Problem Order Implications for Learning
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
The order of problems presented to students is an important variable that affects learning effectiveness. Previous studies have shown that solving problems in a blocked order, in which all problems of one type are completed before the student is switched to the next problem type, results in less effective performance than does solving the problems in an interleaved order. However, we have no precise understanding of the reason for this effect. In addition to existing theoretical results, we use a machine-learning agent that learns cognitive skills from examples and problem solving experience, SimStudent, to provide a computational model of the problem order question. We conduct a controlled simulation study in three different math and science domains (i.e., fraction addition, equation solving and stoichiometry), where SimStudent is tutored by automatic tutors given problems that have been used to teach human students. We compare two problem orders: the blocked problem order, and the interleaved problem order. The results show that the interleaved problem order yields as effective or more effective learning in all three domains, because the interleaved problem order provides more or better opportunities for error detection and correction to the learning agent. Examination of the agent’s performance shows that learning when to apply a skill benefits more from interleaved problem orders, and suggests that learning how to apply a skill benefits more from blocked problem orders.
- Aleven, V., McLaren, B.M., Sewall, J., Koedinger, K.R. (2009). A new paradigm for intelligent tutoring systems: example-tracing tutors. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19, 105–154.
- Anderson, J.R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Carnahan, H., Van Eerd, D.L., Allard, F. (1990). A note on the relationship between task requirements and the contextual interference effect. Journal of Motor Behavior, 22(1), 159–169. CrossRef
- Chan, T.-W., & Chou, C.-Y. (1997). Exploring the design of computer supports for reciprocal tutoring. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8, 1–29.
- Chase, W.G., & Simon, H.A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4(1), 55–81. CrossRef
- Del Rey, P. (1982). Effects of contextual interference on the memory of older females differing in levels of physical activity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 55(1), 171–180. CrossRef
- Dietterich, T.G. (1986). Learning at the knowledge level. Machine Learning, 1(3), 287–315.
- Forgy, C. (1982). Rete: a fast algorithm for the many pattern/many object pattern match problem. Artificial Intelligences, 19(1), 17–37. CrossRef
- French, K.E., Rink, J.E., Werner, P.F. (1990). Effects of contextual interference on retention of three volleyball skills. Peceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 179–186.
- Gabriele, T.E., Hall, C.R., Buckolz, E.E. (1987). Practice schedule effects on the acquisition and retention of a motor skill. Human Movement Science, 6, 1–16. CrossRef
- Jelsma, O., & Pieters, J.M. (1989). Practice schedule and cognitive style interaction in learning a maze task. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3(1), 73–83. CrossRef
- Koedinger, K.R., & Anderson, J.R. (1990). Abstract planning and perceptual chunks: elements of expertise in geometry. Cognitive Science, 14, 511–550. CrossRef
- Koedinger, K.R., Baker, R.SJ., Cunningham, K., Skogsholm, A., Leber, B., Stamper, J. (2010). A data repository for the EDM community: the PSLC DataShop. Handbook of educational data mining (pp. 43–55).
- Laird, J.E., Newell, A., Rosenbloom, P.S. (1987). Soar: an architecture for general intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 33(1), 1–64. CrossRef
- Langley, P., & Choi, D. (2006). A unified cognitive architecture for physical agents. In Proceedings of the twenty-first national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1469–1474).
- Lau, T., & Weld, D.S. (1998). Programming by demonstration: An inductive learning formulation. In Proceedings of the 1999 international conference on intelligence user interfaces (pp. 145–152).
- Lee, T.D., & Magill, R.A. (1983). The locus of contextual interference in motor-skill acquisition. Journal Of Experimental Psychology, Learning Memory And Cognition, 9(4), 730–746. CrossRef
- Li, N., Cohen, W.W., Koedinger, K.R. (2010). A computational model of accelerated future learning through feature recognition. In Proceedings of 10th international conference on intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 368–370).
- Li, N., Cohen, W.W., Matsuda, N., Koedinger, K.R. (2011). A machine learning approach for automatic student model discovery. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on educational data mining (pp. 31–40).
- Li, N., Cohen, W.W., Koedinger, K.R. (2012a). Efficient cross-domain learning of complex skills. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 493–498).
- Li, N., Stracuzzi, D., Langley, P. (2012b). Improving acquisition of teleoreactive logic programs through representation change. Advances in Cognitive Systems, 1, 109–126.
- Li, N., Cohen, W.W., Koedinger, K.R. (2012c). Integrating representation learning and skill learning in a human-like intelligent agent. Technical Report CMU-MLD-12-1001, Carnegie Mellon University.
- Li, N., Tian, Y., Cohen, W.W., Koedinger, K.R. (2013). Integrating perceptual learning with external world knowledge in a simulated student. In 16th international conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 400–410).
- Matsuda, N., Cohen, W.W., Sewall, J., Lacerda, G., Koedinger, K.R. (2008). Why tutored problem solving may be better than example study: Theoretical implications from a simulated-student study. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on intelligent tutoring system (pp. 111–121).
- McLaren, B.M., Lim, S.-j., Koedinger, K.R. (2008). When and how often should worked examples be given to students? New results and a summary of the current state of research why isn’t the science done? Cognitive Science, 2176–2181.
- Mitchell, T. (1982). Generalization as search. Artificial Intelligence, 18(2), 203–226. CrossRef
- Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140. CrossRef
- Muggleton, S., & de Raedt, L. (1994). Inductive logic programming: theory and methods. Journal of Logic Programming, 19, 629–679. CrossRef
- Ohlsson, S. (2008). Computational models of skill acquisition, chapter 13 (pp. 359–395). Cambridge University Press.
- Pentti Hietala, T.N. (1998). The competence of learning companion agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9, 178–192.
- Quinlan, J.R. (1990). Learning logical definitions from relations. Machine Learning, 5(3), 239–266.
- Richman, H.B., Staszewski, J.J., Simon, H.A. (1995). Simulation of expert memory using EPAM IV. Psychological Review, 102(2), 305–330. CrossRef
- Sekiya, H., Magill, R.A., Anderson, D.I. (1996). The contextual interference effect in parameter modifications of the same generalized motor program. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67(1), 59–68. CrossRef
- Shea, JB., & Morgan, R.L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Learning Memory, 5(2), 179–187. CrossRef
- Stampfer, E., Long, Y., Aleven, V., Koedinger, K.R. (2011). Eliciting intelligent novice behaviors with grounded feedback in a fraction addition tutor. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence in education, AIED’11 (pp. 560–562). Springer-Verlag.
- Tsutsui, S., Lee, T.D., Hodges, N.J. (1998). Contextual interference in learning new patterns of bimanual coordination. Journal of Motor Behavior, 30(2), 151–157. CrossRef
- VanLehn, K. (1987). Learning one subprocedure per lesson. Artificial Intelligence, 31, 1–40. CrossRef
- VanLehn, K. (1990). Mind bugs: The origins of procedural misconceptions. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Wulf, G., & Shea, C.H. (2002). Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 9(2), 185–211. CrossRef
- Young, D.E., Cohen, M.J., Husak, W.S. (1993). Contextual interference and motor skill acquisition: on the processes that influence retention. Human Movement Science, 12(5), 577–600. CrossRef
- Problem Order Implications for Learning
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education
Volume 23, Issue 1-4 , pp 71-93
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer New York
- Additional Links
- Learning transfer
- Learner modeling
- Interleaved problem order
- Blocked problem order
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA
- 2. Machine Learning Department, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA
- 3. Human Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA