Design requirements, student perception indicators and validation metrics for intelligent exploratory learning environments

Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

Volumn 17, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 1605-1620

  Mavrikis, Manolis ^a   Gutierrez Santos, Sergio ^a   Geraniou, Eirini ^a   Noss, Richard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Child interaction; Co located feedback; Exploratory learning; Feedback interruption; Intelligent microworlds; Validation metrics

Indexed keywords

CHILD INTERACTION; CO-LOCATED; EXPLORATORY LEARNING; MICROWORLDS; VALIDATION METRICS;

DESIGN; INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS; UBIQUITOUS COMPUTING;

COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION;

EID: 84892365115     PISSN: 16174909     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00779-012-0524-3     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Aleven V (2002) An effective metacognitive strategy: learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cogn Sci 26(2):147-179
2. Aleven V, Mclaren B, Roll I, Koedinger K (2006) Toward metacognitive tutoring: a model of help seeking with a cognitive tutor. Int J Artif Intell Edu 16(2):101-128
3. Arroyo I, Ferguson K, Johns J, Dragon T, Meheranian H, Fisher D, Barto A, Mahadevan S, Woolf BP (2007) Repairing disengagement with non-invasive interventions. In: Proceeding of the 2007 conference on artificial intelligence in education, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 195-202
4. Baker RS, Corbett AT, Koedinger KR, Wagner AZ (2004) Offtask behavior in the cognitive tutor classroom: when students "game the system". In: CHI '04: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, pp 383-390
5. Bark I, Folstad A, Gulliksen J (2005) Use and usefulness of HCI methods: results from an exploratory study among nordic HCI practitioners. In: International conference on HCI
6. Bransford JD, Franks JJ, Vye NJ, Sherwood RD (1989) New approaches to instruction: because wisdom can't be told. In: Vosniadou S, Ortony A (eds) Similarity and analogical reasoning. Cambridge University Press, New York
7. Bunt A, Conati C (2003) Probabilistic Student modelling to improve exploratory behaviour. User Model User-Adapt Interact 13:269-309
8. Chevallard Y (1991) La transposition didactique-Du savoir savant au savoir enseigné. La Pensée sauvage (1re éd., 1985), Grenoble
9. Dempsey JV, Wager SU (1988) A taxonomy for the timing of feedback in computer-based instruction. Educ Technol 28(10):20-25
10. Disessa AA, Cobb P (2004) Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. J Learn Sci 13(1):77-103
11. Do-Lenh S, Jermann P, Cuendet S, Zufferey G, Dillenbourg P (2010) Task performance vs. learning outcomes: a study of a tangible user interface in the classroom. In: Wolpers M, Kirschner P, Scheffel M, Lindstaedt S, Dimitrova V (eds) Sustaining TEL: from innovation to learning and practice. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6383. Springer, Berlin, pp 78-92
12. Gutierrez-Santos S, Mavrikis M, Magoulas G (2010) Layered development and evaluation for intelligent support in exploratory environments: the case of microworlds. In: Aleven V, Kay J, Mostow J (eds) Intelligent tutoring systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6094. Springer, Berlin, pp 105-114
13. Healy L, Hoelzl R, Hoyles C, Noss R (1994) Messing up. Micromath 10:14-17
14. Hoyles C, Sutherland R (1989) Logo mathematics in the classroom. Routledge, London
15. de van Jong T, Joolingen WR (1998) Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Rev Educ Res 68:179-201
16. Joolingen WR, Zacharia ZC (2009) Developments in inquiry learning. In: Balacheff N, Ludvigsen S, de Jong T, Lazonder A, Barnes S (eds) Technology-enhanced learning, chap 2, pp 21-37
17. Kelleher C, Pausch R (2005) Stencils-based tutorials: design and evaluation. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM, NY, CHI '05, pp 541-550
18. Kirschner P, Sweller J, Clark RE (2006) Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educ Psychol 41(2):75-86
19. Kynigos C (1992) Insights into pupils' and teachers' activities in pupil-controlled problem-solving situations. In: Information technology and mathematics problem solving: research in contexts of practice, NATO ASI Series, vol 2. Springer, Berlin, pp 219-238
20. Lesh R, Kelly AE (1996) A constructivist model for redesigning AI tutors in mathematics. In: Laborde JM (eds) Intelligent learning environments: the case of geometry. Springer, New York
21. Mason J (2008) Being mathematical with and in front of learners: attention, awareness, and attitude as sources of differences between teacher educators, teachers and learners. In: Wood (ed) International handbook of mathematics teacher education, vol 4. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam
22. Mavrikis M (2004) Improving the effectiveness of interactive open learning environments. In: 3rd hellenic conference on artificial intelligence-companion volume, pp 260-269
23. Mavrikis M, Gutierrez-Santos S (2010) Not all wizards are from Oz: iterative design of intelligent learning environments by communication capacity tapering. Comput Educ 54(3):641-651
24. Mavrikis M, Noss R, Geraniou E, Hoyles C (2012) Sowing the seeds of algebraic generalisation: designing epistemic affordances for an intelligent microworld. J Comput Assist Learn (in press)
25. Mayer RE (2004) Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?-the case for guided methods of instruction. Am Psychol 59(1):14-19
26. Noss R, Hoyles C (1996) Windows on mathematical meanings: learning cultures and computers. Kluwer, Dordrecht
27. Noss R, Poulovassilis A, Geraniou E, Gutierrez-Santos S, Hoyles C, Kahn K, Magoulas GD, Mavrikis M (2012) The design of a system to support exploratory learning of algebraic generalisation. Comput Educ 59(1):63-81
28. Paramythis A, Weibelzahl S, Masthoff J (2010) Layered evaluation of interactive adaptive systems: framework and formative methods. User Model User-Adapt Interact 20(5):383-453
29. Pontual Falcão T, Price S (2010) Interfering and resolving: how tabletop interaction facilitates co-construction of argumentative knowledge. Int J Comput-Support Collab Learn 6(4):1-21
30. Read J, Macfarlane S (2002) Endurability, Engagement and Expectations: Measuring children's fun. In: Interaction design and children,vol 2. Shaker Publishing, Aachen, pp 1-23
31. Read JC (2008) Validating the fun toolkit: an instrument for measuring children's opinions of technology. Cogn Technol Work 10(2):119-128
32. Rounding K, Tee K, Wu X, Guo C, Tse E (2011) Evaluating interfaces with children. In: Child computer interaction. 2nd workshop on UI technologies and educational pedagogy. At ACM CHI 2011, Conference on human factors in computing systems
33. Scardamalia M, Bereiter C (1991) Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: a challenge for the design of new knowledge media. J Learn Sci 1(1):37-68
34. Tse E, Schöning J, Huber J, Marentette T, Beckwith R, Rogers Y, Mühlhäuse M (2011) Child computer interaction. 2nd workshop on UI technologies and educational pedagogy. At ACM CHI 2011, Conference on human factors in computing systems
35. Wood H, Wood D (1999) Help seeking, learning and contigent tutoring. Comput Educ 33:153-169
36. Zayas Pérez B, Cox R (2009) Teaching safety precautions in a laboratory DVE: the effects of information location and interactivity. Computacion y Sistemas (special issue on 'Innovative applications of artificial intelligence') 13:96-110