Conceptual Learning in Chemistry - Revision history

Bmclaren: /* Connections to Other PSLC Studies */

2008-01-17T15:06:41Z

Connections to Other PSLC Studies

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:06, 17 January 2008
Line 83:		Line 83:

	* < TBD >		* < TBD >


	===Annotated Bibliography===		===Annotated Bibliography===

Bmclaren: /* Explanation */

2008-01-14T22:49:15Z

Explanation

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:49, 14 January 2008
Line 78:		Line 78:
	===Explanation===		===Explanation===

	This study is part of the [[~~Coordinative Learning~~]] cluster. The study follows the Coordinative Learning hypothesis that two (or more) [[sources]] of instructional information can lead to improved robust learning. In particular, the study tests whether an ITS and personalized (or polite) language used together lead to more robust learning and whether an ITS and worked examples used together lead to more robust learning.		This study is part of the [[Interactive Communication]] cluster.

	=== Connections to Other PSLC Studies===		=== Connections to Other PSLC Studies===

Bmclaren: /* Annotated Bibliography */

2008-01-14T22:47:19Z

Annotated Bibliography

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:47, 14 January 2008
Line 87:		Line 87:
	===Annotated Bibliography===		===Annotated Bibliography===

	*McLaren, B. M., ~~Lim~~, S., ~~Yaron~~, D., and Koedinger, K. R. (2007). Can a Polite Intelligent Tutoring System Lead to Improved Learning Outside of the Lab? In the Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED-07), pp 331-338. [[http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/images/5/5a/AIED-07-PoliteTutoring.pdf pdf file]]		*McLaren, B.M., Rummel, N., Tsovaltzi, D., Braun, I., Scheuer, O., Harrer, A., and Pinkwart, N. (2007). The CoChemEx Project: Conceptual Chemistry Learning through Experimentation and Adaptive Collaboration. In the Proceedings of the Workshop on 'Emerging Technologies for Inquiry Based Learning in Science' , AIED-07. (p. 36-48). Los Angeles (CA).
	*McLaren, B. M., Lim, S., ~~Gagnon~~, F., ~~Yaron~~, D., and ~~Koedinger~~, ~~K. R~~. (~~2006~~). ~~Studying the Effects of Personalized Language~~ and ~~Worked Examples in the Context of a Web-Based Intelligent Tutor;~~ In the Proceedings of the ~~8th International Conference~~ on ~~Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS-2006)~~, ~~pp. 318~~-~~328~~. ~~[[http://www~~.~~learnlab.org/research/wiki/images/5/58/ChemStudy1~~-~~ITS2006~~.~~pdf pdf file]]~~
	*McLaren, B. M. Presentation to the NSF Site Visitors, June, 2006.

	===References===		===References===

Bmclaren: /* Research Questions */

2008-01-14T22:43:14Z

Research Questions

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:43, 14 January 2008
Line 28:		Line 28:
	===Research Questions===		===Research Questions===

	Does [[collaboration]] – and in particular [[collaboration scripts\|scripted collaboration]] – improve students’ [[robust learning]], and in particular conceptual learning, in the domain of chemistry?		Does [[collaboration]] – and in particular adaptive [[collaboration scripts\|scripted collaboration]] – improve students’ [[robust learning]], and in particular conceptual learning, in the domain of chemistry?

	Does the [[collaboration scripts\|script]] approach improve students’ collaboration, and does this result in more [[robust learning]] of the chemistry content?		Does the adaptive [[collaboration scripts\|script]] approach improve students’ collaboration, and does this result in more [[robust learning]] of the chemistry content?

