Analogies in an Intelligent Programming Environment for Learning LISP

  • Gerhard Weber
Conference paper
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NATO ASI F, volume 111)

Abstract

When learning a new programming language, novices often use remindings of previous problems to solve new problems and to code programs. But, analogies and remindings are only helpful if they are based on elaborated explanations and higher-level structural similarities. ELM-PE, an intelligent programming environment supporting example-based learning, is designed to aid novices learning to program in LISP. For this system, an analogical component is developed to show up structurally similar problem solutions retrieved by an explanation-based retrieval method (EBR). Analogues are retrieved from a case-base where explanations of cases as analyzed by a cognitive diagnosis are stored. Two studies are reported indicating that the EBR-method retrieves analogues as well as the ARCS-model does or even better.

Keywords

Knowledge-based help system intelligent programming environment analogies analogue retrieval explanation-based learning case-based learning. 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, J.R., Boyle, C.F., Farrell, R., & Reiser, B. J.: Cognitive principles in the design of computer tutors. Proc. Sixth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Boulder, CO. pp. 2–9. Hillsdale, NJ: Cognitive Science Society, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1984Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, J.R., & Reiser, B.J.: The LISP tutor. Byte. 10 (4), 159–175 (1985)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chi, M.T.H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R.: Self-explanations: how students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science. 13, 145–182 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eisenstadt, M., Price, B.A., & Domingue, J.: Software visualization: Redressing ITS fallacies. (this volume)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Facies, J.M., & Reiser, B.J.: Access and use of previous solutions in a problem solving situation. Proc. Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Montreal. pp. 433–439. Hillsdale, NJ: Cognitive Science Society, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1988Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gentner, D.: Finding the needle: Accessing and reasoning from prior cases. In: Proc. Second Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning, Pensacola Beach, Florida. (K.J. Hammond ed.). pp. 137–143. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers 1989Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gentner, D., & Landers, R.: Analogical reminding: a good match is hard to find. Proc. International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Tucson, AR. pp. 607–613. 1985Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holyoak, K.J., & Koh, K.: Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory & Cognition. 15, 332–340 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holyoak, K.J., & Thagard, P.: Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science. 13, 295356 (1989)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson, L.W.: Intention-based diagnosis of novice programming errors. London: Pitman 1986MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Köhne, A., & Weber, G.: STRUEDI: a LISP-structure editor for novice programmers. In: Human-Computer Interaction INTERACT ‘87 (H.J. Bullinger, & B. Schackel, eds.). pp. 125–129. Amsterdam: North-Holland 1987Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lewis, C.H., & Olson, G.M.: Can the principles of cognition lower the barriers of programming? In: Empirical studies of programmers (G.M. Olson, S. Sheppard, & E. Soloway, eds.). Vol. 2, pp. 248–263. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation 1987Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCalla, G., & Greer, J.: Helping novices laearn recursion: Giving granularity-based advice on strategies and providing support at the mental model level. (this volume)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McKendree, J., Reiser, B.J., & Anderson, J.R.: Tutorial goals and strategies in the instruction of programming skills. Proc. Sixth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Boulder, CO. pp. 252–254. Hillsdale, NJ: Cognitive Science Society, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1984Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mitchell, T.M., Keller, R.M., & Kedar-Cabelli, S.T.: Explanation-based generalization: a unifying view. Machine Learning. 1, 47–80 (1986)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Neal, L.R.: A system for example-based learning. Proc. CHI’89: Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 63–68. 1989Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pirolli, P.L., & Anderson, J.R.: The role of learning from examples in the acquisition of recursive programming skills. Canadian Journal of Psychology. 39, 240–272 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ratterman, M., & Gentner, D.: Analogy and similarity: determinants of accessibility and inferential soundness. Proc. Ninth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Seattle, WA. pp. 23–35. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1987Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ross, B.H.: This is like that: the use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Instruction. 13, 629–639 (1987)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ross, B.H., Perkins, S.J., & Tenpenny, P.L.: Reminding-based category learning. Cognitive Psychology. 22, 460–492 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schank, R.C.: Dynamic memory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press 1982Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schumacher, R.M.: Similarity-based reminding: The effects of distance and encoding on retrieval (Unpublished Master’s thesis). University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois 1987Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thagard, P., Holyoak, K.J., Nelson, G., & Gochfeld, D.: Analog retrieval by constraint satisfaction. Artificial Intelligence. 46, 259–310 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Dijk, T.A., & Kintsch, W.: Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press 1983Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weber, G.: Cognitive diagnosis and episodic modelling in an intelligent LISP-tutor. Proc. ITS-88, Montreal, pp. 207–214. Montreal: Université de Montréal 1988Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weber, G.: Explanation-based retrieval in a case-based learning model. Proc. Thirteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Chicago, IL, pp. 522–527. Hillsdale, NJ: Cognitive Science Society, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1991Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weber, G.: Analogien in einem fallbasierten Lernmodell. In: Maschinelles Lernen–Modellierung von Lernen mit Maschinen (K. Reiss, M. Reiss, & H. Spandl, eds.). pp. 143–175. Berlin: Springer 1992Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weber, G., Waloszek, G., & Wender, K.F.: The role of episodic memory in an intelligent tutoring system. In: Artificial intelligence and human learning: Intelligent computer-aided instruction (J. Self, ed.). pp. 141155. London: Chapman & Hall 1988Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerhard Weber
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TrierTrierGermany

Personalised recommendations