ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Designing intentional learning environments
Full text PdfPdf (931 KB)
Source ACM Special Interest Group for Design of Communication archive
Proceedings of the 15th annual international conference on Computer documentation table of contents
Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
Pages: 173 - 180  
Year of Publication: 1997
ISBN:0-89791-861-4
Author
Margaret Martinez  Performance Dimensions
Sponsor
SIGDOC: ACM Special Interest Group for Design of Communications
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 5,   Downloads (12 Months): 34,   Citation Count: 7
Additional Information:

references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/263367.263390
What is a DOI?

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Bandura, A., & Schu~ D. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal serf-motivation. J'oumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586-598.
 
2
Bandura, A., & Wood, R. (I989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision-making. Journal of_pers.onalitv and Social Psvcholoffv, ~ 805-814.
 
3
Bereiter, C. (1993). Sumassin~ ourselves: Incluirv into the nature and implications of e___~ertise. Chicago: Open Court.
 
4
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resuick (FA.), Knowin~ leamine, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates.
 
5
Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert & R. Kiuwo (F~.), Metacojmition, motivation, ~d understandine (pp. 65-116). HiUsdale, New Jersey; Efibaum Associates.
 
6
Brown, A. Campione, J., Reeve, R., Ferrara, R., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Interactive learning and individual understanding. In L. T. Landslilann (Ed.), Ctfiture, schooling, and mvcholo~icaI development (pp. 136-170). Hillsdale, blew Jersey; Erlbaum Associates.
 
7
Bunderson, C. V. (1996). Building an Expg. rt Leaminl~ Commtmit3r in a Preservice ,'Technoloev for Teachers': Course. Paper presented at Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association Conference, Fargo, SD, Oct 4, 1996.
 
8
Derry, S. 0992). Metacognitive models of learning and instructional system design. In M. Jones & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Adaptive learning environments (p. 267). Berlin: Springer Vefiag.
 
9
English, E., & Reigeluth, C. (1996). Formative research on sequencing instruction with the elaboration theory. Educational Technolom, R~e~.ch and Deve!0omnent~ 44(1), 23-42.
 
10
Flavell, J. (1971). First discussants comments: What is memory development. Human D_evelopment, ~ 272-278.
 
11
Flavell, I. (1979). Metacognition. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911
 
12
Flaveil, J. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognifion. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.). Metacomfifion, mptivafion, and understandine (pp. 21-29). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates.
 
13
Flavell, J., Friedrichs, A., & Hoyt, $. (1970) Development changes in memorization processes. Co~itive Psvcholoe~, ~ 324- 340.
 
14
Fredexi~n, N., Glaser, R., Lesgold, A., & Shafto, M. (Eds.). Diammstie monitorine of skill and knowledge acauisition (pp. 407- 432). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates.
 
15
Gagn6, R. M., Briggs, L., & Wager, W. (1992). _.P!Sn.' civies of Instructional Design (4th. ed.). New York: Harcoun Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
 
16
Glaser, R. (1984). Education and Thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 329, 93-104.
 
17
Lesh, R., Lamon, S., Gong, B., & Post, T. (1993). Using learning progress maps to improve instructional decision making In R. Lesh & S. Lamon (Ed.), Assessments of Authentic Performance in School Mathematics American Association for the Advancement of Sciences. Hillsdale, New jersey: Erlbaum Associates.
 
18
Mandinach, E. (1987). Clarifying the "A'in CAI for learners of different abilities. Journal of Educational Comvutine Research, 3, 113-128.
 
19
 
20
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of Psychological Assessment. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741-49.
21
 
22
Schraw, G. (1994). The effect of metacognitive knowledge on local and global monitoring. Contemporary Educatioru~! Psycholol~y, 19, 143-154.
 
23
Snow, R. (1989). Toward Assessment of Cognitive and Comttive Structures in Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(9), 8- 14.
 
24
Snow, R. & Farr, M. (1987). Cognitiveconafive-affective processes in aptitude, learning, and instruction: An introduction. In R. Snow & M. Fan' (Eds.), Conative and Affective Process Analysis_'. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
 
25
Snow, R., & Mandinach, E. (1989). Integratinl~ assessment and instruction: A research and development~nda. Unpublished paper presented to Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Center.
 
26
Snow, R., Mandinach, E., & McVey, M. (1990). Th_e tor, o~traphv of mastery assessment in instructional domains. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Te.sting Center.
 
27
Steinberg, R. (1996). Successful intelli~ence: how practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. New York: Simon & Schuster.
 
28
Weber, R. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational process. Review of Educational Researcl~ 42, 203-215.
 
29
Zimmerman, B., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview fi)r assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614-628.
 
30
Zimmerman, B., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Edu_.cationa!_.Psycholo~y, 80, 284-290.