Upload
stuart-hall
View
215
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 1
Theoretical Relevance Lecture 2 for the IV track of the 2008
PSLC Summer School
Robert G.M. Hausmann
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 2
William E. HerpChief Executive of Linear Air
“The first lesson in sales is:
Look for the pain.”
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 3
Look for the pain in the…
Literature Classroom Science of learning
Your customers
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 4
Literature: It is painful not to know the answer to a known question
Known questions appear at the end of papers, reviews, etc.– At least one informed person cares about the
answer.
Common (bad) ways to pose research questions– Cool software– Pop psychology– I learn this way, so…
No customers
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 5
Select a question to add information and clarity to the literature
Information value (in Shannon’s sense) – High if prior probability of the answer is very
different from the answer obtained in the experiment.
– Low if experiment just confirms the expected answer.
Clarification value (real pains here)– Low if the literature is a mess, and the experiment
just adds one more fact to the mess.– High if the experiment somehow clarifies the
mess.– Moderate if there is little prior literature.
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 6
Look for (and relieve) the pain in the…
Literature– Known question– Answer would add information and/or
clarity Classroom Sciences of Learning
Nex
t
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 7
What pains the classroom?
Ask the instructor (you?) what’s most frustrating– Teaching a certain concept?– Transfer to real world?– Depth of understanding?
Ask the students…
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 8
Andes is not “selling” (can’t give it away!)
Andes teaches quantitative problem solving.
Most instructors think this is not a bottleneck.
Instead, qualitative problem solving is their concern.
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 9
Look for (and relieve) the pain in the…
Literature– Known question– Answer would add information and/or
clarity Classroom
– Instructors consider the question important Sciences of Learning N
ext
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 10
Where is the pain in the Learning Sciences?
Too many results No organization of the results No theory No clear implications No classic results that everyone knows No accretion Progress is more like politics than
medicine
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 11
To cure the pain, Learning Science needs a theoretical framework
Not like physics– A few basic principles from which all else follows.
More like Medicine– A few basics (anatomy, physiology, genetics)– Many specializations e.g., lymphatic cancers
Few principles; many diseases, syndromes, therapies
– A standardized, rigorous terminology– Digital libraries becoming essential
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 12
Types of theories
Computational models
“How People Learn”
principles
Shared theoretical vocabulary
Boxology
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 13
PSLC theoretical framework
Computational models
“How People Learn”
principles
Shared theoretical vocabulary
Boxology
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 14
PSLC theoretical framework
Shared terminology– Research clusters
Analytic framework
Nex
t
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 15
Shared terminology
Micro-level– Knowledge component: A principle, concept,
fact, schema, strategy, meta-strategy…– Learning event: An application of a knowledge
component
Macro-level: A taxonomy of robust learning processes– Sense-making– Fluency-building
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 16
Micro level is just (good, old fashioned) cognitive psychology
Instructional activities Prior knowledge
Cognitive processes
Knowledge components
Observable outcomes
Knowledge can be
decomposed
Learning processes
can bedecomposed
andtaxonomized
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 17
Macro level is a taxonomy of learning process
Sense making– Coordination of multiple types/sources of learning
Example: step plus a rule
– Interaction of the student with other agents Agents can be peers, experts, or tutoring systems.
Fluency– Three Mechanisms:
Strengthening Deep-feature perception Headroom
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 18
PSLC research clusters
Coordinative learning – How do students coordinate multiple
sources of information, media, representations, strategies?
Interactive communication– How does interaction between a student
and a peer, tutor or teacher affect learning?
Fluency and refinement– How does a skill become fluent?
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 19
Coordinative learning
Co-training (Blum & Mitchell) Learning from multimedia (Clark & Mayer)(Tversky) Learning from analogies (Novick & Holyoak, 1991)
(J.R. Anderson, Fincham, & Douglass, 1997) (VanLehn, 1998)
Learning from multiple representations & multiple solutions (Ainsworth, 1999)
Learning from agents (Lester, Converse, Stone, Kahler, & Barlow, 1997) (Graesser et al., 2003) (Moreno, Mayer, Spires, & Lester, 2001)
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 20
Interactive communication
Feedback and hint effects (J. A. Kulik & Kulik, 1988) (McKendree, 1990) (Hume et al., 1996) (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996) *(Corbett & Anderson, 2001) (Mathan & Koedinger, 2005) (V. J. Shute, 1992)
Learning from examples, self-explanation and fading *(Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989) (Nguyen-Xuan, Bastide, & Nicaud, 1999) (Kalyuga, Chandler, Tuovinen, & Sweller, 2001) (Renkl, Atkinson, Maier, & Staley, 2002) (Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler, & Sweller, 2003) (Atkinson, Renkl, & Merrill, in press) *(M. T. H. Chi, 2000) (M.T.H. Chi et al., 2001) (V. Aleven & Koedinger, 2002) (Siegler, 2002) (Corbett, Wagner, lesgold, Ulrich, & Stevens, 2006)
Tutorial dialogues vs. monologues *(VanLehn et al., in press) (Vincent Aleven, Ogan, Popescu, Torrey, & Koedinger, 2004)
Learning with a peer, including collaborative learning, peer tutoring, learning by teaching (Reif & Scott, 1999) (Okita & Schwartz, 2006)
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 21
Fluency and refinement
Practice effects, including spacing and part-whole training effects *(Newell & Rosenbloom, 1981) (J.R. Anderson et al., 1997) (Pavlik & Anderson, 2005)
Macroadaptation and mastery learning effects (Bloom, 1984) *(C. Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-Drowns, 1990) (V. J. Shute, 1992) (V.J. Shute, 1993) (Corbett, 2001) (Ainsworth & Grimshaw, 2004) (Arroyo, Beal, Murray, Walles, & Woolf, 2004)
Implicit (practice only) vs. explicit (direct) instruction. *(Berry & Broadbent, 1984) (Singley, 1990) (K. Koedinger & Anderson, 1993) (Klahr & Nigam, 2004) (VanLehn et al., 2004)
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 22
Current research projects
Empirical projects
Alg
ebra
Geo
met
ry
Che
mis
try
Phy
sics
Fre
nch
Chi
nese
ES
L
Fluency & refinement 2 2 4 5 3Coordinative learning 2 3 2 1 1 2 1Interactive communication 2 1 8 1
Enabling technology 7
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 23
PSLC Theoretical framework
Glossary of theoretical terms– Micro-level – Macro-level
Analytic framework
Nex
t
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 24
Learning events over timeD
urat
ion
Fourth Third Second First Fifth
While studying an example, tries to self-explain; fails; looks in text; succeeds
While solving a problem, looks up example; recalls explanation; maps it to problem
Recalls explanation; slips; corrects
Solves without slipsSolves without slips
5 sec.
10 sec.
15 sec.
25 sec.
20 sec.
Opportunity
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 25
A new analytic framework, based on an analogy
A problem is to a problem space asa learning event is to a ____________ .
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 26
A new analytic framework, based on an analogy
A problem is to a problem space asa learning event is to a learning event space.
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 27
Key ideas
A learning event space is a set of paths determined by the instruction and the student’s prior knowledge,
but it is the student who chooses which path to follow
different paths have different outcomes:– Deep learning– Shallow learning– Mis-learning– Etc.
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 28
You get to choose the granularity
Coarse grain-size: Only observable actions – Correct vs. incorrect steps– Feedback from tutor
Finer: Reportable mental actions– Recall vs. construct
Even finer?
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 29
How to use learning event spaces
Construct a learning event space such that…
it is consistent with observable actions, and…
the top level question, “Why did they learn?”
becomes two easier questions:– Path choice: Why did students tend to choose as
they did?– Path effects: Given that a student went down a
path, why did that cause the observed learning/outcomes?
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 30
A simple illustration
Maxine Eskenazi & Alan Juffs hypothesize that using authentic texts will increase vocabulary acquisition in ESL.– Students read text with a few target unfamiliar
words.– Texts come either from web or from existing
primer.– Clicking on an target word displays its definition.
Why would authenticity increase learning? How?
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 31
Learning event space (one per target word)
Start Ignore the word
– Exit, with little learning Infer meaning from context
– Exit, with “implicit” learning Click on the word; definition is displayed
– Read & understand the definition Exit, with “explicit” learning
– Go to Start
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 32
Why should authentic text help?Hypotheses based on path choices
Start Ignore the word
– Exit, with little learning Infer meaning from context
– Exit, with implicit learning Click on the word; definition is displayed
– Read & understand the definition Exit, with explicit learning
– Go to Start
Authentic text should decrease this
Authentic text should increase this
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 33
Why should authentic text help?Hypotheses based on path effects
Start Ignore the word
– Exit, with little learning Infer meaning from context
– Exit, with “implicit” learning Click on the word; definition is displayed
– Read & understand the definition Exit, with “explicit” learning
– Go to Start
Cue validity of this path increases
No change???
No change
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 34
To summarize the theoretical framework…
Glossary– Macro-level
Sense-making– Coordinative Learning– Interactive Communication
Fluency
– Micro level: Knowledge components, learning events…
Learning events space– Decomposes “why did they learn?” into
Path choices: Which paths were chosen? Path effects: For each path, what was learned?
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 35
Find the pain (and relieve it) in the…
Literature– Known question– Answer would add information and/or
clarity Classroom
– Instructors consider the question important Science of learning
– Glossary of theoretical terms– Learning event spaces
June 25, 2008© Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008Theoretical Relevance: 36
Contact Information
Robert G.M. HausmannUniversity of Pittsburgh 706 Learning Research and Development Center3939 O' Hara Street Pittsburgh, PA, 15260-5179
Web page: http://www.pitt.edu/~bobhaus
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 412.624.7536
Fax: 412.624.9149