	===Hypothesis===		===Hypothesis===

Bmclaren: /* References */

2008-01-14T22:42:28Z

References

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:42, 14 January 2008
Line 95:		Line 95:
	*Aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., Roll, I. and Koedinger, K. R. (2004). Toward Tutoring Help Seeking: Applying Cognitive Modeling to Meta-Cognitive Skills; In the Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS-2004).		*Aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., Roll, I. and Koedinger, K. R. (2004). Toward Tutoring Help Seeking: Applying Cognitive Modeling to Meta-Cognitive Skills; In the Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS-2004).
	*Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 167-207.		*Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 167-207.
	Anderson, J. (1990). Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York.		*Anderson, J. (1990). Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York.
	*Bell, T., Slotta, J., Schanze, S. (to appear). Perspectives on collaborative inquiry learning: An International network for research, curriculum and technology. Special Issue of the International Journal of Science Education, to appear at the end of 2006.		*Bell, T., Slotta, J., Schanze, S. (to appear). Perspectives on collaborative inquiry learning: An International network for research, curriculum and technology. Special Issue of the International Journal of Science Education, to appear at the end of 2006.
	*Berg, K. F. (1993, April). Structured cooperative learning and achievement in a high school mathematics class. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Atlanta, GA.		*Berg, K. F. (1993, April). Structured cooperative learning and achievement in a high school mathematics class. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Atlanta, GA.
Line 150:		Line 150:
	*Soller, A., Jermann, P., Muehlenbrock, M. & Martinez, A. (2005). From Mirroring to Guiding: A Review of State of the Art Technology for Supporting Collaborative Learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(4), 261-290.		*Soller, A., Jermann, P., Muehlenbrock, M. & Martinez, A. (2005). From Mirroring to Guiding: A Review of State of the Art Technology for Supporting Collaborative Learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(4), 261-290.
	*Teasley, S. D. (1995). The role of talk in children’s peer collaborations. Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 207-220.		*Teasley, S. D. (1995). The role of talk in children’s peer collaborations. Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 207-220.
	Tingle, J. B. & Good, R. (1990). Effects of Cooperative Grouping on Stoichiometry Problem Solving in High School Chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 671-683.		*Tingle, J. B. & Good, R. (1990). Effects of Cooperative Grouping on Stoichiometry Problem Solving in High School Chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 671-683.
	*Towns, M. & Grant, E. (1998). ‘I believe I will go out of this class actually knowing something:’ Cooperative learning activities in physical chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 819-835.		*Towns, M. & Grant, E. (1998). ‘I believe I will go out of this class actually knowing something:’ Cooperative learning activities in physical chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 819-835.
	*van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Savelsbergh, E., & Manlove, S. (2005). Co-lab: Research and development of an on-line learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 671-688.		*van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Savelsbergh, E., & Manlove, S. (2005). Co-lab: Research and development of an on-line learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 671-688.

Bmclaren: /* References */

2008-01-14T22:41:37Z

References

Show changes

Bmclaren at 22:36, 14 January 2008

2008-01-14T22:36:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:36, 14 January 2008
Line 66:		Line 66:
	===Independent Variables===		===Independent Variables===

	~~To test our hypotheses and the effect of personalization and worked examples on learning, we designed and have executed two 2 x 2 factorial studies.~~		< TBD >

	*One independent variable is [[Personalization]], with one level impersonal instruction, feedback, and hints and the other personal instruction, feedback, and hints.
	*The other independent variable is [[Worked Examples]], with one level tutored problem solving alone and the other tutored problem solving together with worked examples. In the former condition, subjects only solve problems using the intelligent tutor; no worked examples are presented. In the latter condition, subjects alternate between observation and self-explanation of a worked example and solving of a tutored problem. This alternating technique has yielded better learning results in prior research (Trafton and Reiser, 1993).

	With respect to personalized language (and because we got a null result in the first two studies), we thought that perhaps our conceptualization and implementation might not be as socially engaging as we had hoped. This was also suggested to us by Rich Mayer, who reviewed the first study. In a recent study that Mayer and colleagues did (Wang, Johnson, Mayer, Rizzo, Shaw, & Collins, in press), based on the work of Brown and Levinson (1987), they found that a polite version of a tutor, which provided polite feedback such as, “You could press the ENTER key”, led to significantly better learning than a direct version of the tutor that used more imperative feedback such as, “Press the ENTER key.” We decided to investigate this in a third in vivo study in which we changed all of the personalized instruction, feedback, and hints of the tutor to more polite forms, similar to that used by Mayer and colleagues.

	Thus, for the third study we changed the first independent variable to "Politness," with one level polite instruction, feedback, and hints and the other direct instruction, feedback, and hints. The 2 x 2 factorial design for our third and most recent study is shown below.

	~~[[Image:Fig2-FactorialDesign.jpg\|600px\|center]]~~

	~~Below is a table that provides examples of the differences in language between the polite version of our tutor and earlier versions.~~

	~~[[image:Table1-FeedbackDiffs.jpg\|500px\|center]]~~

	===Dependent Variables===		===Dependent Variables===

	To evaluate learning, students are asked to solve pre and post-test stoichiometry problems that are isomorphic to one another and to the tutored problems. Thus, we have focused on [[normal post-test]]s in our studies so far. When (and if) we see an effect in a normal post-test, we will conduct studies to test [[retention]].		< TBD >

