Rule-Learning Events in the Acquisition of a Complex Skill: An Evaluation of Cascade

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 71-125

  VanLehn, Kurt ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041381613     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15327809jls0801_3     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Anderson, J. R. (1982). The acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369-406.
2. Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
3. Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
4. Bergadano, F., Giordanna, A., & Ponsero, S. (1989). Deduction in top-down inductive learning. In A. M. Segre (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Machine Learning. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
5. Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem-solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 221-252.
6. Bundy, A., Byrd, L., Luger, G., Mellish, C., & Palmer, M. (1979). Solving mechanics problems using meta-level inference. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on A1 (pp. 1017-1027). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
7. Carbonell, J. G. (1983). Learning by analogy: Formulating and generalizing plans from past experience. In R. S. Michalski, J. G. Carbonell, & T. M. Mitchell (Eds.), Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach (pp. 137-162). Palo Alto, CA: Tioga.
8. Carbonell, J. G. (1986). Derivational analogy: A theory of reconstructive problem solving and expertise acquisition. In R. S. Michalski, J. G. Carbonell, & T. M. Mitchell (Eds.), Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach (Vol. 2, pp. 371-392). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
9. Chi, M.T.H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 15, 145-182.
10. Chi, M.T.H., de Leeuw, N. D., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
11. Chi, M.T.H., & VanLehn, K. (1991). The content of physics self-explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 69-105.
12. Conati, C., & Fain Lehman, J. (1993). EFH-Soar: Modeling education in highly interactive microworlds. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence. New York: Springer-Verlag.
13. Conati, C., Gertner, A., VanLehn, K., & Druzdzel, M. (1997). On-line student modeling for coached problem solving using Bayesian networks. In A. Jameson, C. Paris, & C. Tasso (Eds.), User modeling: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference, UM97. New York: Spring Wien.
14. de Kleer, J. (1975). Qualitative and quantitative knowledge in classical mechanics (Tech. Rep. No. AI-TR-352). Cambridge, MA: MIT AI Laboratory.
15. di Sessa, A. A. (1993).Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105-225.
16. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
17. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
18. Elio, R., & Scharf, P. B. (1990). Modeling novice-to-expert shifts in problem-solving strategy and knowledge organization. Cognitive Science, 14, 579-639.
19. Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M., & Jong, T. D. (1990). Studying physics texts: Differences in study processes between good and poor solvers. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 41-54.
20. Halliday, D., & Resnick, R. (1981). Fundamentals of physics (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
21. Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1056-1065.
22. Jones, R. (1989). A model of retrieval in problem solving. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
23. Jones, R. M., & VanLehn, K. (1992). A fine-grained model of skill acquisition. In J. Kruschke (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 873-878). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
24. Jones, R. M., & VanLehn, K. (1994). Acquisition of children's addition strategies: A model of impasse-free, knowledge-level learning. Machine Learning, 16, 11-36.
25. Lamberts, K. (1990). A hybrid model of learning to solve physics problems. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 3, 151-170.
26. Langley, P. (1987). A general theory of discrimination learning. In D. Klaht, P. Langley, & R. Neches (Eds.), Production system models of learning and develop ment (pp. 99-161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Langley, P., & Allen, J. (1993). A unified framework for planning and learning. In S. Minton (Ed.), Machine learning methods for planning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
28. Langley, P., McKusick, K. B., Allen, J. A., Iba, W. F., & Thompson, K. (1991). A design for the Icarus architecture. SIGART Bulletin, 2, 104-109.
29. Larkin, J. H. (1981). Enriching formal knowledge: A model for learning to solve textbook physics problems. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 311-334). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
30. Lawler, R. W. (1991). The progressive construction of mind. Cognitive Science, 5, 1-30.
31. Lewis, C. (1988). Why and how to learn why: Analysis-based generalization of procedures. Cognitive Science, 12, 211-256.
32. Lovett, M. C. (1992). Learning by problem solving versus by examples: The benefits of generating and receiving information. In J. Kruschke (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 956-961). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
33. McCloskey, M., Caramazza, A., & Green, B. (1980). Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces: Naive beliefs about the motion of objects. Science, 210, 1139-1141.
34. McDermott, J., & Larkin, J. H. (1978). Re-representing textbook physics problems. In Proceedings of the Second National Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence (pp. 156-164). Toronto, Canada.
35. Neches, R. (1987). Learning through incremental refinement of procedures. In D. Klahr, P. Langley, & R. Neches (Eds.), Production system models of learning and development (pp. 163-219). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36. Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37. Novak, G. S., & Araya, A. A. (1980). Research on expert problem solving in physics. In Proceedings of the First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 178-180). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI.
38. Ohlsson, S. (1987). Transfer of training in procedural learning: A matter of conjectures and refutations? In L. Bolc (Ed.), Computational models of learning (pp. 55-88). New York: Springer-Verlag.
