Chase, Catherine C. (cc3663)

• Cognition, learning, and transfer in STEM domains
• Student motivation and its relationship to instructional methods and learning outcomes
• The design of novel instructional methods that teach deep domain principles
• Technology-based classroom interventions such as educational games, simulations, intelligent tutoring systems, and Teachable Agents

* indicates student co-author

Chase, C.C., Malkiewich, L.J.*, Lee, A.*, Slater, S.*, Choi, A., & Xing, C.* (under review). Game over: Typical game features can hinder failure tolerance, challenge seeking, and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology.

Lamnina, M.* & Chase, C.C. (under review). Uncertain instruction: Effects on curiosity, learning, and transfer. Instructional Science.

Chase, C.C., Harpstead, E., & Aleven, V. (under review/revision).  Promoting transfer beyond the game: Adapting contrasting cases for educational games. Journal of the Learning Sciences.

Marks, J.* & Chase, C. C. (in press). The impact of a brief prototyping intervention on middle school students’ iterative practices and reactions to failure. Journal of Engineering Education.

Chase, C.C., Connolly, H.*, Lamnina, M.*, & Aleven, V. (2019). Problematizing helps! A classroom study of computer-based guidance for Invention activities. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 29(2), 283-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-019-00178-y

Malkiewich, L.J.*, & Chase, C.C. (2019). What’s your goal? The importance of shaping the goals of engineering tasks to focus learners on the underlying science. Instructional Science, 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-09493-2

Chase, C.C., Malkiewich, L.J.*, & Kumar, A.* (2019). Learning to notice science concepts in engineering activities and transfer situations. Science Education, 103(2), 440-471. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21496

Lamnina, M.*, & Chase, C.C. (2019). Developing a thirst for knowledge: How uncertainty in the classroom influences curiosity, affect, learning, and transfer. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101785

Chase, C.C., Marks, J.*, Malkiewich, L.J.*, & Connolly, H* (2019). How teacher talk guidance during Invention activities shapes students’ cognitive engagement and transfer.  International Journal of STEM Education, 6(14), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0170-7

Malkiewich, L.J.*, & Chase, C.C. (2019). The process of focusing on deep structures in an engineering design task. International Journal of Science Education, 41(11), 1475-1495. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1613583

Chase, C.C., & Klahr, D.  (2017). Invention versus direct instruction: In some contexts it’s a tie.  Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(6), 582-596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9700-6

Fusco, J. Martin, W. Lane, H. C. & Chase, C.C. (2017). Virtual peers and coaches: Social and cognitive support for learning. In J. Roschelle, W. Martin, J. Ahn, & P. Schank (Eds.), Cyberlearning Community Report: The State of Cyberlearning and the Future of Learning With Technology (pp. 31-35). Menlo Park CA: SRI International.

Marks, J.*, Bernett, D.*, & Chase, C.C. (2016).  The Invention Coach: Integrating data and theory in the design of an exploratory learning environment.  International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(2), 74-92. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v7i2.20126

Shemwell, J.T., Chase, C.C., & Schwartz, D.L. (2015). Seeking the general explanation: A test of inductive activities for learning and transfer. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(1), 58-83. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21185

Chase, C.C. (2013). Motivating expertise: Equipping novices with the motivational tools to move beyond failure.  In J.J. Staszewski (Ed.), Expertise and skill acquisition: The impact of William G. Chase (pp. 59-83).  New York: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203074541 

Chi, M.T.H., Roscoe, R., Slotta, J., Roy, M. & Chase, C.C. (2012). Misconceived causal explanations for emergent processes.  Cognitive Science, 36(1), 1-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01207.x

Schwartz, D.L., Chase, C.C., & Bransford, J.D. (2012).  Resisting overzealous transfer: Coordinating previous successful routines with needs for new learning.  Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 204-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.696317 

Schwartz, D.L., Chase, C.C., Oppezzo, M.A., & Chin, D.B. (2011).  Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer.  Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 759-775. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025140 

Chin, D.B., Dohmen, I.M., Cheng, B.H., Oppezzo, M.A., Chase, C.C., & Schwartz, D.L. (2010).   Preparing students for future learning with Teachable Agents.  Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 649-669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9154-5 

Chase, C.C., Chin, D.B., Oppezzo, M.A., & Schwartz, D.L. (2009).  Teachable Agents and the Protégé Effect: Increasing the effort towards learning.  Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 334-352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9180-4 

Schwartz D.L., Chase C.C., Chin D.B., Oppezzo M.A., Kwong H., Okita S., Biswas G., Roscoe R.D., Jeong H., & Wagster J.D. (2009).  Interactive metacognition: Monitoring and regulating a teachable agent.  In D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 340-358).  New York: Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203876428 

Copies of most publications can be found at catherinechase.org/publications/