1 / 32

Vincent Aleven & Kirsten Butcher

Robust Learning in Visual/Verbal Problem Solving: Contiguity, Integrated Hints, and Elaborated Explanations. Vincent Aleven & Kirsten Butcher. Multiple Domains Involve Learning with Visual & Verbal Info. PHYSICS. Steif (2004). Physics LearnLab: Andes Tutor.

marek
Download Presentation

Vincent Aleven & 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. Robust Learning in Visual/Verbal Problem Solving: Contiguity, Integrated Hints, and Elaborated Explanations Vincent Aleven & Kirsten Butcher

  2. Multiple Domains Involve Learning with Visual & Verbal Info PHYSICS Steif (2004) Physics LearnLab: Andes Tutor

  3. Multiple Domains Involve Learning with Visual & Verbal Info CHEMISTRY Chemistry LearnLab Buffer Tutorial, Davenport (2006)

  4. Multiple Domains Involve Learning with Visual & Verbal Info GEOMETRY Geometry Cognitive Tutor: Angles and Circles Units.

  5. 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

  6. 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)

  7. Connections to PSLC Theory • Sense-making • Coordinative Learning: Integrate results from multiple inputs & representations. • Verbal information • Visual information

  8. Existing Tutor: Multiple Verbal Inputs

  9. Existing Tutor: Multiple Visual Inputs

  10. 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

  11. Existing Tutor: Explanations are verbal-only

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

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

  14. Importance of PSLC LearnLab • Access to ample participants • 4 geometry teachers in 15 classes (190 students) • High student attrition (50 of 70 students completed study #1) • Classroom context is meaningful & cooperative • Tutor completion is part of normal classwork (graded!) • Study 1 -- 4 hours training, 1.5 hours testing • Student motivation is realistic, learning context is stable • Teachers open to research, comfortable with research software • Research Support • Carnegie Learning -- software QA, install, & support • Math Curriculum Committee -- feedback, coordination of research

  15. 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)

  16. Table Condition = Noncontiguous

  17. Diagram Condition = Contiguous

  18. Assessment: 3 types of items

  19. Assessment: 3 types of items Answers

  20. Reasons Assessment: 3 types of items

  21. Assessment: 3 types of items Transfer

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

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

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

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

  26. Preliminary Results: Process • Observational data (to be analyzed with log data) • Longer latency of responses in table condition • Order of solutions differ (table drives superficial order decisions) • Classroom Feedback • Teachers report student preference for diagram tutor • Teachers report better engagement from low ability students • “I like the [diagram] better, because you can see the answers in the diagram. Otherwise it’s easy to get confused with the table, you know, going back and forth and stuff.”

  27. 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

  28. Questions?

  29. Extra Slides

  30. Continued Work: Elaborated Explanations

  31. Elaborated Explanations Interface

  32. Elaborated Explanations Interface

More Related