1 / 43

Kirsten Butcher

Elaborated Explanations for Visual/Verbal Problem Solving:. Kirsten Butcher. Interactive Communication Cluster July 24, 2006. Visual & Verbal Information in Geometry. Geometry Cognitive Tutor: Angles and Circles Units. Research Goals.

bikita
Download Presentation

Kirsten Butcher

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Elaborated Explanations for Visual/Verbal Problem Solving: Kirsten Butcher Interactive Communication Cluster July 24, 2006

  2. Visual & Verbal Information in Geometry Geometry Cognitive Tutor: Angles and Circles Units.

  3. Research Goals • To understand how coordination between & integration of visual and verbal knowledge influences robust learning • To explore the potential transfer of laboratory-identified multimedia principles to classroom context • To inform the design of effective educational multimedia for classroom use

  4. Relevant Learning Research • Learning with Multimedia • Contiguity Effect (e.g., Mayer, 2001) • Diagrams support inference-generation & integration of information (Butcher, 2006) • Self-explanations & Cognitive Tutors • Self-explanations promote learning (e.g., Chi et al., 1994) • Simple (menu-based) self-explanations support Geometry Learning (Aleven & Koedinger, 2002)

  5. Hypotheses: Sense-making Scaffolds • Contiguity • Work & receive feedback in diagram • Integrated Hints • Apply verbal hints to visual problem situation (diagram) • Elaborated Explanations • Visual “explanations” to justify problem-solving

  6. Hypotheses: Sense-making Scaffolds • Contiguity • Work & receive feedback in diagram • Integrated Hints • Apply verbal hints to visual problem situation (diagram) • Elaborated Explanations • Visual “explanations” to justify problem-solving

  7. Connections to PSLC Theory • Sense-making • Coordinative Learning: Integrate results from multiple inputs & representations. • Verbal information • Visual information • Scaffolds change the format of the interface to promote coordinative learning. • Contiguous representation: reduces mapping & supports inferences made directly from diagram • Integrated hints: reduce mapping & support recognition of critical visual elements

  8. Hypotheses: Sense-making Scaffolds • Contiguity • Work & receive feedback in diagram • Integrated Hints • Apply verbal hints to visual problem situation (diagram) • Elaborated Explanations • Visual “explanations” to justify problem-solving

  9. Connections to PSLC Theory • Sense-making • Interactive Communication: Tutor prompts explanations • Students “explain” geometry principles that justify problem-solving steps • Students receive feedback and hints on explanations • Scaffold: Elaborated explanations require student to “explain” the application of geometry principles • Rationale for explanations are visual in nature • Diagram Condition: Visual format for explanation • Table Condition: Verbal format for explanation

  10. Existing Tutor: Explanations are verbal-only

  11. Elaborated Explanations Tutor

  12. Elaborated Explanations Tutor

  13. Elaborated Explanations Tutor Demo of the Geometry Cognitive Tutor with Elaborated Explanations New & Improved! Now with more explanations!

  14. Connections to PSLC Theory • What are the relevant knowledge components? • (Verbal) Geometry principles. • E.g., Inscribed Angle Theorem means that the measure of the angle is half the measure of the intercepted arc. • (Visual) Geometry elements. • E.g., Recognizing angles, arcs, and their relationships. • (Integrated) Geometry inferences • E.g., Recognizing that an arc, which is associated with a known (or found) inscribed angle, can be found via the Inscribed Angle Theorem

  15. Knowledge Components vs. Overall Visual Match

  16. Knowledge Components vs. Overall Visual Match

  17. Mapping Given Information to Elements

  18. Integration of Principles and Elements

  19. Superficial Strategies of Integration: Close = Connected

  20. Robust Knowledge: Relationships connect Elements via Principles

  21. Difficulty Factors Analysis (DFA): Problem Format & Explanation Type • 3 Problem Formats • Diagram • Quadrant • Table • 2 Explanation Types • Simple Explanations (Reasons Only) • Elaborated Explanations (Reasons + Application)

  22. DFA: Diagram Problem Format with Simple Explanations

  23. DFA: Diagram Problem Format with Elaborated Explanations

  24. DFA: Quadrant Problem Format with Elaborated Explanations

  25. DFA: Table Problem Format with Elaborated Explanations

  26. DFA Results: Given Information Linear trend for Explanation Type, F (1, 88) = 3.8, p = .055

  27. DFA Results: Problem Solving Linear trend for Explanation Type, F (1, 88) = 2.9, p = .09 Quadratic effect for Problem Format, F (1, 88) = 3.8, p = .053 Trend for interaction, F (1, 88) = 3.0, p =.088

  28. Preliminary Results: Process • Observational pilot data • Longer latency of responses in table condition BEFORE entering quantities • Longer latencies AFTER quantities entered when elaborated explanations are required • Classroom Feedback • Teachers report student preference for diagram tutor • Students report no perceived differences in the “amount of work” for the elaborated explanations • Students adapt quickly to the elaborated explanations, but performance far from ceiling even after successful completion of tutor with simple explanations.

  29. Next Steps • Log files??????!!!! • Think-aloud protocols with elaborated explanations • Summer 2006 • Lab testing of elaborated explanations • Summer 2006 • In-vivo testing with the elaborated explanations & contiguous interface (2 X 2) • Late Fall 2006

  30. Research Team • Vincent Aleven: Research Scientist, CMU HCII • Kirsten Butcher: Research Postdoc, Pitt LRDC • Shelley Evenson: Assoc Prof, CMU School of Design • Octav Popescu: Research Programmer, CMU HCII • Andy Tzou: Masters Student: CMU HCII Honors Program • Carl Angiolillo: Masters Student: CMU HCII Honors Program • Grace Leonard: Research Associate, CMU HCII • Thomas Bolster: Research Associate, CMU HCII

  31. Questions?

  32. Extra Slides

  33. Existing Tutor: Multiple Verbal Inputs

  34. Existing Tutor: Multiple Visual Inputs

  35. Table Condition = Noncontiguous

  36. Diagram Condition = Contiguous

  37. Methods: Contiguity (Study 1) • Geometry Cognitive Tutor: 2 conditions • Table (noncontiguous) • Diagram (contiguous) • Procedure • Pretest (in class) • Training (classroom use of tutor, grade-matched pairs randomly assigned to conditions within classes) • Posttest (in class)

  38. Assessment: 3 types of items Answers

  39. Reasons Assessment: 3 types of items

  40. Assessment: 3 types of items Transfer

  41. Preliminary Results: Answers Main effect of test time: F (1, 38) = 29.5, p < .01

  42. Preliminary Results: Reasons Main effect of test time: F (1, 38) = 65.7, p < .01

  43. Preliminary Results: Transfer 3-way interaction: Test Time * Condition * Ability: F (1, 38) = 4.3, p < .05

More Related