The Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing: American Psychologist December 2001
The Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing: American Psychologist December 2001
The Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing: American Psychologist December 2001
net/publication/11573504
CITATIONS READS
29 688
1 author:
Alan M. Lesgold
University of Pittsburgh
86 PUBLICATIONS 2,836 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Alan M. Lesgold on 02 February 2016.
Alan M. Lesgold
University of Pittsburgh
Lesgold, A. (2001). The nature and methods of learning by doing. American Psychologist, 56(11), 964-973.
CONTACT:
Alan M. Lesgold
Dean, School of Education
University of Pittsburgh
5T01 WWPH
230 S Bouquet St
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Phone: 412-648-1773
FAX: 412-648-1825
AL@pitt.edu
Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing 2
Abstract
This presentation reviews some of the psychological research on learning by
doing and discusses the role that learning-by-doing approaches can play in
education and training. It includes a discussion of the author’s implementations
of this approach and the lessons learned from these implementations. Improved
forms of learning by doing now can be supported by information technologies,
and there are prospects for extensions to group learning by doing and group
learning from examples in the near future.
Table of Contents
Abstract................................................................................................................................. 2
Experiences Building Systems to Promote Learning by Doing ................................. 5
The Sherlock Years...................................................................................................... 6
Sherlock 2: Transfer...................................................................................................11
The Intel Experience.................................................................................................13
Learning from Conversations .........................................................................................18
Final Comment..................................................................................................................19
References...........................................................................................................................20
Figures .................................................................................................................................24
Brief Biography of Alan Lesgold....................................................................................28
Selected Bibliography of Alan Lesgold, Chronologically Ordered ..........................31
Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing 3
On the other hand, we also see remarkable examples of the problems Whitehead
raised in his essay. Schooling in the United States is all too often a “mile wide
and an inch deep.” Fragmentary topics are taught, quickly memorized, tested, and
then forgotten. Also, training courses all too often consist of “theory” first and
brief practical experience afterwards. Further, any university course that provides
practical experience solving complex problems is pejoratively labeled as “training”
and not “education.” My own psychology department subscribes to the view that
the right preparation of an applied cognitive psychologist is training in basic
Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing 4
research, which provides a “foundation” upon which later practical efforts can be
grounded. This is defensible if the foundation is grounded in experience actually
doing basic research, though experience doing applied research would broaden
the experiential base for conceptual understanding.
My work in the past two decades has been driven increasingly by the belief that
more learning by doing is needed in most education and training situations.
Psychologists’ aversion to learning by doing as the fundamental form of learning
is driven in part by an incomplete understanding of some basic psychological
principles, especially those relating to transfer. The dominant theory of transfer
for the past century has been the “identical elements” view put forward by
Thorndike (Thorndike & Woodworth, 1901). Further, extensions to the
Thorndike view to account for transfer have tended to see abstraction as the key
to transfer (e.g., Laird, Newell, & Rosenbloom, 1987).
likely to be useful, and adaptation of the solution in that case to fit the new
circumstances. From the point of view of case-based reasoning researchers, then,
transfer comes not from identical “elements” but rather from experience with
cases that, as a group, cover the range of situations likely to arise in a given
domain. While case-based reasoning approaches have proven very useful in the
world of machine cognition, there is less explicit testing of such approaches in
humans (but see Kolodner, 1994; and Schank, 1995). Nonetheless, the success of
case-based reasoning in artificial intelligence suggests that approaches based upon
case-based reasoning principles should be effective, something colleagues and I
set out to test beginning in about 1984.
The fundamental thought we had in mind was that if tough tasks in the real world
are handled best via case-based reasoning, then we ought to consider what
knowledge is needed to become a good case-based reasoner. Certainly, one needs
experience carrying out the three steps of situation assessment, retrieval of
relevant cases, and adaptation of past solutions. In addition, though, one needs a
mental library of cases, a collection rich enough to come close to most situations
in which we expect the student to be able to perform later. With these two kinds
of training, high levels of domain expertise should become possible. Much of my
work for about ten years was directed at practical implementations of this idea.
individual plays so that they can present a player with a collection of recent game
experiences and help the player sort out the features that determine which of
several cases – or abstractions of cases – is the best guide to a given situation. Put
another way, football is learned by experiencing a large number of cases and
receiving detailed advice on how to do the situation assessment and adaptation
needed to apply old cases to new situations.
We have a view of this kind of learning that becomes less charitable when we step
back and abstract it. We then call it “the school of hard knocks” or “sink and
swim.” In reality, all of the application of psychology to the design of learning by
doing is in assuring that no one sinks and in developing coaching sufficient to
assure that the learner not only doesn’t sink but also refines situation awareness
and adaptation capabilities as much as possible given the set of case experiences
he or she has.
of more than ten years, Sherrie Gott and I, and teams of great colleagues in both
the University of Pittsburgh and the Air Force, worked at developing two
iterations of a system we called Sherlock (Gott & Lesgold, 2000) the name was
meant to characterize the complex problem solving we were teaching, though
during a few rough periods we wondered whether the 7% solution might not
have been a better path to follow).
It was not uncommon during the initial years of our work for people to insist that
intelligent support of learning by doing was beyond the potential of artificial
intelligence. Indeed, I used to joke that my colleagues in computer science wrote
dissertations proving that what we were doing with Sherlock was theoretically
impossible. Actually, if we had followed the standard paradigm for intelligent
tutoring systems, it would have been!
When one shifts from the relatively simple and constrained world of academic
course problems to real world problems, the student modeling approach cannot
always work. As the number of possible ways of addressing a problems and the
Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing 8
Because we used the expert model of the domain – in the case of Sherlock this
was a particular piece of complex equipment – to organize the representation of
the device, many aspects of Sherlock worked together to help teach situation
assessment and the adaptation of solutions learned from earlier problems.
Students gathered information to solve equipment maintenance problems via an
interface that was itself organized the way experts organize the system.
Specifically, a division was made between switching circuitry and the effects
produced with the circuitry switched to a particular configuration, and a further
division was made among major categories of switched configuration. Every
time the student needed to ask for information, he or she was exposed to a
typography of system component types that was helpful to the situation
assessment process.
Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing 9
Further, whenever a student asked for advice that was best conveyed via a circuit
diagram, that diagram was configured to expose how an expert would be
conceiving the apparatus given the actions the student had already taken.
Whatever the expert would be thinking about took up more space on the screen
and was presented in more detail – exactly the detail that would figure in the
relevant expert situation assessment at that instant in the course of problem
solution. The need for a complex interface to permit access to many different
kinds of information was turned into an opportunity to superimpose lessons in
problem solving strategy on top of specific case experiences. And, of course, this
was “sink-or-swim” without the possibility of sinking. The student could always
keep asking for information that was progressively more explicit in telling what to
do next toward a problem solution.
Overall, we had built a system that embodied the idea of learning from cases with
coaching about situation assessment and case adaptation. It provided partial
simulations of the domain in which knowledge was to be used, structuring that
partial simulation to reflect expert knowledge that helped in situation assessment.
It had an expert model that drove its coaching capabilities, but it did not do
student modeling. Rather, it modeled the current problem situation as it was
transformed by actions the student took. This permitted more effective situation-
specific coaching and was computationally tractable.
At another level, though, we had to do a lot of analysis and design work that was
more fundamentally psychological rather than computational in character.
Specifically, we needed to build a family of progressively more expert models of
expertise in the domain, which in turn required a substantial amount of cognitive
task analysis. This aspect of the work, perhaps more than any other, benefited
greatly from the insights and activity of my colleague Sherrie Gott. Sherrie
pioneered a structured interview strategy that was extremely helpful in doing the
Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing 10
needed cognitive task analysis (Gott, 1987; Gott, Bennett, & Gillet, 1986; Means
& Gott, 1988). This scheme made it easy to reconstruct the entire process of
expert solution to a complex problem, including the way in which the expert
represented the problem situation and assessed it, the kinds of cases it reminded
him or her of, and the ways in which schemes anchored in other cases were
adapted to produce a solution plan.
So far, I have not addressed two basic issues in applying learning by doing
strategies, namely the selection and sequencing of problems and the potential for
transfer of learning beyond the immediate scope of the problems set on which
learning occurs. The problem sequencing issue was addressed in our first
Sherlock effort and was based upon Gott’s task analysis scheme. Specifically, it
was possible to derive, from the cognitive task analysis, a progression of cases
that required progressively more of the solution strategies experts bring to their
work and that built from problems requiring simple application of a strategy to
those requiring iterative or recursive application of multiple solution strategies.
The results of the first Sherlock venture were quite heartening. It was clear that
airmen receiving the learning-by-doing training from Sherlock improved their
problem solving capabilities dramatically (see Lesgold et al., 1992). Indeed, a
crude and at least partly reasonable account equates the amount of improvement
in complex problem solving ability produced by about 20 hours of Sherlock
training as equivalent to that produced by about four years of on-the-job
experience.
This figure, while only partly defensible, raises an important point. If simple on-
the-job experience were all that was needed to become a knowledgeable expert,
then on-the-job learning should be relatively efficient as a source of expertise. If,
in fact, it takes years of on-the-job experience to produce results as good as those
Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing 11
Sherlock 2: Transfer
There were a number of technical problems surrounding the first Sherlock. It ran
on very exotic equipment, and it was very difficult to figure out what it really cost,
since it evolved out of a research project on cognitive task analysis. More
important, though, we did not have a good model for transfer nor did we have
any tests to see if Sherlock produced transfer. So, like many a film maker faced
with a successful product, we convinced our sponsors to let us produce a sequel,
in which we focused our evaluation on transfer issues.
The results have been reported elsewhere in some detail (Gott & Lesgold, 2000).
We added some tools that permitted students to compare their solutions with
those of experts and to get more explanation of differences between their
approach and a more expert approach. Figure 1 shows one simple example, a
Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing 12
check list by which the student could evaluate his or her performance, after which
the system would display an expert evaluation and explain the reasons for
suggesting room for improvement on particular issues.
Basically, this kind of approach amounts to telling about the principles for
situation assessment and adaptation of strategies but anchoring all of this telling
explicitly to the case just presented. The learning by doing is supplemented by
explication, one way or another, of the experience one has just had. It turns out
that this sort of approach works remarkably well, when measured in terms of
subsequent capability to actually do complex problem solving. Gott and Lesgold
(2000) tested the adequacy of both Sherlock and Sherlock 2 using what Gott
called a verbal troubleshooting test.
In such a test, a problem is posed, and the student is asked to state each
successive action he or she would take. The experimenter gives the result of the
action,1 and the student then goes on to the next action, eventually stating his
diagnosis for the machine problem that was posed. To test for transfer, a new
machine was designed that could be diagnosed using the same principles but that
had different kinds of functions as part of its design, along with some differences
in electronics and basic operations. We called this mythical system the
Frankenstation. It had the same family resemblance to the domain of original
training as several actual machines, but by using an imaginary machine, we could
control for any prior experience that a few students might have had with other
real machines.
The basic results were that students trained on Sherlock 2 diagnosed both the
domain machine and the Frankenstation much better than controls and almost as
Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing 13
well as senior experts. So, we conclude that the approaches used in Sherlock and
Sherlock 2 are effective and do produce transfer (see Gott & Lesgold, 2000, for
details).
By being part of a joint working team, partly at the University of Pittsburgh and
partly at Intel, I got to experience some of the best of modern business
organization and practice. The team included people ranging from technicians
with work experience but no more than two years of formal post-secondary
education to people with doctorates. On any given day, the real planning and
management of the project was led by whoever had the most useful information
for the next steps. Technicians sometimes modified the project Gantt charts and
working plan just like managers did, if they happened to have relevant
information. The project was also remarkably free of individual ego, with
everyone working toward shared goals. If a team member had a personal or
family emergency, the work went on without interruption, with others filling in
the missing contributions of whoever was temporarily hors de combat. My sense
today of the new demands of the work world on our education system is driven
substantially by the experiences I had with Intel and the universality of certain
skill requirements in the work team, regardless of level of professional or
technical education.
Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing 14
The Air Force differs from the business world in some important ways. Most
important, they make decisions to be cost-effective, but without the added
discipline of profit structures for their work. Some defense investments are so
important, that we have to spend the money, regardless of how much it is. To be
useful for the rest of the economy, an approach needs to be cost-effective within
the scope of normal business operations, and it has to have a cost that is
consistent with the decision making structure of everyday businesses.
However, there are two types of problems we have not yet overcome. First,
businesses do not have reliable, replicated models of the learning curve for
entering the learning by doing business. They can see the six or seven figure
initial cost for the first effort, but are not confident that the second or third effort
will be clearly practical. Until we in the psychology world do enough work of this
kind to clarify the learning curve, companies will see a move into learning by
doing as too risky.
A second problem has to do with the structure of organizations and who within
the organization has to take the risk. It is quite feasible to think of building
Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing 15
intelligent systems for learning by doing for under $100,000 and for those
systems to produce returns on investment in the millions of dollars. However,
training departments often operate with average budgets for a new “course” that
are in the low five figure range. It is an act of courage for a training manager to
spend two to three times as much money on an approach he or she is just starting
to understand and with which there has been little departmental experience than
is spent on projects that the department knows it can do well (by current
standards). Either, we need to introduce significant training on developing
learning by doing systems into the programs that produce training managers, or
we will need to get the costs of such systems down even lower.
The work with Intel also provided additional opportunities to refine our
approach to training for transfer, largely because of one of those serendipitous
experiences Skinner used to talk about. When Intel first raised the prospect of
building an intelligent coached apprenticeship system, they considered several
possible jobs for which they needed more training in complex problem solving.
Eventually, they ended up developing the training for an ion deposition system,
one that puts layers on chips. In our second effort, we ended up using an ion
beam implant machine, one that writes circuit components on chips. Amazingly,
it turned out that a physicist interested in science education who had been
working with me on some youth apprenticeship approaches, happened to hold
patents from other domains on both ion deposition and ion beam implant
processes. This person, Martin Nahemow, was the main source of a transfer-
producing approach we called the Process Explorer (see Lesgold and Nahemow,
2001 for details).
The core of Nahemow’s thinking was that there are both categories of problem
manifestations and categories of system failures that index much of the
knowledge an expert accumulates about complex problem solving in a domain,
Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing 16
The first task is to produce the equivalent of a matrix in which the rows are
system failure types and the columns are types of manifested failures. This would
be a very big matrix, so big in fact that we would never store the whole thing,
since most of the cells would be empty. Displaying such a matrix to a student
would be worse than useless – it would be unnecessarily confusing. However,
only a small piece of the matrix is relevant to any given problem, and that is
exactly the piece that can be a useful source of transfer-related knowledge that is
anchored in the problem itself. Here’s how it works.
explanation of the relationship selected by the student in Figure 2 (the cell with
black and white reversed).
Through vehicles like the Process Explorer, it is quite possible to insert relevant
conceptual presentations and explanations into learning by doing, and it can be
done dynamically and under control of the learner. This is one way – and I am
sure there are others – of realizing the idea of learning by doing and the idea of
learner-controlled learning in a disciplined and powerful way. We know that this
approach works. It has been evaluated (see Lesgold & Nahemow, 2001). What
remains to be established is the specific range of learning contexts for which it
works – we only looked at complex problem solving in technical domains.
Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing 18
While our theoretical work is independent, Dan Suthers and I have been working
with a team including Daniel Jones, Amy Soller, Megan Hall and Lauren Resnick
to develop web-based conversational environments in which teachers can learn
by discussing specific video examples of teaching. The system being produced
will be the primary learning environment for the Institute for Learning, a
University of Pittsburgh effort in professional development of teachers and
school leaders. The trick, when learning by doing is not guided by a problem that
the learner is trying to solve, is to guide the observations of cases and their
discussion among learners. This will be done in two ways. First, there are rubrics
that shape the discussions, and often these rubrics are first used in an in-person
discussion facilitated by instructional experts. Then, after a structured
introduction, students can discuss the cases they have observed. This discussion,
when it takes place on a web site, can, in principle, be coached by an intelligent
system, though much work is still needed to determine how such systems might
work.
My colleague Dan Suthers (2001a, 2001b), now at the University of Hawaii, has
been addressing a number of important questions about collaborative learning
Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing 19
Final Comment
I have had unbelievably good fortune in my career – good mentors, good
students, good collaborators – and all have contributed to whatever I may have
achieved. I hope that is clear from this brief presentation. There is another
message that I hope I have conveyed. This is the potential for a field of cognitive
engineering that can be helpful to our society and to the world. However, we will
not have such a field unless we encourage our students to acquire enough
mathematics, science, and formal skills to be able to work with and seek out the
complementary expertises they will need to be true cognitive engineers. Not all
Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing 20
psychology students will aspire to an engineering career, but given the range of
knowledge needed in many areas of psychological research, none will be hurt by
being encouraged to seek strong mathematical, formal-symbolic, and scientific
background as part of their initial liberal educations. Had I not had teachers,
family, and friends who embodied this advice, I would not have been able to do
the work that APA decided to honor.
References
Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive
tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 4 (2), 167-207.
Chi M.T.H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M.W., Reimann, P. & Glaser, R. (1989) Self-
Explanations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to
Solve Problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
Gott, S. P., Bennett, W., & Gillet, A. (1986). Models of technical competence for
intelligent tutoring systems. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction. 13, 43-
46.
Laird, J.E., Newell, A., & P.S. Rosenbloom. (1987). Soar: An architecture for
general intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 33, 1-64.
Lesgold, A. M., Lajoie, S. P., Bunzo, M., & Eggan, G. (1992). SHERLOCK: A
coached practice environment for an electronics troubleshooting job.
In J. Larkin & R. Chabay (Eds.), Computer assisted instruction and
Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing 22
Lesgold, A., & Nahemow, M. (2001). Tools to assist learning by doing: Achieving
and assessing efficient technology for learning. In D. Klahr & S.
Carver (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Means, B., & Gott, S. P. (1988). Cognitive task analysis as a basis for tutor
development: Articulating abstract knowledge representations. In J.
Psotka, D. Massey, and S. Mutter (Eds.). Intelligent tutoring systems:
Lessons learned (pp. 35-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schank, R. C., & Cleary, C. (1995). Engines for Education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The Aims of Education and Other Essays. New York:
Macmillan.
Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing 24
Figures
Footnotes
1
We went to this approach initially because our control groups did not have
experience using the tutor. Consequently, if we had used the tutor to present
test problems, we would not have known whether differences were due to
unfamiliarity with the interface or to actual differences in troubleshooting
capability.
2
A Markov model is one that is completely specified by listing its states, an
identifiable observable outcome corresponding to each state, and probability of
getting from each state to any of the others that can be reached directly. A
hidden Markov model is one whose states have specific probabilities of
generating any given observable outcome, rather than always having 100%
probability of generating a specific outcome. An algorithm is available that
determines the best fitting hidden Markov model for a process given a set of
sequences generated by that process (Viterbi, 1967).
Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing 28
In the 1970’s, Lesgold slowly moved his work from laboratory studies of memory
to experimental work on reading comprehension and its acquisition. In writings
with Charles Perfetti, he addressed reading as a flexible form of expertise and
discussed trade-offs among word recognition skills, prior domain knowledge, and
general comprehension skills. For the remainder of his career, he has dealt, one
way or another, with learning by doing and how it can be facilitated.
In the early 1980’s, Lesgold published articles on the acquisition of expertise and
complex skills in medicine and technical domains. Then, he undertook to
translate his and other findings into a useful technology of intelligently coached
instruction. One result was Sherlock – an electronic learning environment for
learning to troubleshoot complex electronic equipment. Sherlock provided
learners with real-life cases, and guided them through their learning process by
“coached apprenticeship”.
In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, Lesgold continued his work on electronic
apprenticeship environments. But now, the focus was more on the assessment of
complex performances, on the authentic measurement of job performance, and
on the design of intelligent systems for testing. An early advocate – following
Robert Glaser – of full integration of teaching and testing, he stressed the
Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing 30
More recently, he and colleagues also developed a technology for supporting rich
collaborative engagement of students and professionals with complex issues and
complex bodies of knowledge. This work, currently focused on teacher
professional education, previously was sponsored by the National Science
Foundation, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the President’s
Technology Initiative, and currently is funded by the U. S. Department of
Education. The World Bank sponsored related work.
Over the course of his career, Lesgold has collaborated on written work with
Bruce Bender, B. Berardi, A. Block, Jeff Bonar, Gordon Bower, John Seely
Brown, Marilyn Bunzo, Violetta Cavalli-Sforza, Susan Chipman, Kwang-Su Cho,
Bill Clancey, Michal Clark, John Connelly, Mary Beth Curtis, Hildrene De Good,
Sharon Derry, Gary Eggan, Paul Feltovich, Mike Feuer, Robert Fitzhugh, Sipke
Fokkema, Jim Fox, Claude Frasson, Gareth Gabrys, Gilles Gauthier, Dedre
Gentner, Morton Anne Gernsbacher, Robert Glaser, Susan Goldman, Roberta
Golinkoff, Maria Gordin, Sherrie Gott, Linda Greenberg, J. Guttman, Kathleen
Hammond, Nira Hativa, Ted Hughes, Joyce Ivill, Rob Kane, Sandra Katz,
William Keith, Dale Klopfer, Susanne Lajoie, Clayton Lewis, Joel Levin, Debra
Logan, Heinz Mandl, Sr. Claire McCormick, Martin Nahemow, Luis Osin,
Massimo Paolucci, Charles Perfetti, Dan Peters, Mitch Rabinowitz, Govinda Rao,
Fred Reif, Lauren Resnick, Steve Roth, Harriet Rubinson, Osnat Sarig, Mark
Seidenberg, Colleen Seifert, Mike Shafto, Joseph Shimron, Elliott Soloway, Dan
Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing 31
Suthers, David Tieman, Eva Toth, Joe Toth, Gregg Vesonder, Yen Wang, Arlene
Weiner, David Winzenz, and Dick Wolf.
Lesgold, A.M., & Goldman, S.R. (1973). Encoding uniqueness and the imagery
mnemonic in associative learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 12, 193-202.
Lesgold, A.M., Roth, S.F., & Curtis, M.E. (1979). Foregrounding effects in
discourse comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 18, 291-308.
Lesgold, A., Rubinson, H., Feltovich, P., Glaser, R., Klopfer, D., & Wang, Y.
(1988). Expertise in a Complex Skill: diagnosing X-ray Pictures. In
Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., and Farr, M. (Eds.), The nature of expertise.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glaser, R., Lesgold, A., & Lajoie, S. (1987). Toward a Cognitive Theory for the
Measurement of Achievement. In R. R. Ronning, J. Glover, J. C.
Conoley, & J. C. Witt. The influence of cognitive psychology on testing.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lesgold, A. M., Lajoie, S. P., Bunzo, M., & Eggan, G. (1992). SHERLOCK: A
coached practice environment for an electronics troubleshooting job.
In J. Larkin & R. Chabay (Eds.), Computer assisted instruction and
intelligent tutoring systems: Shared issues and complementary approaches (pp.
201-238). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Katz, S., & Lesgold, A. (1993). The role of the tutor in computer-based
collaborative learning situations. In S. Lajoie & S. Derry (Eds.),
Computers as cognitive tools (pp.289-317). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing 33
Lesgold, A., Katz, S., Greenberg, L., Hughes, E., & Eggan, G. (1992).
Extensions of intelligent tutoring paradigms to support collaborative
learning. In S. Dijkstra, H. P. M. Krammer, & J. J. G. van
Merrienboer (Eds.), Instructional models in computer-based learning
environments, pp. 291-311. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Derry, S. P., & Lesgold, A. M. (1996). Toward a situated social practice model
for instructional design. In R. Calfee & D. Berliner (Eds.), Handbook
of Educational Psychology. New York: Macmillan.
Osin, L., & Lesgold, A. (1996). A proposal for the reengineering of the
educational system. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 621-656.
Lesgold, A., & Nahemow, M. (2001). Tools to assist learning by doing: Achieving
and assessing efficient technology for learning. In D. Klahr & S.
Carver (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing 34