	===Findings===		===Findings===

	In two initial 2 x 2 factorial studies, we found that personalized language and worked examples had no significant effects on learning, thus not supporting hypotheses H1 and H2. On the other hand, there was a significant difference between the pre and posttest in all conditions, suggesting that the intelligent tutor present in all conditions did make a difference in learning. For study 1 we had N = 63 and for study 2 we had N = 76. The results of Study 1 are reported in (McLaren, Lim, Gagnon, Yaron, and Koedinger, 2006). We are currently analyzing the data to test hypothesis H3, that is, to determine if learning with worked examples was more efficient.		< TBD >

	One possible explanation for why neither personalized language nor worked examples have made a difference thus far is the switch from a lab environment to in vivo experimentation. Most of the results from past studies of both personalized language and worked examples come from lab studies, so it may simply be that the realism and messiness of an in vivo study makes it much more difficult for interventions such as these to make a difference to students’ learning. It may also be that the tutoring received by the subjects simply had much more effect on learning than the worked examples or personalized language.

	We recently concluded the third study in which we investigated the use of polite language, rather than personalized language (as shown in the table above). We have so far only analyzed the first 33 subjects, out of N=84 (for details on the analysis of the first 33 subjects see McLaren, Lim, Yaron, & Yaron, in press). The preliminary data indicates that the polite condition leads to larger learning gains than the non-polite condition, however, not at a statistically significant level. Worked examples also did not make a difference to learning. Thus, once again, hypotheses H1 and H2 were not supported. We are in the process of analyzing the rest of the data from the remaining subjects who participated in this study, including an investigation of hypothesis H3 and the efficiency of learning.

	===Explanation===		===Explanation===
Line 99:		Line 82:
	=== Connections to Other PSLC Studies===		=== Connections to Other PSLC Studies===

	* The key finding of our studies so far has been that learning has not improved when students use an intelligent tutor in conjunction with other instructional techniques. Two other studies in the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster, the [[Visual-Verbal Learning (Aleven & Butcher Project)\|Aleven/Butcher]] and [[Booth\|Booth/Siegler/Koedinger/Rittle-Johnson]] projects, and one study in the [[Interactive Communication]] cluster, the [[Does learning from worked-out examples improve tutored problem solving?\|Renkl/Aleven/Salden project]], are also investigating the [[complementary]] effects of intelligent tutoring combined with another instructional technique.		* < TBD >

	* Our project differs from the [[Booth\|Booth study]] in that we are using only correct examples as a means to strengthen correct [[knowledge components]]. We are not using incorrect examples to weaken incorrect [[knowledge components]], as Booth is testing in her study.

	* Our project also relates to the [[Visual-Verbal Learning (Aleven & Butcher Project)\|Aleven and Butcher project]] in that we both are exploring the learning value of [[e-Learning Principles]] (they are investigating Contiguity; we are looking at personalization and worked examples). In addition, like their study, we are prompting [[self-explanation]] as a means to promote robust learning.

	===Annotated Bibliography===		===Annotated Bibliography===

Bmclaren: /* Background and Significance */

2008-01-14T22:29:39Z

Background and Significance

Show changes

Bmclaren: /* Background and Significance */

2008-01-14T22:27:02Z

Background and Significance

Show changes

Bmclaren: /* Hypothesis */

2008-01-14T22:24:32Z

Hypothesis

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:24, 14 January 2008
Line 34:		Line 34:
	===Hypothesis===		===Hypothesis===

	These research questions led us to the following ~~three~~ hypotheses:		These research questions led us to the following two hypotheses:

	;H1		;H1
	:~~The use of personalized (or polite) problem statements, feedback~~, and ~~hints in a supported problem-solving environment (i.e.~~, ~~an intelligent tutoring system)~~ can ~~improve learning in an e-Learning system~~.		:Computer-mediated collaboration, facilitated by collaboration scripts and added to experimental exercises within the stoichiometry course, can promote the creation and strengthening of conceptual stoichiometry knowledge components.

	;H2		;H2
	:~~The use of [[Worked Examples]] in a supported problem~~-~~solving environment (i.e.~~, ~~an intelligent tutoring system)~~ can ~~improve learning in an e-Learning system.~~		:Computer-mediated collaboration, facilitated by adaptive collaboration scripts and added to experimental exercises within the stoichiometry course, can promote the creation and strengthening of conceptual stoichiometry knowledge components.

	~~;H3~~
	~~:The use~~ of ~~[[Worked Examples]] in a supported problem-solving environment can result in more efficient learning (i.e., learning as much as with supported problem solving only, but in less time)~~.

	===Background and Significance===		===Background and Significance===