about “what works”; for example, how to apply computer systems to design automated prototypes of cognitive models. Our objectives are: 1) To review new methods and tools for doing cognitive model prototypes. 2) To survey some promising models of training design that incorporate cognitive learning principles. 3) To offer some guidelines for the design of educational programs based on those learning principles.

REFERENCES

1. Hopfield JJ, Brody CD. Learning rules and network repair in spike-timing-based computation networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101(1):337-42.

2. Deco G, Rolls ET, Horwitz B. “What” and “where” in visual working memory: a computational neurodynamical perspective for integrating FMRI and single-neuron data. J Cogn Neurosci 2004; 16(4):683-701.

3. Kirsch I, Lynn SJ, Vigorito M, Miller RR. The role of cognition in classical and operant conditioning. J Clin Psychol 2004;60(4):369-92.

4. Bunderson CV, Gibbons AS, Olsen JB, Kearsley GP. Work models: Beyond instructional objectives. Instructional Science 1981;10:205-215.

5. Zhang Y, Weng J, Hwang WS. Auditory learning: a developmental method. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 2005;16(3):601-16.

6. Zucker JD. A grounded theory of abstraction in artificial intelligence. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2003;358(1435):1293-309.

7. Wixted JT, Gaitan SC. Cognitive theories as reinforcement history surrogates: the case of likelihood ratio models of human recognition memory. Anim Learn Behav 2002;30(4):289-305.

8. Vivekananda-Schmidt P, Hassell AB, McLean M. The evaluation of multimedia learning packages in the education of health professionals: experience of a musculoskeletal examination package. Nurse Res 2004;11(3):43-55.

9. Hoff TJ, Pohl H, Bartfield J. Creating a learning environment to produce competent residents: the roles of culture and context. Acad Med 2004;79(6):532-39.

10. Spallek H. Adaptive hypermedia: a new paradigm for educational software. Adv Dent Res 2003;17:38-42.

11. Butler R. Are mastery and ability goals both adaptive? Evaluation, initial goal construction and the quality of task engagement. Br J Educ Psychol 2006;76(Pt 3):595-611.

12. Knight CM, Moule P, Desbottes Z. The grid that bridges the gap. Nurse Educ Today 2000;20(2):116-22.

13. Van Quekelberghe PR, Jakob T, Hoffmann D, Wetter T, Finkeissen E. Minimalist knowledge representation of primary care diseases in the medrapid.info knowledge base. Inform Prim Care 2005;13(4):239-48.

14. Carroll JM. Minimalist design for active users. In R. M. Baecher and W. A. S. Buxton (Eds.). Readings in human-computer interaction: A multidisciplinary approach. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. 1987.

15. Jonassen DH. Performance analysis. Performance & Instruction 1989;4:15-23.

16. Poggio T, Rifkin R, Mukherjee S, Niyogi P. General conditions for predictivity in learning theory. Nature 2004;428(6981):419-22.

17. Yuan Y, McKelvey B. Situated learning theory: adding rate and complexity effects via Kauffman’s NK model. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci 2004;8(1):65-101.

18. Ellermann CR, Kataoka-Yahiro MR, Wong LC. Logic models used to enhance critical thinking. J Nurs Educ 2006;45(6):220-7.

19. Owen J, Grealish L. Clinical education delivery-a collaborative, shared governance model provides a framework for planning, implementation and evaluation. Collegian 2006;13(2):15-21.

20. Campbell SK. Are models of disability useful in real cases? Pediatric case examples realized in research, clinical practice, and education. Phys Ther 2006;86(6):881-87.

21. Rosenthal DR, Worley PS, Mugford B, Stagg P. Vertical integration of medical education: Riverland experience, South Australia. Rural Remote Health 2004;4(1):228.

22. Spiro RJ, Feltovich PJ, Jacobson MJ, Coulson RL. Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology 1991;31(5):24-33.

23. Apolloni B, Esposito A, Malchiodi D, Orovas C, Palmas G, Taylor JG. A general framework for learning rules from data. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 2004;15(6):1333-49.

24. Prichep LS. Use of normative databases and statistical methods in demonstrating clinical utility of QEEG: importance and cautions. Clin EEG Neurosci 2005;36(2):82-87.