Learning From Explanations: Diagramscan "Inhibit" the Self-Explanation Effect

AAAI Fall Symposium - Technical Report

Volumn FS-97-03, Issue , 1997, Pages 136-143

  Wilkin, Bernadette ^a  

^a University of California Berkeley   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADJACENT FEATURE; DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATIONS; FEATURE DISCRIMINATION; LEARN+; LOCALISATION; SELF EXPLANATIONS; SPATIAL LOCALIZATION; THINK ALOUD; WORKED-OUT EXAMPLES;

EID: 85169555830     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Armengol, E.; and Plaza, E. 1995. Explanation-Based Learning: A Knowledge Level Analysis. Artificial Intelligence Review9(1): 19-35.
2. Chi, M. T. 1996. Constructing Self-Explanations and Scaffolded Explanations in Tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology10: 533-549.
3. Chi, M. T.; and VanLehn, K. 1991. The Content of Physics Self-Explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences1(1): 69-105.
4. Chi, M. T.; Bassok, M; Lewis, M. W.; Reimann, P.; and Glaser, R. 1989. Self-Explanations: HowStudents Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems. Cognitive Science 13: 145-182.
5. Chi, M. T.; de Leew, N; Chiu, M. H.; and LaVancher, C. 1994. Eliciting Self-Explanations Improves Understanding.Cognitive Science 18." 439-477.
6. Cox, R.; and Brna. P. 1995. Supporting the Use of External Representations in Problem Solving: The Need for Flexible Learning Environments.Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education6(2-3): 239-302.
7. DiSessa, A. A. 1993. Towardan Epistemology of Physics. Cognition&Instruction 10(2-3): 105-225.
8. DeJong, G. ed. 1993. Investigating Explanation-Based Learning. Boston, Mass.: KluwerAcademicPublishers.
9. Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M.; and deJong, T. 1990. Studying Physics Texts: Differences in Study Processes BetweenGoodand Poor Solvers. Cognition &Instruction 7: 41-54.
10. Gernsbacher, M. A. 1993. Less Skilled Readers Have Less Efficient Suppression Mechanisms.Psychological Science 5: 294-298.
11. Koedinger, K. R. 1992. EmergentProperties and Structural Constraints: Advantages of DiagrammaticRepresentations for Reasoning and Learning. In AAAISpring Symposium on Reasoning With Diagrammatic Representations. Menlo Park, Calif.: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
12. Larkin, J. H.; and Simon, H. A. 1987. Whya Diagramis (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science 11: 65-99.
13. McCloskey, M. 1983. Intuitive Physics. Scientific American248: 122-130.
14. Pirolli, P.; and Bielaczyc, K. 1989. Empirical Analyses of Self-Explanation and Transfer in Learning to Program. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Pirolli, P.; and Recker, M. 1991. KnowledgeConstruction and Transfer Using an Intelligent Tutoring System, Technical Report, CSM-1, School of Education, University of California at Berkeley.
16. Scaife, M.; and Rogers, Y. 1996. External Cognition: Howdo Graphical Representations Work?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 45: 185-213.
17. VanLehn, K. in press. Analogy Events: HowExamples are UsedDuring ProblemSolving. Cognitive Science xx: XXX-XXX.
18. VanLehn, K.; and Jones, R. M. 1993. Learning by Explaining Examplesto Oneself: A Computational Model. In S. Chipmanand A. L. Meyrowitz eds. Foundations of Knowledge Acquisition: Cognitive Models of Complex Learning, 25-82. Boston, Mass.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.