‘Tis Better to Construct than to Receive? The Effects of Diagram Tools on Causal Reasoning

Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications

Volumn 158, Issue , 2007, Pages 93-100

  Easterday, Matthew W ^a   Aleven, Vincent ^a   Scheines, Richard ^a  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Causal reasoning; Diagrammatic reasoning; External representations

Indexed keywords

GRAPHIC METHODS;

CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY; CAUSAL DIAGRAM; CAUSAL REASONING; CONDITION; DIAGRAMMATIC REASONING; EXTERNAL REPRESENTATIONS; POLICY PROBLEM; POTENTIAL BENEFITS; STUDENT PERFORMANCE; UNIVERSITY STUDENTS;

STUDENTS;

EID: 85140090140     PISSN: 09226389     EISSN: 18798314     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (25)

1. Scheines, R., Easterday, M., & Danks, D. (in press). Teaching the Normative Theory of Causal Reasoning. In A. Gopnik, & L. Schultz (Eds.), Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy, and computation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
2. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
3. Voss, J. F., Perkins, D. N., & Segal, J. W. (1991). Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Larkin, & Simon (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
5. Ainsworth, S. E. (in press). DeFT: A conceptual framework for learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction.
6. Harrell, M. (2004). The improvement of critical thinking skills in What Philosophy Is (Tech. Rep. No. CMU-PHIL-158). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Philosophy.
7. Scaife, M. and Rogers, Y. (1996) External cognition: how do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(2), 185-213.
8. Cox, R. (1999) Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9(4), 343-363.
9. Novick, L. R., & Hurley, S. M. (2001). To matrix, network, or hierarchy: That is the question. Cognitive Psychology, 42(2), 158-216.
10. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 107-19.
11. Bauer, M. I., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1993). How diagrams can improve reasoning. Psychological Science, 4(6), 372-8.
12. Pinkwart, N., Aleven, V., Ashley, K., & Lynch, C. (2006). Toward legal argument instruction with graph grammars and collaborative filtering techniques. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 227-36.
13. Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer.
14. Van den Braak S. W., Van Oostendorp H., Prakken H., Vreeswijk G. (2006, August). A critical review of argument visualization tools: do users become better reasoners? Paper presented at the ECAI-06 Workshop on computational models of natural argument, Trento, Italy.
15. Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An Empirical Study of the Effects of Representational Guidance on Collaborative Learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183-219.
16. Harrell, M. (2005). Using argument diagramming software in the classroom. Teaching Philosophy, 28(2), 163-77.
17. Nesbit, C., & Adesope, O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413-48.
18. Cox, R. (1997). Representation interpretation versus representation construction: An ILE-based study using switchERII. Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, 434-41.
19. Hall, C., Bailey, J., & Tillman, C. (1997). Can Student-Generated Illustrations Be Worth Ten Thousand Words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 677-81.
20. Van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 129-40.
21. Grossen, B., & Carnine, D. (1990). Diagramming a logic strategy: Effects on difficult problem types and transfer. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13(3), 168-82.
22. Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., and Scheines, R. (2000). Causation, Prediction, and Search (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Easterday, M. W., Kanarek, J. S., & Harrell, M. (in press). Design Requirements of Argument Mapping Software for Teaching Deliberation. In T. Davies, & B. S. Noveck (Eds.), Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications/University of Chicago Press.
25. 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), 129-64.