Roll IPL - Revision history

Koedinger: /* Background and Significance */

2009-05-23T11:45:07Z

Background and Significance

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:45, 23 May 2009
Line 34:		Line 34:
	=== Background and Significance ===		=== Background and Significance ===

	One of the main challenges of education is to help students reach meaningful and robust learning. The assistance dilemma raises the question of what form (and ‘amount’) of assistance are most effective with different learners in different stages of the learning process (Koedinger & Aleven, ~~in press~~). Instruction followed by practice is known to be very efficient for teaching novices (e.g., Koedinger, Anderson, Hadley & Mark, 1997); yet, students often acquire shallow procedural skills, and fail to acquire conceptual understanding (Aleven & Koedinger, 2002). This can be attributed, at least in part, to students using superficial features and not encoding the deep features of the domain (Chi, Feltovich & Glaser, 1981).		One of the main challenges of education is to help students reach meaningful and robust learning. The assistance dilemma raises the question of what form (and ‘amount’) of assistance are most effective with different learners in different stages of the learning process (Koedinger & Aleven, 2007). Instruction followed by practice is known to be very efficient for teaching novices (e.g., Koedinger, Anderson, Hadley & Mark, 1997); yet, students often acquire shallow procedural skills, and fail to acquire conceptual understanding (Aleven & Koedinger, 2002). This can be attributed, at least in part, to students using superficial features and not encoding the deep features of the domain (Chi, Feltovich & Glaser, 1981).
	One approach to getting students to attend and encode the deep features is to add an invention phase prior to instruction. Invention as preparation for leaning (IPL) was shown to help students better cope with novel situations that require learning (Schwartz & Martin, 2004; Sears, 2006). In this process students are presented with a dilemma in the form of contrasting cases, and attempt to invent a mathematical model to resolve this dilemma. For example, Figure 1 shows four possible pitching machines. Students are asked to invent a method that will allow them to pick the most reliable machine. The concept of contrasting cases comes from the perceptual learning literature, since these cases, when appropriately designed, emphasize differences in the deep structure of the examples (Gibson & Gibson, 1955). The invention process includes designing a model, applying it to the given set of contrasting cases, evaluating the result, and debugging the model. This iterative process is very similar to the debugging process as described by Klahr and Carver (1988; Figure 2). Unlike other inquiry-based manipulations (cf. Lehrer et al., 2001; de Jong & van Joolingen, 1998), the goal of the IPL process is not for students to discover the correct model, but to prepare them for subsequent instruction. During the instruction students share their models, critic their peers’ models, and learn the expert solutions (A similar classroom critic process was shown to be effective by White & Frederiksen, 1998). Preparation for learning from the instruction is evaluated using accelerated future learning assessment. The accelerated future learning assessment includes an embedded instruction in the test in the form of solved example. Schwartz (2004) found that only students who invented prior to the test were able to take advantage of that instruction in order to solve novel problem, while students who practiced a given visual method prior to the test did not take advantage of the embedded learning resource and thus could not solve the target problem. This shows that the IPL process has a positive effect on students’ ability to independently learn from the solved examples. In the case of the contrasting cases given in Figure 1, subsequent instruction will introduce the students with the notion (and formulas) of variance.		One approach to getting students to attend and encode the deep features is to add an invention phase prior to instruction. Invention as preparation for leaning (IPL) was shown to help students better cope with novel situations that require learning (Schwartz & Martin, 2004; Sears, 2006). In this process students are presented with a dilemma in the form of contrasting cases, and attempt to invent a mathematical model to resolve this dilemma. For example, Figure 1 shows four possible pitching machines. Students are asked to invent a method that will allow them to pick the most reliable machine. The concept of contrasting cases comes from the perceptual learning literature, since these cases, when appropriately designed, emphasize differences in the deep structure of the examples (Gibson & Gibson, 1955). The invention process includes designing a model, applying it to the given set of contrasting cases, evaluating the result, and debugging the model. This iterative process is very similar to the debugging process as described by Klahr and Carver (1988; Figure 2). Unlike other inquiry-based manipulations (cf. Lehrer et al., 2001; de Jong & van Joolingen, 1998), the goal of the IPL process is not for students to discover the correct model, but to prepare them for subsequent instruction. During the instruction students share their models, critic their peers’ models, and learn the expert solutions (A similar classroom critic process was shown to be effective by White & Frederiksen, 1998). Preparation for learning from the instruction is evaluated using accelerated future learning assessment. The accelerated future learning assessment includes an embedded instruction in the test in the form of solved example. Schwartz (2004) found that only students who invented prior to the test were able to take advantage of that instruction in order to solve novel problem, while students who practiced a given visual method prior to the test did not take advantage of the embedded learning resource and thus could not solve the target problem. This shows that the IPL process has a positive effect on students’ ability to independently learn from the solved examples. In the case of the contrasting cases given in Figure 1, subsequent instruction will introduce the students with the notion (and formulas) of variance.
	While the invention group was superior to instruction-and-practice group on accelerated future learning measure, there was no direct comparison of normal or transfer measures between invention and instruction-and-practice conditions (though invention students showed pre-to-post gains, and were shown to outperformed college students). Also, it is not yet clear how robust this pedagogy is and what its key features are.		While the invention group was superior to instruction-and-practice group on accelerated future learning measure, there was no direct comparison of normal or transfer measures between invention and instruction-and-practice conditions (though invention students showed pre-to-post gains, and were shown to outperformed college students). Also, it is not yet clear how robust this pedagogy is and what its key features are.

Idoroll: /* Findings */

2009-05-21T03:58:37Z

Findings

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:58, 21 May 2009
Line 104:		Line 104:
	* IPL students in advanced classes were more capable of solving new strategy items without learning resource. In fact, in the absence of a learning resource, direct instruction students performed at floor, while IPL students performed as well as with the source.		* IPL students in advanced classes were more capable of solving new strategy items without learning resource. In fact, in the absence of a learning resource, direct instruction students performed at floor, while IPL students performed as well as with the source.
	* This effect holds when controlling for simple domain knowledge (performance on normal items in the same test).		* This effect holds when controlling for simple domain knowledge (performance on normal items in the same test).
	* This was found in multiple new-strategy items. However, all results were found on a single topic (central tendency and graphing). The single test item on the topic of variability failed to capture ~~difference~~ between ~~the groups~~.		* This was found in multiple new-strategy items. However, all results were found in a single topic (central tendency and graphing). The single test item on the topic of variability failed to capture differences between conditions.

	Motivation:		Motivation:
	* IPL students reported to have benefited more (F=3.3, p<.07)		* IPL students reported to have benefited more (marginally significant: F=3.3, p<.07)
	* There was a significant interaction between condition and test anxiety. Text anxiety was assessed using the MSLQ (Pintrich 1999) before the study ~~began~~. Students who reported to have ~~lower~~ test anxiety also reported to have benefited more from IPL instruction compared to high-anxiety students in the no ~~desin~~ condition.		* There was a significant interaction between condition and test anxiety. Text anxiety was assessed using the MSLQ (Pintrich 1999) before the study had begun. Students who reported to have higher test anxiety also reported to have benefited more from IPL instruction compared to high-anxiety students in the no design condition.
	* IPL students stayed more often in class to work during breaks (IPL: 16% No Design: 3%).		* IPL students stayed more often in class to work during breaks (IPL: 16% No Design: 3%).
	* Furthermore, they did so during invention activities and not show-and-practice activities, suggesting that it is the activities that are motivating.		* Furthermore, they did so during invention activities and not show-and-practice activities, suggesting that it is the activities that are motivating (IPL activities: 25%; show-and-practice activities: 7%)

	[[Image:motivational results.jpg]]		[[Image:motivational results.jpg]]

Idoroll: /* Further Information */

2009-05-21T03:55:58Z

Further Information

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:55, 21 May 2009
Line 127:		Line 127:
	* Tim Nokes's study		* Tim Nokes's study

	=== ~~Further Information~~ ===		=== The Invention Lab ===
			In addition to paper and pencil studies, we have created the Invention Lab.

			The Invention Lab is an intelligent tutoring system for IPL. To give intelligent feedback, it uses two models:
			* A meta-cognitive model of the invention process
			* A cognitive model of the main concepts in the domain

			[[Image:iLab.jpg]]

	=== Annotated bibliography ===		=== Annotated bibliography ===

Idoroll: /* Findings */

2009-05-21T03:53:20Z

Findings

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:53, 21 May 2009
Line 99:		Line 99:

	Domain knowledge:		Domain knowledge:

	[[Image:test results.jpg]]		[[Image:test results.jpg]]

	* IPL students in advanced classes were more capable of solving new strategy items without learning resource. In fact, in the absence of a learning resource, direct instruction students performed at floor, while IPL students performed as well as with the source.		* IPL students in advanced classes were more capable of solving new strategy items without learning resource. In fact, in the absence of a learning resource, direct instruction students performed at floor, while IPL students performed as well as with the source.
	* This effect holds when controlling for simple domain knowledge (performance on normal items in the same test).		* This effect holds when controlling for simple domain knowledge (performance on normal items in the same test).
Line 109:		Line 111:
	* IPL students stayed more often in class to work during breaks (IPL: 16% No Design: 3%).		* IPL students stayed more often in class to work during breaks (IPL: 16% No Design: 3%).
	* Furthermore, they did so during invention activities and not show-and-practice activities, suggesting that it is the activities that are motivating.		* Furthermore, they did so during invention activities and not show-and-practice activities, suggesting that it is the activities that are motivating.

	[[Image:motivational results.jpg]]		[[Image:motivational results.jpg]]



	=== Explanation ===		=== Explanation ===

Idoroll: /* Background and Significance */

2009-05-21T03:52:12Z

Background and Significance

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:52, 21 May 2009
Line 41:		Line 41:

	[[Image:contrasting cases.jpg]]		[[Image:contrasting cases.jpg]]





	The overall IPL process:		The overall IPL process:

Idoroll: /* Background and Significance */

2009-05-21T03:51:59Z

Background and Significance

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:51, 21 May 2009
Line 39:		Line 39:

	Example for contrasting cases (topic - variability)		Example for contrasting cases (topic - variability)

	[[Image:contrasting cases.jpg]]		[[Image:contrasting cases.jpg]]

	The overall IPL process:		The overall IPL process:

	[[Image:IPL process.jpg]]		[[Image:IPL process.jpg]]

Idoroll at 03:34, 21 May 2009

2009-05-21T03:34:14Z

Show changes

Idoroll at 18:40, 9 April 2008

2008-04-09T18:40:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:40, 9 April 2008
Line 97:		Line 97:

	[[Category:Empirical Study]]		[[Category:Empirical Study]]
			[[Category:Protected]]

Idoroll: /* Connections */

2008-03-25T16:22:14Z

Connections

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:22, 25 March 2008
Line 86:		Line 86:
	=== Connections===		=== Connections===

	* Tim Nokes study		* Tim Nokes's study

	=== Further Information ===		=== Further Information ===

Idoroll: /* Independent Variables */

2008-03-24T18:35:19Z

Independent Variables

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:35, 24 March 2008
Line 52:		Line 52:
	=== Independent Variables ===		=== Independent Variables ===

	The existence of structured ~~invention activities~~, prior to and in addition to conventional instruction and ~~practice~~.		The existence of structured [[Invention task]]s, prior to and in addition to conventional [[Direct instruction]] and [[Practice]].

	=== Dependent variables ===		=== Dependent variables ===