The design of computerized practice fields for problem solving and contextualized transfer.

Current theories of learning emphasize the importance of learner-centered, active, authentic, environments for meaningful knowledge construction. From this perspective, computerized case-based learning systems afford practice fields for learners to build domain knowledge and problem-solving skills and to support contextualized transfer of knowledge and skills to professional practice. Case-based learning systems are playing a more and more important role in clinical practice disciplines that deal with ill-structured problems, especially in medicine and education. Technology is an efficient means to provide such learning environments. However, the design of computerized case-based learning systems is extremely complex. This article applies the eight design principles for creating computer-based practice fields described by Barab and Duffy (2000) to two case-based learning systems: CAMPUS (Computer-assisted Education in Medicine via Platform-Independent System) and the TPSS (Teacher Problem Solving Skills) series of interactive cases. The authors describe the use of these design principles for practice fields in these two learning systems and summarize evaluation findings based on their implementation. The one practice field design principle that cannot be implemented within a computer-based learning system is to provide an opportunity to negotiate meaning within a community of learners. To achieve this design principle, instructors need to provide opportunities for discourse around the cases so that knowledge can be manipulated, re-constructed, and transferred beyond the computer-based learning environment.

**********

Many of the current learning theories focus on authentic, student-centered learning environments. As Jonassen and Land (2000) stated, the past decade "has witnessed the most substantive and revolutionary changes in learning theory in history" (p. iv). In fact, newer theoretical learning foundations--such as socially shared cognition, situated learning, everyday cognition and reasoning, activity theory, ecological psychology, distributed cognition, and case-based reasoning--share many of the beliefs and assumptions of constructivism. For example, these learning theories are based on the belief that learning is neither a transmissive nor submissive process, but rather, a willful, intentional, active, conscious, constructive, activity that requires reciprocal intention-action-reflection cognition. The fundamental shift to constructivist-oriented learning theories asserts that learning is a process of meaning making, not of knowledge transmission, and that it is a social-dialogical process influenced by communities of practice.

The movement to a constructivist-learning paradigm has influenced the design and development of open-ended learning environments like problem-based learning (Hmelo, 1998) and goal based scenarios (Schank, Fano, Bett, & Jona, 1994). Land and Hannafin (2000) described open-ended learning environments generically as student-centered learning environments that focus on the affordances within environments that allow learners to affect their environments and make meaning. These learner-centered environments provide interactive, complementary activities that enable individuals to address unique learning interests and needs, study multiple levels of complexity, and deepen understanding (Hannafin & Land, 1997). Technology in these environments is frequently employed as a tool to support experimentation, manipulation, and idea generation in the construction of knowledge (Jonassen, 2000).

A critical extension of knowledge construction is transfer, which can be defined as the use of knowledge in applied, contextualized situations. Studies of differences between novice and expert use of knowledge demonstrate that experts go beyond merely acquiring knowledge; they are able to retrieve knowledge in a flexible way and apply it differentially within different contexts. Experts understand how and when to use knowledge (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999; National Research Council, 2000) and reconstruct knowledge based on new information and new problems. Knowledge that is acquired out-of-context often remains as "inert knowledge" that is not retrieved and used across contexts (Hasselbring, 2001). Transfer of new knowledge and skills is enhanced when the learning approach requires learners to crisscross multiple, real world problems (Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1991) and to monitor their learning by using meta-cognitive strategies (Brown, 1975). Case-based learning systems can facilitate this "constructivist" type of transfer by bringing real world problems into the learning space and by providing performance feedback and opportunities for meta-cognitive reflection tied to authentic problems (National Research Council, 2000). In computer-based learning environments, learners can have multiple opportunities to try out and adapt solutions to problems by combining prior knowledge, problem-solving strategies, and self-regulated learning as they crisscross multiple cases and re-construct their knowledge through action.

Due to the complexities in creating active, user-centered learning environments, it is difficult to derive an inclusive design model that meets all the desired requirements for any given environment. Therefore, a reasonable aim is to align the design principles to the particular theoretical foundations, assumptions, and practices which underpin the goals for the learning system. The design principles for practice fields (Barab & Duffy, 2000) will be discussed as one set of design principles that align with the goals for case-based learning systems. Two modern systems which have been in educational use for several years--CAMPUS

for medical education and TPSS for teacher preparation in special education--will provide examples of how the design principles are implemented in these two learning systems. Also illustrated will be the use of these computerized learning systems to provide actual communities of practice for knowlege construction and problem solving, thereby supporting reconstruction of knowledge and contextualized transfer. The term "learning system" in this article refers to computerized, case-based, active learning systems that are CD or web-delivered for preparation of professionals.

