# Toward a Theory of Impasse-Driven Learning

## Abstract

Learning is widely viewed as a knowledge communication process coupled with a knowledge compilation process (Anderson, 1985). The communication process interprets instruction, thereby incorporating new information from the environment into the mental structures of the student. Knowledge compilation occurs with practice. It transforms the initial mental structures into a form that makes performance faster and more accurate. Moreover, the transformed mental structures are less likely to be forgotten. At one time, psychology concerned itself exclusively with the compilation process by using such simple stimuli (e.g., nonsense syllables) that the effects of the communication process could be ignored. The work presented here uses more complicated stimuli, the calculational procedures of ordinary arithmetic. For such stimuli, the effects of the knowledge communication process cannot be ignored. Later in this chapter it is shown that certain types of miscommunication can cause students to have erroneous conceptions. The long-term objective of the research reported here is to develop a theory of the neglected half of learning, knowledge communication. The experimental methods employed are designed to show the effects of knowledge communication and hide the effects of knowledge compilation. Consequently, whenever the term *learning* appears, it is intended to mean knowledge communication.

## Keywords

Intelligent Tutor System Procedural Skill Local Problem Solver Leftmost Column Core Procedure## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- Anderson, J. R. (1983).
*The architecture of cognition*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.Google Scholar - Anderson, J. R. (1985).
*Cognitive psychology and its implications*. New York: Freedman.Google Scholar - Anderson, J. R., Farrell, R., & Saurers, R. (1984). Learning to program in LISP.
*Cognitive Science, 8*, 87–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Anzai, Y., & Simon, H. A. (1979). The theory of learning by doing.
*Psychological Review, 86*, 124–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Ashlock, R. B. (1976).
*Error patterns in computation*. Columbus, OH: Bell & Howell.Google Scholar - Berwick, R. (1985).
*The acquisition of syntactic knowledge*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar - Brown, J. S., & Burton, R. B. (1978). Diagnostic models for procedural bugs in basic mathematical skills.
*Cognitive Science, 2*, 155–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Brown, J. S., & VanLehn, K, (1980). Repair Theory: A generative theory of bugs in procedural skills.
*Cognitive Science, 4*, 379–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Brownell, W. A. (1935). Psychological considerations in the learning and teaching of arithmetic. In W. D. Reeve (Ed.),
*The teaching of arithmetic*. New York: Teachers College, Bureau of Publications.Google Scholar - Brueckner, L. J. (1930).
*Diagnostic and remedial teaching in arithmetic*. Philadelphia: Winston.Google Scholar - Burton, R. B. (1982). Diagnosing bugs in a simple procedural skill. In D. H. Sleeman, and J. S. Brown (Eds.)
*Intelligent Tutoring Systems*. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar - Buswell, G. T. (1926).
*Diagnostic studies in arithmetic*. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar - Cox, L. S. (1975). Diagnosing and remediating systematic errors in addition and subtraction computation.
*The Arithmetic Teacher, 22*, 151–157.Google Scholar - Laird, J. E., Rosenbloom, P. S., & Newell, A. (1986). Chunking in SOAR: The anatomy of a general learning mechanism.
*Machine Learning, 1*, 11–46.Google Scholar - Laird, J. E., Rosenbloom, P. S., & Newell, A. (1987). SOAR: An architecture for general intelligence.
*Artificial Intelligence, 33*, 1–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Lankford, F. G. (1972).
*Some computational strategies of seventh grade pupils*. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.Google Scholar - Minton, S. (1985). Selectively generalizing plans for problem-solving. In
*Proceedings of IJCAI 85*(pp. 596–599). Los Altos, CA: Morgan-Kaufman.Google Scholar - Newell, A. (1980). Reasoning, problem solving and decision processes: The problem space as a fundamental category. In R. Nickerson (Ed.),
*Attention and Performance VIII*. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972).
*Human problem-solving*. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar - Norman, D. A. (1981). Categorization of action slips.
*Psychological Review, 88*, 1–15.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Resnick, L. (1982). Syntax and semantics in learning to subtract. In T. Carpenter, J. Moser & T. Romberg (Ed.).
*Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective*. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.Google Scholar - Resnick, L. B., & Omanson, S. F. (1987). Learning to understand arithmetic. In R. Glaser (Ed.),
*Advances in instructional psychology*. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.Google Scholar - Roberts, G. H. (1968). The failure strategies of third grade arithmetic pupils.
*The Arithmetic Teacher, 15*, 442–446.Google Scholar - Schank, R. (1982).
*Dynamic memory: A theory of learning in computers and people*. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar - Shaw, D. J., Standiford, S. N., Klein, M. F., & Tatsuoka, K. K. (1982).
*Error analysis of fraction arithmetic-selected case studies*(Tech. Report 82–2-NIE). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Computer-based Education Research Laboratory.Google Scholar - Siegler, R. S., & Shrager, J. (1984). Strategy choices in addition: How do children know what to do? In C. Sophian (Ed.).
*Origins of Cognitive Skill*. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.Google Scholar - Sleeman, D. (1984). An attempt to understand students’ understanding of basic algebra.
*Cognitive Science, 8*, 387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Sleeman, D. H. (1985). Basic algebra revisited: A study with 14-year olds.
*International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 22*, 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Sleeman, D. H., & Smith, M. J. (1981). Modeling student’s problem solving.
*Artificial Intelligence, 16*, 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Smith, B. C. (1982).
*Reflection and semantics in a procedural language*(Technical Report MIT-TR-272). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Laboratory for Computer Science.Google Scholar - Tatsuoka, K. K., & Baillie, R. (1982).
*Rule space, the product space of two score components in signed-number subtraction: An approach to dealing with inconsistent use of erroneous rules*(Tech. Report 82–3-ONR). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Computer-based Education Research Laboratory.Google Scholar - VanLehn, K. (1982). Bugs are not enough: Empirical studies of bugs, impasses and repairs in procedural skills.
*The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 3*, 3–71.Google Scholar - VanLehn, K. (1983a).
*Felicity conditions for human skill acquisition: Validating an AI-based theory*(Tech. Report CIS-21). Palo Alto, CA: Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.Google Scholar - VanLehn, K. (1983b). Human skill acquisition: Theory, model and psychological validation. In
*Proceedings of AAAI-83*(pp. 420–423). Los Altos, CA: Kaufman.Google Scholar - VanLehn, K. (1986). Arithmetic procedures are induced from examples. In J. Hiebert (Ed.),
*Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics*. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.Google Scholar - VanLehn, K. (in press).
*Cognitive procedures: The acquisition and mental representation of basic mathematical skills*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar - VanLehn, K., Brown, J. S., & Greeno, J. G. (1984). Competitive argumentation in computational theories of cognition. In W. Kintsch, J. Miller, & P. Poison (Ed.),
*Methods and tactics in cognitive science*. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Assoc.Google Scholar - Wexler, K., & Culicover, P. (1980).
*Formal principles of language acquisition*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar