An iconic intention-driven its environment

  • C. Frasson
  • M. Kaltenbach
  • J. Gecsei
  • J. -Y. Djamen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 608)


We introduce an interactive environment in which the learner can manipulate objects at different levels of abstraction. Physical, Intentional and Functional worlds (PIF) are represented in an interrelated fashion, allowing the student to freely pass between these domains in problem-solving situations. In particular, in a troubleshooting application the system can force the learner to organize his actions into plans before proceeding with low-level physical actions. The system checks that actions on a physical device are in accordance with a plan and if not, it requests revisions of the plan. In this way, the learner can acquire (or demonstrate) knowledge at different levels.

Icons are used to represent tools, actions and objects the learner can use directly in each world. Plans and actions can be graphically edited and browsed. A prototype of PIF is presented with an application in training for electronic device maintenance.


maintenance training direct manipulation visual reasoning ITS environment iconic interface 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Barwise, J. and Etchemendy, J., “Visual information and valid reasoning”. Visualization in Teaching and Learning Mathematics, S. Cunningham and W. Zimmerman (Eds), Washington: Mathematical Association of America, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonar J., Liffick W., “Communicating with high level plan”, in Intelligent user interfaces, Sullivan J. & Tyler W., ACM Press, 1991, p 129–156.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown, J.S.,“Towards a new epistemology for learning”, in Frasson, C., Gauthier, G. (Eds), “Intelligent Tutoring Systems: At the crossroads of Artificial Intelligence and Education”, livre, ABLEX, mai 1990.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Erradi, M., Frasson, C., july 1988, “Visual Interaction using an Iconic System”, The Visual Computer, International Journal of Computer Graphic, vol. 4, n 2, Springer-Verlag, p 98–108.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fehrle T., Strothotte T., Szardenings M., “Generating Pictorial Presentations for Advice-Given Systems”, Proc. 7th Interdisciplinary Workshop of the Austrian Computer Society: Informatics and Psychology, Scharding, Austriä May 24–27 (1988).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Furnas, G., “ New graphical reasoning models for understanding graphical interfaces”, ACM CHI 1991 conference.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guastello, S. J., Traut, M., Korienek, G., “Verbal versus pictorial representation of objects in a human-computer interface”, International journal of man-machine studies, 31, 1989, 99–120.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gagné R.M., “The conditions of learning”, 4 ed, Les éditions HRW Ltée, Montréal (1984).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hollan J.D., Hutchins E.L. & Weitzman L., “STEAMER: an Interactive Inspectable Simulation-based Training System”, in Artificial Intelligence & Instruction, Kearsley G., pp 113–134, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaltenbach, M., Robillard F., Frasson, C., december 1991,“Screen Management in Hypertext Systems with Rubber Sheet Layouts”, Proceedings of Hypertext '91 conference, San Antonio, December p15–18.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kearsley G.,“Artificial Intelligence & Instruction”, Addison & Wesley, 1987.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lesgold, A., Lajoie, S.P., Bunzo, M et Egga, G., “A coached practice environnment for an electronic troubleshooting job”, dans J. Larkin, R. Chabay & C. Sheftic (Eds), Computer assisted instruction and intelligent tutoring systems: establishing communication and collaboration, Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum (in press).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Levy, P., “L'idéographie dynamique”, Le concept moderne, Paris, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCalla, G., “Some Issues for Guided Discovery Tutoring Research: Granularity-Based Reasoning, Student Model Maintenance, and Pedagogical Plannin”, NATO adv. workshop, Italy 1989.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mittel, S., Bobrow, D.,G., de Kleer, J., “Darn: Toward a Community Memory for Diagnosis and Repair Tasks”, in J. A. Hendler, Ed., Expert systems: The user Interface, pp. 57–79, Ablex, Norwood, N.J. 1988.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Popper, K., Chapter 2, in Popper, K. and Eccles, J. C., The Self and Its Brain, Springer International, 1977.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Preiss, B., Caron, C., “Ensembles d'icônes en nephrologie” Université Sherbrooke, 1989.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reiser, B., Ranney, M., Lovettt, M. & Kimberg, D., “Faciliting students reasoning with causal explanations and visual representations”, 4th AI-ED conference, IOS Amsterdam, 1989.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Richardson, J.J. “Causal reasoning and qualitative simulation”, in Polson, M.C.,Richardson, J.J., “Foundations of Intelligent Tutoring Systems”, Lawrence Elbaum Associate, 1988.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roschelle J., “The envisioning machine: facilitating student's reconceptualization of physics”, Palo-Alto research Center, Intelligent systems laboratory.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Strothotte, T., “Pictures in Advice-Giving Dialog Systems: From Knowledge Representation to the User Interface” Graphics Interface '89.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Frasson
    • 1
  • M. Kaltenbach
    • 2
  • J. Gecsei
    • 1
  • J. -Y. Djamen
    • 1
  1. 1.Département Informatique et Recherche OpérationnelleUniversité de MontréalMontréal
  2. 2.Department of Management and Informations SciencesBishop's UniversityLennoxville

Personalised recommendations