Learning to Think: Cognitive Mechanisms of Knowledge Transfer

The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages

  Koedinger, Kenneth R ^a   Roll, Ido ^b  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cognitive task analysis; Cognitive tutors; Computational modeling; Educational technology; In vivo experiments; Language and math learning; Transfer

Indexed keywords

EID: 85066514627     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734689.013.0040     Document Type: Chapter

References (90)

1. Aleven, V. (2006). An intelligent learning environment for case-based argumentation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 4 (2), 191-241.
2. Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26 (2), 147-179.
3. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4 (2), 167-207.
6. Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Baker, R. S. J. d., Corbett, A. T. & Koedinger, K. R. (2007). The difficulty factors approach to the design of lessons in intelligent tutor curricula. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 17 (4), 341-369.
8. Bannard, C., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Modeling children's early grammatical knowledge. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (41), 17284-17289.
9. Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128 (4), 612-637.
10. Biederman, I., & Shiffrar, M. M. (1987). Sexing day-old chicks: A case study and expert systems analysis of a difficult perceptual learning task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13 (4), 640-645.
11. Blum, A., & Mitchell, T. (1998). Combining labeled and unlabeled data with co-training. In Proceedings of Eleventh Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory (COLT) (pp. 92-100). New York: ACM Press.
12. Cen, H., Koedinger, K. R., & Junker, B. (2006). Learning factors analysis: A general method for cognitive model evaluation and improvement. In M. Ikeda, K. D. Ashley, T-W. Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 164-175). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
13. Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (1985). Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 391-416.
14. 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, 13, 145-182.
15. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18 (3), 439-477.
16. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
17. Clark, R. E., Feldon, D., van Merriënboer, J., Yates, K., & Early, S. (2007). Cognitive task analysis. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 577-593). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). e-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
19. Corbett, A., Kauffman, L., MacLaren, B., Wagner, A., & Jones, E. (2010). A cognitive tutor for genetics problem solving: Learning gains and student modeling. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42 (2), 219-239.
20. Cummins, D., Kintsch, W., Reusser, K., & Weimer, R. (1988). The role of understanding in solving word problems. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 405-438.
21. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
22. di Sessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 105-225.
23. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
24. Falmagne, J-C., Koppen, M., Villano, M., Doignon, J-P., & Johannesen, L. (1990). Introduction to knowledge spaces: How to build, test, and search them. Psychological Review, 97, 201-224.
25. Gentner, D. (2003). Why we're so smart. In D. Gentner, & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds)., Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 195-236). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., Thompson, L., & Forbus, K. D. (2009). Reviving inert knowledge: Analogical abstraction supports relational retrieval of past events. Cognitive Science, 33, 1343-1382.
27. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-38.
28. Gobet, F. (2005). Chunking models of expertise: Implications for education. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 183-204.
29. Goldstone, R. L., Landy, D. H., & Son, J. Y. (2010). The education of perception. Topics of Cognitive Science, 2 (2), 265-284.
30. Goldstone, R. L., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Promoting transfer by grounding complex systems principles. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17 (4), 465-516.
31. Haverty, L. A., Koedinger, K. R., Klahr, D., & Alibali, M. W. (2000). Solving induction problems in mathematics: Not-so-trivial pursuit. Cognitive Science, 24 (2), 249-298.
32. Heffernan, N. & Koedinger, K. R. (1998). A developmental model for algebra symbolization: The results of a difficulty factors assessment. In M. A. Gernsbacher & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 484-489). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. Holland, J. H., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Thagard, P. R. (1986). Induction: Processes of inference, learning, and discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2003). A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization. Psychological Review, 110, 220-264.
35. Judd, C. H. (1908). The relation of special training to general intelligence. Educational Review, 36, 28-42.
36. Koedinger, K. R., Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. M. (2008). Trade-offs between grounded and abstract representations: Evidence from algebra problem solving. Cognitive Science, 32 (2), 366-397.
37. Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1990). Abstract planning and perceptual chunks: Elements of expertise in geometry. Cognitive Science, 14, 511-550.
38. Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. T. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning science to the classroom. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 61-78). New York: Cambridge University Press.
39. Koedinger, K. R., Corbett, A. C., & Perfetti, C. (2010). The Knowledge-Learning-Instruction (KLI) framework: Toward bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. CMU-HCII Tech Report 10-102. Accessible via http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/hcii.html.
40. Koedinger, K. R., & McLaughlin, E. A. (2010). Seeing language learning inside the math: Cognitive analysis yields transfer. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 471-476). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
41. Koedinger, K. R., & Nathan, M. J. (2004). The real story behind story problems: Effects of representations on quantitative reasoning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (2), 129-164.
42. Klahr, D., & Carver, S. M. (1988). Cognitive objectives in a LOGO debugging curriculum: Instruction, learning, and transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 362-404.
43. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11 (1), 65-99.
44. Lehrer, R., Guckenberg, T., & Sancilio, L. (1988). Influences of LOGO on children's intellectual development. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Teaching and learning computer programming: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 75-110). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
45. Li, N., Cohen, W. W., & Koedinger, K. R. (2010). A computational model of accelerated future learning through feature recognition. In V. Aleven, J. Kay & J. Mostow (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 368-370). Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer.
46. Lovett, M., Meyer, O., & Thille, C. (2008). JIME - The Open Learning Initiative: Measuring the effectiveness of the OLI statistics course in accelerating student learning. Journal Of Interactive Media In Education, 2008(1). Retrieved February 16, 2011, from http://jime.open.ac.uk/2008/14
47. Matsuda, N., Cohen, W., Sewall, J., Lacerda, G., & Koedinger, K. R. (2008). Why tutored problem solving may be better than example study: Theoretical implications from a simulated-student study. In A. Esma and B. Woolf (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 111-121), Berlin: Springer.
48. Matsuda, N., Lee, A., Cohen, W. W., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009). A computational model of how learner errors arise from weak prior knowledge. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1288-1293). Cognitive Science Society, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
49. Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in the Philosophy of Education, 27 (4), 283-297.
50. Minstrell, J. (2001). Facets of students' thinking: Designing to cross the gap from research to standards-based practice. In K. Crowley, C. D. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications for professional, instructional, and everyday science (pp. 415-443). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
51. Nathan, M. J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2000). An investigation of teachers' beliefs of students' algebra development. Cognition and Instruction, 18 (2), 207-235.
52. National Academy of Education. (2009). Standards, assessments, and accountability: Education policy white paper. (L. Shepard, J. Hannaway, & E. Baker, Eds.). Washington, DC: Author.
53. Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1976). Computer science as empirical inquiry: Symbols and search. Communications of the ACM, 19.
55. Nilsson, N. (2007). The physical symbol system hypothesis: Status and prospects. In M. Lungarella (Ed.), 50 years of AI (pp. 9-17) Berlin: Springer.
56. Novick, L. R. (1990). Representational transfer in problem solving. Psychological Science, 1, 128-132.
57. Ogan, A., Aleven, V., & Jones, C. (2010). Advancing development of intercultural competence through supporting predictions in narrative video. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19 (3), 267-288.
58. Ohlsson, S., & Mitrovic, A. (2007). Fidelity and efficiency of knowledge representations for intelligent tutoring systems. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 5 (2), 101-132.
59. Papert, S. (2000). What's the big idea: Towards a pedagogy of idea power. IBM Systems Journal, 39, 3-4.
60. Pashler, H., Bain, P., Bottge, B., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., & Metcalfe, J. (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning (NCER 2007-2004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
61. Pirolli, P. L., & Anderson, J. R. (1985). The acquisition of skill in the domain of programming recursion. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 39, 240-272.
62. Polk, T. A., & Newell, A. (1995). Deduction as verbal reasoning. Psychological Review, 102 (3), 533-566.
63. Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
64. Post & Brennan (1976). An experimental study of the effectiveness of a formal versus an informal presentation of a general heuristic process on problem solving in tenth-grade geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 7(1), 59-64
65. Ritter, S., Kulikowich, J., Lei, P., McGuire, C. L., & Morgan, P. (2007). What evidence matters? A randomized field trial of cognitive tutor algebra I. In T. Hirashima, U. Hoppe, & S. S. Young (Eds.), Supporting learning flow through integrative technologies (Vol. 162, pp. 13-20). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
66. Ritter, S., Anderson, J. R., Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. (2007). Cognitive tutor: Applied research in mathematics education. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2, 249-255.
67. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. (2009). Compared to what? The effects of different comparisons on conceptual knowledge and procedural flexibility for equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (3), 529-544.
68. Reber, A. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 855-863.
69. Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2010). Learning from worked-out examples and problem solving. In J. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory and research in educational psychology (pp. 91-108). New York: Cambridge University Press.
70. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181-210.
71. Roll, I., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009). Helping students know 'further' - increasing the flexibility of students' knowledge using symbolic invention tasks. In N. A. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1169-1174). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
72. Roll, I., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Outcomes and mechanisms of transfer in invention activities. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2824-2829). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
73. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FA: Academic Press.
74. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2007). Problem solving in the United States, 1970-2008: Research and theory, practice and politics. ZDM Mathematics Education, 39, 537-551.
75. Schunn, C. D., & Anderson, J. R. (1999). The generality/specificity of expertise in scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 23, 337-370.
76. Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22 (2), 129-184.
77. Schwartz, D. L., Martin, T., & Pfaffman, J. (2005). How mathematics propels the development of physical knowledge. Journal of Cognition and Development, 6 (1), 65-88.
78. Siegler, R. S. (2002). Microgenetic studies of self-explanation. In N. Granott & J. Parziale (Eds.). Microdevelopment - transition processes in development and learning (pp. 30-58). New York: Cambridge University Press.
79. Singley, K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
80. Stigler, J. W. (1984). The effect of abacus training on Chinese children's mental calculation. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 145-176.
81. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
82. Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 59-89.
83. Thorndike, E. L., & Woodworth, R. S. (1901). The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. Psychological Review, 8, 247-261.
84. Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). Constructivist theory applied to instruction: Success or failure? New York: Routledge.
85. Tomasello, M. (2000). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
86. VanLehn, K. (1987). Learning one subprocedure per lesson. Artificial Intelligence, 31, 1-40.
87. VanLehn, K. (1999). Rule learning events in the acquisition of a complex skill: An evaluation of Cascade. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8 (1), 71-125.
88. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17 (1), 147-177.
89. Yaron, D., Karabinos, M., Evans, K., Davenport, J., Cuadros J., & Greeno, J. (2010). Learning chemistry: What, when, and how? In M. K. Stein & L. Kucan (Eds.), Instructional explanations in the disciplines (pp. 41-50). New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
90. Zhu, X., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Learning mathematics from examples and by doing. Cognition and Instruction, 4 (3), 137-166.