Does representational understanding enhance fluency – Or vice versa? Searching for mediation models

Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, EDM 2013

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages

  Rau, Martina A ^a   Scheines, Richard ^b   Aleven, Vincent ^a   Rummel, Nikol ^c  

^a Carnegie Mellon University ^*  (United States)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Causal path analysis modeling; Intelligent tutoring systems; Multiple representations

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION; INTELLIGENT VEHICLE HIGHWAY SYSTEMS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

CAUSAL PATHS; CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING; ENHANCE LEARNING; EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS; INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT; INTELLIGENT TUTORING SYSTEM; MULTIPLE REPRESENTATION; STATISTICAL MODELING;

DATA MINING;

EID: 85084012370     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. Koedinger, K.R., Corbett, A.T. Perfetti, C.: Knowledge-Learning-Instruction Framework: Bridging the Science-Practice Chasm to Enhance Robust Student Learning. Cognitive Science, 36, 757–798 (2012).
2. NMAP: Foundations for Success: Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Board Panel. U.S. Government Printing Office (2008).
3. Cramer, K. Using models to build an understanding of functions. Mathematics teaching in the middle school, 6, 310-318 (2001).
4. Charalambous, C.Y., Pitta-Pantazi, D.: Drawing on a Theoretical Model to Study Students' Understandings of Fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64, 293-316 (2007).
5. Siegler, R. S., Thompson, C. A. and Schneider, M. An integrated theory of whole number and fractions development. Cognitive Psychology, 62, 273-296 (2011).
6. Rau, M.A., Aleven, V. Rummel, N.: Intelligent tutoring systems with multiple representations and self-explanation prompts support learning of fractions. In: Dimitrova, V. et al. (eds) Proceedings of the 2009 conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. pp. 441-448 (2009).
7. Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Feuerlein, I., Spada, H.: The Active Integration of Information during Learning with Dynamic and Interactive Visualisations. Learning and Instruction, 14, 325-341 (2004).
8. Ainsworth, S.: DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-198 (2006).
9. de Jong, T., Ainsworth, S. E., Dobson, M., Van der Meij, J., Levonen, J., Reimann, P., Simerly, C. R., Van Someren, M. W., Spada, H. and Swaak, J. Acquiring knowledge in science and mathematics: The use of multiple representations in technology-based learning environments. Oxford (1998).
10. Bodemer, D. and Faust, U. External and mental referencing of multiple representations. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 27-42 (2006).
11. Schwonke, R., Berthold, K. and Renkl, A. How multiple external representations are used and how they can be made more useful. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1227-1243 (2009).
12. Rau, M.A., Rummel, N., Aleven, V., Pacilio, L., Tunc-Pekkan, Z.: How to schedule multiple graphical representations? A classroom experiment with an intelligent tutoring system for fractions. In: Aalst, J.v., et al. (eds) The future of learning: Proceedings of the 10th ICLS, ISLS, Sydney, Australia. 64-71 (2012).
13. Kellman, P. J., Massey, C. M. and Son, J. Y. Perceptual Learning Modules in Mathematics: Enhancing Students’ Pattern Recognition, Structure Extraction, and Fluency. Topics in Cognitive Science, 22009), 285-305.
14. Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., Rummel, N. and Rohrbach, S. Sense Making Alone Doesn’t Do It: Fluency Matters Too! ITS Support for Robust Learning with Multiple Representations. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg (2012).
15. VanLehn, K. The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46, 197-221 (2011).
16. Aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., Sewall, J. and Koedinger, K. R. Example-tracing tutors: A new paradigm for intelligent tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19, 105-154 (2008).
17. Baker, R. S. J. D., Corbett, A. T. and Koedinger, K. R. The difficulty factors approach to the design of lessons in intelligent tutor curricula. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 17, 341-369 (2007).
18. Rau, M. A., Aleven, V. and Rummel, N. Blocked versus Interleaved Practice with Multiple Representations in an Intelligent Tutoring System for Fractions, In: Yacef, K. et al. (eds), Proceedings of the 5th Intl Conference of ITS, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg (2010).
19. Chickering, D. M. Optimal Structure Identification with Greedy Search. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 507-554 (2002).
20. Pearl, J. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Interference. Cambridge University Press (2000).
21. Spirtes, P., Glymour, C. and Scheines, R. Causation, Prediction, and Search. MIT Press (2000).
22. Robins, J., Scheines, R., Spirtes, P. and Wasserman, L.: Uniform Consistency in Causal Inference. Biometrika, 90, 491 – 515 (2003).
23. Koedinger, K. R. et al.: A data repository for the EDM community: The PSLC Data-Shop, In: C. Romero (ed.), Handbook of educational data mining (pp. 10-12). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press (2010).