How to schedule multiple graphical representations? A classroom experiment with an intelligent tutoring system for fractions

10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences: The Future of Learning, ICLS 2012 - Proceedings

Volumn 1, Issue , 2012, Pages 64-71

  Rau, Martina A ^a   Rummel, Nikol ^b   Aleven, Vincent ^a   Pacilio, Laura ^a   Tunc Pekkan, Zelha ^a  

^a Carnegie Mellon University   (United States)

^b RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION; COGNITIVE PROCESS; ENHANCE LEARNING; GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATIONS; INTELLIGENT TUTORING SYSTEM; LEARNING CONTENTS; LEARNING TASKS; MULTIPLE REPRESENTATION;

COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION; EDUCATION COMPUTING; EXPERIMENTS;

GRAPHIC METHODS;

EID: 84878743844     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (13)

1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
2. Aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., Sewall, J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009). Example-tracing tutors: A new paradigm for intelligent tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19(2), 105-154.
3. Battig, W. F. (1972). Intratask interference as a source of facilitation in transfer and retention. In R. F. Thompson & J. F. Vos (Eds.), Topics in learning and performance (pp. 131-159). New York: Academic Press.
4. Charalambous, C. Y., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2007). Drawing on a Theoretical Model to Study Students' Understandings of Fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64(3), 293-316.
5. de Croock, M. B. M., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). High versus low contextual interference in simulation-based training of troubleshooting skills: Effects on transfer performance and invested mental effort. Computers in Human Behavior, 14(2), 249-267.
6. de Jong, T., Ainsworth, S. E., Dobson, M., Van der Meij, J., Levonen, J., Reimann, P., et al. (1998). Acquiring knowledge in science and mathematics: The use of multiple representations in technology-based learning environments. In M. W. Van Someren, W. Reimers, H. P. A. Boshuizen & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with Multiple Representations. Oxford.
7. Ericsson, & Simon. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Koedinger, K., & Corbett, A. (2006). Cognitive Tutors: Technology bringing learning science to the classroom. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 61-78): Cambridge University Press.
9. Moyer, P., Bolyard, J., & Spikell, M. A. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives? Teaching children mathematics, 8, 372-377.
10. National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008). Foundations for Success: Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Board Panel: U.S. Government Printing Office.
11. th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp. 441-448. IOS Press, Amsterdam.
12. th International Conference of Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pp. 412-422, Springer, Heidelberg.
13. Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Sage Publications, Newbury Park.