Conceptual and meta learning during coached problem solving

  • Kurt VanLehn
Invited Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1086)


Coached problem solving is known to be effective for teaching cognitive skills. Simple forms of coached problem solving are used in many ITS. This paper first considers how university physics can be taught via coached problem solving. It then discusses how coached problem solving can be extended to support two other forms of learning: conceptual learning and meta learning.


Conceptual Learning Tutoring System Intelligent Tutoring System Physic Instructor Cognitive Apprenticeship 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, J., Farrell, R., and Saurers, R. (1985). Learning to program in Lisp. Cognitive Science, 8:87–129.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., and Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2):167–207.Google Scholar
  3. Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P., and Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem-solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13(2):221–252.Google Scholar
  4. Chi, M., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., and Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 15:145–182.Google Scholar
  5. Chi, M., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., and LaVancher, C. (1994a). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18:439–477.Google Scholar
  6. Chi, M., Feltovich, P., and Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5:121–152.Google Scholar
  7. Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories. In Giere, R., editor, Cognitive models of science: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  8. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., and de Leeuw, N. (1994b). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4:27–43.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, A. and Brown, J. S. (1990). The computer as a tool for learning through reflection. In Mandl, H. and Lesgold, A., editors, Learning issues for intelligent tutoring systems. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., and Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In Resnick, L. B., editor, Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser, pages 543–494. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  11. Conati, C. and VanLehn, K. (1995). A student modeling technique for problem solving in domains with large solution spaces. In Greer, J., editor, Proceedings of the 1995 Artificial Intelligence and Education Conference. Association for the Advancement of Computers in Education, Charlotsville, NC. Abstract only.Google Scholar
  12. Conati, C. and VanLehn, K. (1996). Pola: A student modeling framework for probabilistic on-line assessment of problem solving performance. In Chin, D. N., Crosby, M., Carberry, S., and Zukerman, I., editors, Proceedings of UM-96, the Fifth International Conference on User Modeling, pages 75–82. User Modeling, Inc., Kailua-Kona, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  13. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41:1040–1048.Google Scholar
  14. Ferguson-Hessler, M. and de Jong, T. (1990). Studying physics texts: Differences in study processes between good and poor solvers. Cognition and Instruction, 7:41–54.Google Scholar
  15. Fox, B. A. (1993). The Human Tutorial Dialogue Project: Issues in the Design of Instructional Systems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  16. Halloun, I. A. and Hestenes, D. (1985), Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53(11):1056–1065.Google Scholar
  17. Heller, J. I. and Reif, F. (1984). Prescribing effective human problem-solving processes: Problem descriptions in physics. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2):177–216.Google Scholar
  18. Jones, L. M., Kane, D., Sherwood, B. A., and Avner, R. A. (1983). A final-exam comparison involving computer-based instruction. American Journal of Physics, 51(6):533–8.Google Scholar
  19. Kane, D. and Sherwood, B. (1980). A computer-based course in classical mechanics. Computers and Education, 4:15–36.Google Scholar
  20. Koedinger, K. and Anderson, J. R. (1993). Reifying implicit planning in geometry: Guidelines for model-based intelligent tutoring system design. In Lajoie; S. P. and Derry, S. J., editors, Computers as cognitive tools. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  21. Larkin, J. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In Gentner, D. and Stevens, A., editors, Mental Models. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  22. Lepper, M. R., Woolverton, M., Mumme, D. L., and Gurtner, J. (1993). Motivational techniques of expert human tutors: Lessons for the design of computer-based tutors. In Lajoie, S. P. and Derry, S. J., editors, Computers as Cognitive Tools, pages 75–105. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  23. Lesgold, A., Lajoie, S., Bunzo, M., and Eggan, G. (1992). Sherlock: A coached practice environment for an electronics troubleshooting job. In Larkin, J. and Chabay, R., editors, Computer Assisted Instruction and Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Shared Goals and Complementary Approaches, pages 201–238. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  24. Lovett, M. C. (1992). Learning by problem solving versus by examples: The benefits of generating and receiving information. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  25. Mark, M. A. and Greer, J. E. (1995). The vcr tutor: Effective instruction for device operation. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2):209–246.Google Scholar
  26. Martin, J. and VanLehn, K. (1993). OLAE: Progress toward a multi-activity, Bayesian student modeler. In Brna, S. P., Ohlsson, S., and Pain, H., editors, Artificial Intelligence in Education, 1993: Proceedings of AI-ED 93, Charlottesville, VA. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Google Scholar
  27. Martin, J. and VanLehn, K. (1995a). A Bayesian approach to cognitive assessment. In Nichols, P., Chipman, S., and Brennan, S., editors, Cognitively diagnostic assessment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  28. Martin, J. and VanLehn, K. (1995b). Student assessment using Bayesian nets. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 42:575–591.Google Scholar
  29. McArthur, D., Stasz, C., and Zmuidzinas, M. (1990). Tutoring techniques in algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 7(3):197–244.Google Scholar
  30. Merrill, D., Reiser, B. J., Ranney, M., and Trafton, J. (1992). Effective tutoring techniques: A comparison of human tutors and intelligent tutoring systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3):277–306.Google Scholar
  31. Moore, J. D. and Swartout, W. R. (1990). Pointing: A way toward explanation dialogue. In Proceedings of the American Association of Artificial Intelligence Conference. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA.Google Scholar
  32. Murray, T., Schultz, K., Brown, D., and Clement, J. (1990). An analogy-based computer tutor for remediating physics misconceptions. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(2):79–101.Google Scholar
  33. Pfundt, H. and Duit, R. (1991). Bibliography: Students' alternative frameworks and science education. Institute for Science Education, Kiel, FRG.Google Scholar
  34. 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, pages 459–457, Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Pirolli, P. and Recker, M. (1994). Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3):235–275.Google Scholar
  36. Ploetzner, R. and VanLehn, K. (1996). The acquisition of informal physics knowledge during formal physics training. Cognition and Instruction. In press.Google Scholar
  37. Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V., Martin, V., King, A., and Menke, D. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27:91–109.Google Scholar
  38. Recker, M. M. and Pirolli, P. (1995). Modeling individual differences in students' learning strategies. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1):1–38.Google Scholar
  39. Reif, F. (1987). Interpretation of scientific or mathematical concepts: Cognitive issues and instructional implications. Cognitive Science, 11(4):395–416.Google Scholar
  40. Schauble, L., Raghavan, K., and Glaser, R. (1993). The discovery and reflection notation: A graphical trace for supporting self-regulation in computer-based laboratories. In Lajoie, S. P. and Derry, S. J., editors, Computers as Cognitive Tools, pages 319–337. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  41. Shute, V. J. (1991). Who is likely to learn programming skills? Journal of Educational Comuting Research, 6:1–24.Google Scholar
  42. Shute, V. J. and Psotka, J. (1996). Intelligent tutoring systems: Past, present and future. In Jonassen, D., editor, Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Scholastic Publications. In press.Google Scholar
  43. Singley, M. (1990). The reification of goal structures in a calculus tutor: Effects on problem solving performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 1:102–123.Google Scholar
  44. Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H., and Joram, E. (1995). Assessing students' misclassifications of physics concepts: An ontological basis for conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 13(3):373–400.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., and Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2):115–164.Google Scholar
  46. Van Heuvelen, A. (1991a). Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies. American Journal of Physics, 59(10):891–897.Google Scholar
  47. Van Heuvelen, A. (1991b). Overview, case study physics. American Journal of Physics, 59(10):898–907.Google Scholar
  48. VanLehn, K. (1991). Rule acquisition events in the discovery of problem solving strategies. Cognitive Science, 15(1):1–47.Google Scholar
  49. VanLehn, K. (1995a). Looking in the book: The effects of example-exercise analogy on learning. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  50. VanLehn, K. (1995b). Rule learning events in the acquisition of a complex skill. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  51. VanLehn, K. (1996). Cognitive skill acquisition. In Spence, J., Darly, J., and Foss, D. J., editors, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 47, pages 513–539. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
  52. VanLehn, K. and Jones, R. M. (1995). Is the self-explanation effect caused by learning rules, schemas or examples? Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  53. VanLehn, K., Jones, R. M., and Chi, M. T. H. (1992). A model of the self-explanation effect. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(1):1–59.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kurt VanLehn
    • 1
  1. 1.LRDCUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations