Sense Making Alone Doesn’t Do It: Fluency Matters Too! ITS Support for Robust Learning with Multiple Representations
- 2.1k Downloads
Previous research demonstrates that multiple representations of learning content can enhance students’ learning, but also that students learn deeply from multiple representations only if the learning environment supports them in making connections between the representations. We hypothesized that connection-making support is most effective if it helps students make sense of the content across representations and in becoming fluent in making connections. We tested this hypothesis in a classroom experiment with 599 4th- and 5th-grade students using an ITS for fractions. The experiment further contrasted two forms of support for sense making: auto-linked representations and the use of worked examples involving one representation to guide work with another. Results confirm our main hypothesis: A combination of worked examples and fluency support lead to more robust learning than versions of the ITS without connection-making support. Therefore, combining different types of connection-making support is crucial in promoting students’ deep learning from multiple representations.
KeywordsMultiple representations fractions intelligent tutoring system connection making classroom evaluation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Suh, J., Moyer, P.S.: Developing Students’ Representational Fluency Using Virtual and Physical Algebra Balances. Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 26, 155–173 (2007)Google Scholar
- 3.Rau, M.A., Aleven, V., Rummel, N.: Intelligent tutoring systems with multiple representations and self-explanation prompts support learning of fractions. In: 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 441–448. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)Google Scholar
- 6.Rau, M.A., et al.: How to schedule multiple graphical representations? A classroom experiment with an intelligent tutoring system for fractions. In: To appear in the Proceedings of ICLS 2012 (accepted, 2012)Google Scholar
- 8.National Mathematics Advisory Panel: Foundations for Success: Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Board Panel, U.S. Government Printing Office (2008)Google Scholar
- 10.Siegler, R.S., et al.: Developing effective fractions instruction: A practice guide. In: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. IES, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC (2010)Google Scholar
- 11.Koedinger, K.R., et al.: Knowledge-Learning-Instruction Framework: Bridging the Science-Practice Chasm to Enhance Robust Student Learning. Cognitive Science (in press)Google Scholar
- 14.Renkl, A.: The worked-out example principle in multimedia learning. In: Mayer, R. (ed.) Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, pp. 229–246. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
- 17.Koedinger, K.R., Corbett, A.: Cognitive Tutors: Technology Bringing Learning Sciences to the Classroom. In: Sawyer, R.K. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, pp. 61–77. Cambridge University Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
- 18.Koedinger, K.R., Corbett, A.: Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning sciences to the classroom. Cambridge University Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
- 20.Aleven, V., et al.: A new paradigm for intelligent tutoring systems: Example-tracing tutors. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 19, 105–154 (2009)Google Scholar
- 21.Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A.S.: Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Sage Publications, Newbury Park (2002)Google Scholar