PRACTICE FIELDS AND BEYOND

Practice fields--a term introduced by Senge (1994)--focuses mainly on situating content in authentic learner activities. In practice fields students engage in the kinds of problems and practices that they will encounter outside of school. "Knowing about" is defined as follows: knowing about refers to an activity--not a thing; knowing about is always contextualized--not abstract; knowing about is reciprocally constructed within the individual-environment interaction--not objectively defined or subjectively created; knowing about is a functional stance on the interaction--not a "truth" (Barab, Hay, & Duffy, 1998). Preparing practice fields involves creating circumscribed realistic activities or experiences for the learner. These activities must be authentic; they must present most of the cognitive demands the learner would encounter in the real world, that is, authentic problem solving and critical thinking in the domain. Practice fields are separate from the real field, but they are contexts in which learners can practice the kinds of activities they will encounter outside of schools. There is clearly a separation in time, setting, and activity from the real world for which the activity is preparation. Problem-based learning is one example of practice fields. Problem-based learning during the professional preparation years is more than practicing future skills; it builds domain knowledge and problem-solving skills in realistic situations. As effective as the practice field is, however, contextualized transfer only occurs when the learner engages in a real community of practice.

Design Principles

Barab and Duffy (2000) summarized the design principles for creating practice fields as follows:

Principle 1: Doing domain-related practice. Learners must be actively doing domain-related practice, not listening to the experiences or findings of others as summarized in texts or by teachers. Learning by doing is domain related (such as finding a cure for cancer) and not performance related (such as getting a good grade). That gives rise to a more authentic appreciation for, and understanding of, the content being learned.

Principle 2: Ownership of the inquiry. Learners must see the dilemma as worth investing their efforts. They must feel they are responsible for the solution. If they seek a solution from the teacher or a solution the teacher wants, they will not be engaged in the level of thinking in the domain that they would be engaged in outside of school.

Principle 3: Coaching and modeling of thinking skills. The instructor's job (albeit a real instructor or the learning system) is to coach and model learning and problem solving by asking questions that learners should be asking themselves. The questions are not directive but participatory, not focused on getting the right answer but rather focusing on the questions an expert problem solver would be asking him or herself.

Principle 4: Opportunity for reflection. In practice fields, reflection must be central. Reflection provides individuals the opportunity to think about why they are doing what they are doing and even to gather evidence to evaluate the efficacy of their decisions. Reflecting on the experience afterward allows individuals to correct misconceptions and fill in where understanding was inadequate. The reflective process is essential to the quality of learning and must be self-regulated.

Principle 5: Dilemmas are ill-structured. Dilemmas in which learners are engaged must be either ill-defined or loosely structured so that learners can impose their own problem frames. With such dilemmas learners can own the problems and the process. When working with ill-defined problems, the quality of the solution depends on the quality of the effort in the domain. It is always possible to work a little longer in an attempt to get a more detailed solution. It is in this inquiry with ill-structured dilemmas that ownership and learning occur.

Principle 6: Support the learner rather than simplify the dilemma. The dilemmas that learners encounter should reflect the complexity of the thinking and work that they are expected outside of the school context when learning is completed. Hence, the problem presented must be a real problem. Scaffolding is meant to support the learner in working in the practice field by providing the learner with the necessary support to undertake complex problems that otherwise would be beyond his or her current ability to solve.

Principle 7: Work is collaborative and social. Meaning is a process of continual negotiation. The quality and depth of this negotiation and understanding can only be determined in a social environment. That is, individuals can see if their understanding can accommodate the issues and views of others and whether there are points of view that they can usefully incorporate into their understanding. The importance of a learning community where ideas are discussed and understandings are enriched is critical to the design of effective practice fields.

Principle 8: The learning context is motivating. There is a need to involve learners in the issues and problems of the professional community. Learners must be introduced to the context of problems and their relevance, and this must be done in a way that challenges and engages the learner.

Benefits of Learning through Practice Fields

The benefits of learning through practice fields are increased when practice fields involve real community participation, the community being the profession. Whereas practice fields offer authentic learning experiences when implemented in an interactive learning system, there are certain limitations within that system because legitimate participation in the professional community is not a part of the system (Barab & Duffy, 2000). A context is needed to provide meaning to the knowledge and skills gained in the practice field. Learning in practice fields and involvement in communities of practice both involve working collaboratively on shared tasks, but meaning making occurs in the broader context of the profession. In other words, an individual does not become a physician or special education teacher or clinical psychologist by solving problems, but rather by engaging in the discourse of the profession as knowledge and skills are applied and reconstructed.

INTERACTIVE CASE-BASED LEARNING SYSTEMS

With their potential to provide interactive (active learning) multimedia applications, computers can be used to simulate realistic situations. Knowledge and skill acquisition can be significantly greater with computer-based compared to lecture-based teaching (Williams, Aubin, Harkiin, & Cottrell, 2001). Unlike real situations the simulated ones can be faced at the time needed, that is, at the time it is educationally wise or at the time the learner or individual desires.

In the area of special education, one of the health-related professions, educators must learn to use problem-solving approaches for working with children with emotional and behavioral disorders. These skills are difficult to learn and practice without supervised direct contact with children, parents, teachers, and other care providers. By learning and reflecting on these skills during the preprofessional preparation stage, future educators are more likely to possess the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary for teaching these children. Case-based learning approaches can provide a bridge between learning as a student and professional practice (Semrau & Fitzgerald, 1995).

In the area of medicine not all cases are available in reality at the time students should learn the corresponding context. Reasons can be a shortened patient stay or the specialty of a clinic where common but nevertheless important health problems will never be seen. Such problems can be learned and practiced "just in time" with a simulative case-based learning system integrating multimedia patient data such as videos, sounds, and images (Riedel, Singer, Heid et al., 2001).

Therefore, concerning the technically possible tenets (not the social, scenario-dependent ones), computer-based learning systems can provide a time, place, and teacher-independent practice field. Furthermore, computer-based learning systems can be used to implement a case-repository that is always available (maybe even world-wide as part of a community of practice), updated and reusable (Riedel, Singer, Leven, Geiss, & Toenshoff, 2000). Because a case is "the unit of consultation," "the unit of continuing education," and "the unit of clinical memory" (Cox, 2001), a library of cases available to the community is valuable and efficient.

CAMPUS

CAMPUS is a web-based learning shell system to develop and provide flexible, simulative real medical multimedia cases for use by educators, students, and physicians at different levels. It consists mainly of a user friendly authoring system as the tool for case-data input and a player component as the learner's front-end (Figure 1). The main screen represents a situated learning environment with familiar medical images and elements that provide an easily understandable, realistic, user interface. While working through a case, the learner is able to consult the patient record for results. The tutor gives expert comments and asks questions. At the bottom of the interface, a time line shows the current status within the case structure.

With the aid of this interface, the user tries to solve a medical case in a simulative manner, which means that he/she can do just about everything he/she wants to do (as in real life, e.g., anamnesis, physical and technical exams, lab tests) until he/she reaches a decision or feedback point where he/she has to make the diagnoses. The learner can do a physical exam by choosing the kind of exam (e.g., auscultation) and pointing to a specific body region (Figure 2). For inspection in general, an expert comment is available (indicated by the little head icon).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

To provide didactic elements, the case author can define expert comments and knowledge questions. According to the concept of "knowledge on demand," the user receives available expert comments on demand, not automatically. Similarly, the user can access more systematic knowledge by using online libraries in a context-sensitive manner.

The vocabulary (e.g., what technical exams are possible) has a realistic size and is case-independent to avoid simplifying the case by minimizing the number of alternatives. Having made a diagnosis, the user gets feedback with respect to his/her decisions by presenting a comparison between his measures and the procedures which the author of the case considers to be right, distinguished by different colors (Figure 3). The feedback provided is neutral without messages like "very good" or "bad answer." CAMPUS avoids such messages because of the different possible ways of solving a case, that is, the teacher or system's role is not directive. The author and learner's solutions are distinguished by different colors.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

CAMPUS is a system completely developed in Java to gain maximum flexibility and interactivity combined with usability over the Web (see http://www.medicase.de) and locally. It is mainly used in Heidelberg, Berlin, and Freiburg (Germany) and Zurich (Switzerland). An English version is under construction in cooperation with Maastricht, Netherlands.

Evaluation. In a summative evaluation that took place in 2001, all (218) students of the pediatric practical anonymously filled out an evaluation form about the CAMPUS system. The students worked on several cases in groups of two to three persons per computer (as recommended through different studies, e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 1992), supported by a tutor. Responders rated the following as valuable and good features of the application: diagnostic-therapy loops 66.1% (144), knowledge questions 79.4% (173), expert comments on demand 80.3% (175), neutral feedback 93% (190). Overall, 80.7% (176) of respondents liked learning with CAMPUS; 72% (157) rated learning with CAMPUS as effective; 73.5% (160) said that learning with CAMPUS was motivating for further learning; and 69.3% (151) would like to use CAMPUS within the curriculum (Ruderich et al., 2002). Remarkable in this context are the good results concerning the overall acceptance of the system and the didactic components like neutral feedback and expert comments that are important tenets for computer-based practice fields. In interviews following the evaluation, it was found that the relatively low value of 66.1% for the division of a case into different therapy loops can be explained by the concrete division undertaken in a specific case and not the didactic component itself. The logical arrangement of diagnostic-therapy loops within a case is the most difficult point for case authors.

In 2002, another evaluation took place that focused on the acceptance of the system and the assessment of the didactic components, motivational aspects, and various scenarios for the integration into medical curricula. This study showed that most of the 68 responders (87.8%) think that it is important to have virtual cases with systems like CAMPUS. The didactic components that have been integrated in the system to provide a practice field have been rated with very positive results on a five-point Likert scale: diagnostic-therapy loops: 13.6% average, 65.2% good, 7.6% very good; case-independent and extensive vocabulary: 19.7% average, 63.6% good, 13.6% very good; expert comments on demand: 10.6% average, 59.1% good, 18.25% very good; knowledge questions: 15.2% average, 62.15% good, 16.75% very good; neutral teacher/feedback: 16.75% average, 53.0% good, 12.1% very good; interactivity: 10.6% average, 63.6% good, 24.25 very good.

Concerning implementation, CAMPUS has most frequently been used in practicals with two or three persons per PC and a tutor as coach; this implementation scenario was assessed by users as the best implementation method, followed by self-study, where users liked to learn alone using a CD for delivery rather than the Internet. The results showed that this learning system that was implemented using the design principles of practice fields received very positive acceptance values by learners, especially when used in scenarios where students can try to solve a case in small groups with a tutor, who is not directive, but participatory. In 2002, CAMPUS won the MedidaPrix, a well-known and highly desired European prize for media and didactics (see http://www.medidaprix.org).

CAMPUS and the design principles. Most of the principles are achieved within the computer-based learning system, but some are partially dependent on the how the system is used. Because of the simulative and interactive nature of the system, the workout of a case is learning by doing (principle 1). To own one's inquiry (principle 2), treating a real patient would be the best approach. Nevertheless a feeling of ownership is achieved by using real (do-main-related) cases that can be investigated and solved. Patient images and videos intensify this effect. Because of the simulative format and use of neutral feedback, students can develop their own solution rather than having to learn the author's solution.

Ownership also occurs because of the ill-structured dilemmas (principle 5). CAMPUS supports ill-structured and complex dilemmas (principle 6) by offering the user maximum and case-independent possibilities (as in real life) of examinations, diagnoses, and therapies that can be ordered individually. Again, the neutrality is another point in this context. Without neutrality (avoiding messages like "bad" or "good"), the user would wait for feedback after every action with the effect that individual problem-solving approaches would not develop.

For the same reasons, the CAMPUS system is not restrictive. Coaching of thinking skills (principle 3), on the other hand, is dependent on the program's author. She/he can define questions/hints to pop up during a case as well as create expert comments that can be shown on demand. It is the author's responsibility to use this capability in the right way to coach the learner.

The software supports reflection (principle 4) in several ways. First by ordering single examinations and getting specific results, the user has to think about the results and decide on the next step to proceed. Second, users must reflect in the feedback components where a comparison between the author's solution and their own is given. Third, knowledge questions and expert commentary and hints can be used to interrupt the users during the process in order to prompt them to think about special parts of the case.

Concerning principle 7, CAMPUS offers important views of others by providing a comparison between the author's and the learner's solution. Other collaborative and social tenets are mainly system-independent and scenario-dependent. An example of an appropriate scenario is that of small groups in PBL-tutorials discussing a case using CAMPUS to show (multimedia) results. CAMPUS can be integrated into learning management systems (LMS) such as WebCT because of its web-application form. Access to the defined case can be controlled in the learning management system through a login. Within the LMS, students can learn collaboratively by discussing the CAMPUS cases offered in the current content area using LMS tools such as chat, group e-mails, and discussion boards attached to content areas.

Because the aim of CAMPUS is to integrate real cases into training and to offer a repository of real cases, these problems engage the community (principle 8). Authors are responsible for marking the relevance of their cases. The web-based approach and the potential development of a case repository offer rich opportunities for using CAMPUS in communities of practice. In such communities, students as well as teachers and physicians can easily contribute interesting, community-concerned cases because of the user-friendly authoring system. These cases can be discussed through web technologies such as discussion boards. Students can build experience by using the repository, which is always up to date and available online. Because CAMPUS can be integrated into a learning management system, a computerized case-based, medical web-based community of practice could easily be offered and managed.

TPSS: THE CASE OF MARTELLE

Teacher Problem Solving Skills (TPSS) is a series of interactive, multimedia case studies focusing on children with emotional and behavioral disorders. These interactive learning environments embed problem-solving activities into authentic case studies that provide opportunities to understand children's behavioral disorders from multiple perspectives, learn and practice assessment and planning procedures, and develop instruction and management plans as interventions. The 10 cases in the series include videos of children in a variety of school settings; interviews with teachers, principals and parents; computerized case records; information databases; prompted activities; and performance support tools. The over-arching theme of TPSS is to provide flexible learning materials to enhance problem solving of teachers preparing to serve children with social, emotional, and behavioral disorders. The materials are appropriate for special educators, general educators, school psychologists, and other helping professionals involved in serving these children.

Instruction and Management in Behavioral Disorders is the third title in the TPSS interactive multimedia series for use in teacher education programs, and it contains four complete cases with children ranging in age and severity levels. The learning environment is based on case study scenarios in which the user takes the role of a teacher in planning for different youngsters with significant behavioral and emotional problems in educational settings. This case features Martelle, a six-year old boy placed in a residential psychiatric treatment center by court order. He has been hospitalized due to oppositional and assaultive behaviors and psychotic symptoms. The interactive case is delivered on a CD with teaching supports for instructors on a web site. Programming was done using Macromedia Authorware.

From the main menu screen (Figure 4) users are introduced to Martelle and the case scenario (Meet Student); observe Martelle and interview the staff through videos and audios (Assess Needs); read case files and treatment center policies, attend mini-lectures and watch classroom demonstrations on therapeutic curricula, and access an intervention resource database (Get Information); identify needs and classroom settings and make management and instruction plans (Plan Intervention), listen to experts discuss generalization procedures (Work with Others); and access expert commentary and standards to guide reflection, to evaluate, and to modify intervention plans (Evaluate Plans).

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

When the user is ready to plan interventions for Martelle, prompted activities guide the user through a behavioral consultation procedure to define Martelle's needs and to conduct a setting analysis for his classrooms. Figure 5 displays the setting analysis activity. After viewing videos and determining Martelle's functional behavior, the user decides whether each setting factor is adequate or inadequate to meet Martelle's needs and provides a justification in the setting notes window. As shown on the menu bar, all notes made by the user can be accessed at any time for use in planning or revising interventions.

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

An electronic planning form is provided within the case environment for users to review previously made intervention plans, add reflections, and modify their plans based on expert commentary and new information from the resources, and evaluate final plans based on best practice standards provided by the program logic. As users make adaptations to their plans in the lower window, their changes are attached to the plans displayed in the higher window. Users have access to their notes or can exit this section to return to case components to review or explore new information as they complete this culminating activity (Figure 6).

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

A set of performance support tools is included within the case environment as well as available as stand-alone tools to supplement the case programs. The user can access these resources and tools from the main menu as aids in planning for Martelle. These performance support tools provide a direct bridge between learning the procedures within the case environment and later using the knowledge and skills in professional practice, thus enhancing contextual transfer of knowledge and skills to the job setting. Two companion performance support tool programs, KidTools and KidSkills, are provided for children to become partners in managing and monitoring their own learning and behavior.

All entries made by the user while working in the case environment are stored in user records in an audit trail. The audit trail also provides a complete record of the user's path and engagement in the components of the case.

Evaluation and research findings. In the line of research conducted by the authors of the TPSS materials, the effectiveness of learning with these interactive multimedia cases has been documented. Preservice teachers have responded positively to interactive cases and find the active engagement with the different media of the program beneficial. As explained by one user,

    It involves all of your different modes of learning. You can never
    get as much out of reading a book as actually interacting with this
    equipment--the video is playing, you are watching it, your are
    seeing what is happening; and there's also the text you can read and
    you have the expert's advice--you have all these different things
    and it's really good.

Users report that interactive multimedia case study programs are good preparation for teaching and regard their learning experiences as comparable to field-based practical experiences. One graduate student stated,

    I feel like I can do better in the classroom now as a teacher. I
    fell like I have had hands-on experience doing an assessment. I feel
    like I can write up a report better. It is actually like you're in
    the classroom--you're right there--you are doing the observation.

The overall formative evaluation results continue to document positive responses to learning through the practice field cases because of the interactivity, hypermedia format, and meaningful learning (Fitzgerald, Wilson, & Semrau, 1997).

Using content tests, semantic mapping procedures, and expert review of report artifacts as measures, multiple summative evaluation studies have demonstrated that users significantly increase content and procedural knowledge, develop an understanding of multiple treatment perspectives, and engage in more complex problem solving on the case activities (Fitzgerald & Semrau, 1998; Kraus, Reed, & Fitzgerald, 2000). Implementation studies examining independent use versus small group use of the case programs reveal that greater learning occurs when the programs are used in small, cooperative learning groups (Johnson, Semrau, & Fitzgerald, 2000). This finding supports Principle 7 for practice fields to provide work that is collaborative and social.

Conclusions from three empirical studies examining individual learning differences of users of the case programs are that individual differences affect the patterns of learning within the cases, but not the outcomes. Examining rank in school, prior experience with computers, and learning styles of field dependence/independence, users demonstrated equivalent growth in domain knowledge and knowledge construction. However, their patterns of usage differed in overall engagement time and patterns of accessing information within the case program (Fitzgerald & Semrau, 1998). A similar study comparing individual differences on the Kolb Learning Style instrument and learning outcomes found that the case environment met the needs of all learners regardless of learning style. Two interesting usage differences were that students with more prior knowledge used the case environment in a more linear pattern and those students with more hypermedia experience spent more time using the hypermedia program (Kraus, Reed, & Fitzgerald, 2001). In a recent study examining the relationships between students' epistemological beliefs (Schommer, 1998) and learning outcomes and patterns of usage, no relationships were found between beliefs and knowledge acquisition as measured by pre/posttests. Similar to the results in the hypermedia studies, differences were seen in the ways that users engaged in the various learning components of the program, but these differences did not impact learning outcomes. One type of epistemological beliefs--the belief that learning is quick--affected users' total engagement time with the case program, for example, they spent less total time in the TPSS program. Interestingly, different types of epistemological beliefs about personal ability to learn and speed of learning impacted the quality of applied work on the activities embedded within the case environment as measured by rubrics (Peng, 2003). Overall, the empirical studies conducted with the TPSS cases demonstrate that well-designed learning systems, particularly those built from constructivist learning principles, provide equally effective learning environments for preprofessional students regardless of learner differences.

Five national online conferences have been held for TPSS users to supplement their learning through the case environments. These conferences focused on related topics and provided opportunities for dialogue with field practitioners, users in other course sites, and experts. Four different structural models were used in implementing the conferences, varying the extent of openness or structure, involvement of the online expert, and the use of discussion facilitators. It was found that less structured conferences allowed participants to initiate more of their own topics of concern and resulted in a higher level of involvement (Peng, Fitzgerald, & Semrau, 2000). The online discussion format helped sustain users' dialogue about the use of the new performance support tools and assisted in classroom implementation (Koury, Cosgrove-Grubisa, & Fitzgerald, 2001).

TPSS and the design principles. The TPSS cases provide opportunities for domain-related practice (principle 1) for preprofessionals: understanding the complexities of children's behavioral disorders from multiple perspectives, assessing and planning to meet their needs, and instructing and managing their behaviors in schools and clinical settings. The 10 TPSS cases are completely authentic, requiring the application of domain knowledge to problems of professional practice.

The cases provide dilemmas that are ill-structured so that learners must define and solve problems (principle 5), thereby owning the inquiry (principle 2). Consistent with the definition of ill-structured domains requiring cognitive flexibility (Spiro, Coulson, Feltovich, & Anderson, 1988), information in each case is loosely structured and requires the user to consider multiple sources of information from multiple perspectives, timelines, and varied solutions by previous service providers, teachers, and parents. The use of the case simulates case practice in the real world of special education: much information exists that must be evaluated, synthesized, and utilized by individuals and by teams; success depends on personal effort and attention to multiple views of practitioners.

A variety of scaffolds are embedded within the case programs that coach the user in the problem-solving activities (principle 3), support the learner in working with the complex, ill-structured case rather than simplifying the case for the user (principle 6), and provide opportunities for reflection (principle 4). As the user completes the primary problem-solving activities of creating interventions, the case environment issues a series of "best practice prompts" that guide reflection and self-evaluation. The performance support tools serve as scaffolds that enable users to work as experts within the case as a practice field, and later, to help users to transfer and apply new knowledge and skills to actual job situations.

Providing a motivating (principle 8) and social, collaborative learning environment is critical in meaning making (principle 7). Within the constructivist-learning paradigm, meaning is defined as a process of continual negotiation with others who share points of view in a social environment (Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson, 1999). By creating a practice environment that simulates the dialogue and teamwork necessary in helping children with behavioral disorders, the learning context becomes both motivating and real. Beyond work within the case environments, users can participate in listserv discussion groups centered on the cases and online conferences on related psychological topics (Koury et al., 2001; Peng, Fitzgerald, & Semrau, 2000). By engaging in this process, new knowledge is socially constructed and shared in legitimate communities of practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The design of computer-based learning systems to support knowledge construction, skill development, problem-solving, and contextual transfer is extremely complex. A variety of these learning systems exist, each influenced by different learning theories, but all sharing a focus on authenticity, active learning, and opportunities for meaning making. The design principles of practice fields can be used as one model for the design of these learning systems; practice fields provide authentic learning experiences where users come to "know about problems and practices" faced in real professional practice. By dealing with multiple scenarios from multiple perspectives, learners move closer to thinking like experts: they learn to extract pertinent information, generate problem solutions in flexible ways, and transfer and reconstruct knowledge and skills in new contexts. Most of the design principles for creating practice fields can be achieved technologically through interactive multimedia learning systems. However, a virtual patient or client can't be a real one. Hence, a computerized case-based learning system can only provide a simulation of learning in reality.

One design principle that cannot be reached inside a computerized learning system is to provide an opportunity to negotiate meaning within a community of learners. With the belief that all knowledge is socially constructed, learners must have opportunities to share, discuss, and modify their own understandings based on others' perspectives and experiences. One of the hallmarks of expert thinking is the ability to apply knowledge differentially across different contexts. Therefore, design must emphasize implementation of the practice field system within and throughout the professional preparation program. Through case conferences, diagnostic seminars, and ongoing discussion groups--face-to-face or online, synchronously or asynchronously--knowledge gained through the cases can be manipulated, reconstructed and transferred beyond the learning system environment to professional practice contexts.

A difficult problem in implementing practice field learning systems is the tradition of teaching. Teachers don't want to change their teaching philosophy (Petraglia, 1998) and infrastructure is needed to use the new technologies. When using practice field systems within a lesson or class, the time to work-out a case, and consequently, the time for reflection is often very short. Hence, it is recommended to implement this form of instruction in a combination of self-directed learning, alone or in small learning groups, along with facilitated discussion of the content within a class or online discussion forum. Beyond implementation in initial preparation programs, computerized case-based learning systems can be used in professional development offerings through face-to-face or web-based professional communities of practice. In this way learners, instructors, and practitioners can discuss cases and dilemmas that engage the professional community for "anytime, anywhere" learning.

Acknowledgements

Recognition is given to Reiner Singer at the University of Heidelberg as one of the main developers of CAMPUS who was mainly responsible for the authoring system, and to Louis Semrau at Arkansas State University who was co-developer of the TPSS programs and primarily responsible for audio and video production.

Note

CAMPUS was funded by the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg in Germany, by the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Heidelberg, and by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany.

The TPSS series was funded in part by the United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Projects #H029K30210 and #H029K70089. Complete information on the TPSS series is available through the Virtual Resource Center in Behavioral Disorders web site at http://www.coe.missouri.edu/~vrcbd

References

Barab, S., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25-55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Barab, S., Hay, K., & Duffy, T. (1998). Grounded constructions and how technology can help. Technology Trends, 43(2), 15-23.

Cox, K. (2001). Stories as case knowledge: Case knowledge as stories. Medical Education, 35(9), 862-866.

Fitzgerald, G., & Semrau, L. (1998). The effects of learner differences on usage patterns and learning outcomes with hypermedia case studies. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(4), 309-331.

Fitzgerald, G., Wilson, B., & Semrau, L. (1997). An interactive multimedia program to enhance teacher problem solving skills based on cognitive flexibility theory: Design and outcomes. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 6(1), 47-76.

Hannafin M., & Land S. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced, student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167-202.

Hasselbring, T. S. (2001). A possible future of special education technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(4), 15-21.

Hmelo, C. (1998). Problem-based learning: Effects on the early acquisition of cognitive skill in medicine. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(2), 173-208.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1992). Positive interdependence: Key to effective cooperation. In Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Miller, N. (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp 174-199). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, L., Semrau, L., & Fitzgerald, G. (2000). Group versus individual use of hypermedia-based instruction. Proceedings of SITE 2000 Conference, San Diego. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Jonassen, D. (2000). Mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking with technology (2nd ed). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Jonassen D., & Land, S. (2000). Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Koury, K., Cosgrove-Grubisa, S., & Fitzgerald, G. (2001). In-service and pre-service teacher training: A study of online dialogue. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2001, Finland, 1008-1009. Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Kraus, L., Reed, W., & Fitzgerald, G. (2001). The effects of learning style and hypermedia prior experience on behavioral disorders knowledge and time on task: A case-based hypermedia environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 125-140.

Land, S., & Hannafin, M. (2000). Student-centered learning environments. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 1-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Peng, H. (2003). The effects of teacher education students' epistemological beliefs in a case-based hypermedia learning environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia.

Peng, H., Fitzgerald, G., & Semrau, L. (2000). Online conferencing: Variations on structure and participation. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2000, Canada, 1676-1677. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality by design: Rhetoric, technology, and the creation of authentic learning environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Riedel, J., Singer, R., Heid, J., Leven, F., Schnabel, K., Tonshoff, Kopf, S., & Junger, J. (2001). CAMPUS: A simulative, flexible, case-oriented web-based preparation system for multi-purpose use in PBL-curricula. Proceedings of the Slice of Life and Computers in Healthcare Education Symposium, Germany, 267-267. Berlin: Logos.

Riedel, J., Singer, R., Leven, F., Geiss, H., & Toenshoff, B. (2000). CAMPUS: An innovative Web-based approach for simulative, flexible, case-oriented education in Medicine. In Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2000, Canada, 1678-1679. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Ruderich, F., Riedel, J., Singer, R., Heid, J., Bauch, M., Leven, F. J., Kopf, S., Seidel, C., Tonshoff, B., Starkloff, P., & Reimann, P. (2002). CAMPUS in der praxis--Evaluation des einsatzes im rahmen eines padiatrischen praktikums. In Proceedings zum 6. Workshop der AG Computer Based Preparation in Medicine. Germany. Aachen: Shaker.

Schommer, M. (1998). The influence of age and education on epistemological belierfs. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 551-562.

Semrau, L., & Fitzgerald, G. (1995). Interactive case studies in behavioral disorders: Looking at children from multiple perspectives. Education and Treatment of Children, 18, 348-359.

Schank, R., Fano, A., Bett, B., & Jona, M. (1994). The design of goalbased scenarios. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(4), 305-345.

Senge, P. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Spiro, R., Feltovich, P., Jacobson, M., & Coulson, R. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31(5), 24-33.

Spiro, R., Coulson, R., Feltovich, P., & Anderson, D. (1998). Cognitive flexability theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. (Technical Report #441). Champagne, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Williams, C., Aubin, S., Harkin, P., & Cottrell, D. (2001). A randomized, controlled, single-blind trial of teaching provided by a computer-based multimedia package versus lecture. Medical Education, 35(9), 847-854.

JENS RIEDEL

University of Heidelberg

Germany

GAIL FITZGERALD

University of Missouri-Columbia

USA

[e-mail]

FRANZ LEVEN

University of Heidelberg

Germany

BURKHARD TOENSHOFF

University Children's Hospital 

Heidelberg, Germany