39. Ohlsson, S. (1993). The interaction between knowledge and practice in the acquisition of cognitive skills. In A. Merowitz & S. Chipman (Eds.), Cognitive models of complex learning (pp. 147-208). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
40. Ohlsson, S. (1996). Learning from performance errors. Psychological Review, 103, 241-262.
41. Pazzani, M. J. (1990). Creating a memory of causal relationships: An integration of empirical and explanation-based learning methods. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
42. Pazzani, M., Myer, M., & Flowers, M. (1986). The role of prior causal theories in generalization. In T. Kehler, S. Rosenschein, R. Filman, & P. F. Patel-Schneider (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 545-550). Menlo Park, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
43. Pirolli, P., & Bielaczyc, K. (1989). Empirical analyses of self-explanation and transfer in learning to program. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 459-457). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
44. Pirolli, P., & Recker, M. (1994). Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 235-275.
45. Ploetzner, R., & VanLehn, K. (1997). The acquisition of informal physics knowledge during formal physics training. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 169-206.
46. Priest, A. G., & Lindsay, R. O. (1992). New light on novice-expert differences in physics problem solving. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 389-405.
47. Ram, A. (1990). Incremental learning of explanation patterns and their indices. In B. Porter & R. Mooney (Eds.), Machine learning: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference (pp. 313-320). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
48. Ram, A., & Cox, M. (1994). Introspective reasoning using meta-explanations for multistrategy learning. In R. Michalski & G. Tecuci (Eds.), Machine learning: A multistrategy approach (Vol. 4, pp. 349-377). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
49. Ram, A., Narayanan, S., & Cox, M. T. (1995). Learning to troubleshoot: Multistrategy learning of diagnostic knowledge for a real-world problem-solving task. Cognitive Science, 19, 289-340.
50. Recker, M. M., & Pirolli, P. (1995). Modeling individual differences in students' learning strategies. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 1-38.
51. Reimann, P., & Schult, T. J. (1993). Understanding and using worked-out examples: A computational model. In G. S. a. K. F. Wender (Ed.), The cognitive psychology of knowledge (pp. 177-201). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
52. Reimann, P., Wichmann, S., & Schult, T., J. (1993). A learning strategy model for worked-out examples. In P. Brna, S. Ohlsson, & H. Pain (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Proceedings of AI-ED93 (pp. 290-297). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
53. Renkl, A. (in press). Learning from worked-examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science.
54. Ruiz, D., & Newell, A. (1989). Tower noticing triggers strategy change in the Tower of Hanoi: A Soar model. In G. Ohlsson & E. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 522-529). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
55. Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (1995). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
56. Schank, R. C. (1986). Explanation patterns: Understanding mechanically and creatively. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
57. Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J. P., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student's evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 55-177). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
58. Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
59. Shrager, J. (1987). Theory change via view applications in instructionless learning. Machine Learning, 2, 247-276.
60. Shrager, J. (1990). Commonsense perception and the psychology of theory formation. In J. Shrager & P. Langley (Eds.), Computational models of scientific discovery and theory formation (pp. 437-470). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
61. Shrager, J., & Klahr, D. (1986). Instructionless learning about a complex device: The paradigm and observations. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 25, 153-189.
62. Siegler, R. S., & Jenkins, E. (1989). How children discover new strategies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
63. Sussman, G. J. (1975). A computer model of skill acquisition. New York: Elsevier.
64. VanLehn, K. (1987). Learning one subprocedure per lesson. Artificial Intelligence, 31, 1-40.
65. VanLehn, K. (1991). Rule acquisition events in the discovery of problem solving strategies. Cognitive Science, 15, 1-47.
66. VanLehn, K. (1996). Conceptual and meta learning during coached problem solving. In C. Frasson, G. Gauthier, & A. Lesgold (Eds.), ITS96: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 29-47). New York: Springer-Verlag.
67. VanLehn, K. (in press). Analogy events: How examples are used during problem solving. Cognitive Science.
68. VanLehn, K., Ball, W., & Kowalski, B. (1990). Explanation-based learning of correctness: Towards a model of the self-explanation effect. In M. Piattelli-Palmarini (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 717-724). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
69. VanLehn, K., & Jones, R. M. (1993a). Better learners use analogical problem solving sparingly. In P. E. Utgoff (Ed.), Machine learning: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference (pp. 338-345). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
70. VanLehn, K., & Jones, R. M. (1993b). Integration of analogical search control and explanation-based learning of correctness. In S. Minton (Ed.), Machine learning methods for planning (pp. 273-315). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
71. VanLehn, K., & Jones, R. M. (1993c). Learning by explaining examples to oneself: A computational model. In S. Chipman & A. Meyrowitz (Eds.), Cognitive models of complex learning (pp. 25-82). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
72. VanLehn, K., & Jones, R. M. (1993d). What mediates the self-explanation effect? Knowledge gaps, schemas or analogies? In M. Poison (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1034-1039). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
73. VanLehn, K., Jones, R. M., & Chi, M.T.H. (1992). A model of the self-explanation effect. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 1-59.
74. Widmer, G. (1989). A tight integration of deductive and inductive learning. In A. M. Segre (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Machine Learning (pp. 11-13). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufman.