Outcomes and Mechanisms of Transfer in Invention Activities

Expanding the Space of Cognitive Science - Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2011

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 2824-2829

  Roll, Ido ^a   Aleven, Vincent ^b   Koedinger, Kenneth R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b Carnegie Mellon University   (United States)

Author keywords

generation; intelligent tutoring systems; Invention activities; modular knowledge; transfer

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION; EDUCATION COMPUTING; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; STUDENTS;

CANONICAL METHODS; GENERATION; INTELLIGENT TUTORING; INTELLIGENT TUTORING SYSTEM; INVENTION ACTIVITY; MATHEMATICAL METHOD; MODULAR KNOWLEDGE; PROPERTY; TRANSFER; TUTORING SYSTEM;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 85139514241     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (13)

1. Aleven, V., McLaren, B., Sewall, J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009). Example-tracing tutors: A new paradigm for intelligent tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19: 105-154.
2. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (2001). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24(3), 61-100.
3. Chase, C. C., Shemwell, J. T., & Schwartz, D. L. (2010). Explaining across contrasting cases for deep understanding in science: An example using interactive simulations. In proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2010.
4. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379 - 424.
5. Richland, L. E., Bjork, R. A., Finley, J. R., & Linn, M. C. (2005). Linking cognitive science to education: Generation and interleaving effects. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the cognitive science society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Roll, I. (2009). Structured invention activities to prepare students for future learning: Means, mechanisms, and cognitive processes. Ph.D. Thesis, Pittsburgh, PA.
7. 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. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
8. Roll, I., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2010). The invention lab: Using a hybrid of model tracing and constraint-based modeling to offer intelligent support in inquiry environments. In V. Aleven, J. Kay, & J. Mostow (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on intelligent tutoring systems. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
9. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475-522.
10. 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.
11. Schwartz, D. L., Sears, D., & Chang, J. (2007). Reconsidering prior knowledge. In M. C. Lovett, & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data. (pp. 319-44). New York: Routledge.
12. Sweller, J. (2006). The worked example effect and human cognition. Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 165-169.
13. Taylor, J. L., Smith, K. M., van Stolk, A. P., & Spiegelman, G. B. (2010). Using invention to change how students tackle problems. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9(4).