Advertisement

Creation of Cognitive Conflict by Error-Visualization: Error-Based Simulation and Its Practical Use in Science Learning

  • Tsukasa HirashimaEmail author
  • Tomoya Horiguchi
Living reference work entry

Abstract

In this chapter, as a promising method to create cognitive conflict for learning from errors, error-based simulation (EBS) and results of its practical use in science learning are described. Errors play an essential role in learning. In order to use the errors as learning opportunity, it is important for students to be aware of the errors that are not acceptable ones for themselves. If the students are aware of the errors, cognitive conflict would occur in their mind. Many investigations have suggested that the cognitive conflict promotes the students to correct the error with intrinsic motivation. An approach to make students be aware of their errors by making the error visible is called error-visualization. Error-based simulation is a promising method of the error-visualization. In this chapter, a framework of EBS and three management factors of EBS for error-visualization are explained. Then, a practical use of EBS in science learning and its comparative evaluation with a usual teaching method are reported.

Keywords

Learning from Errors Cognitive Conflict Error-visualization Error-based simulation Visibility Reliability Suggestiveness Science Learning 

References

  1. Bliss, J., & Ogborn, J. (1992). Steps towards the formalisation of a psycho-logic of motion. In A. Tiberghien & H. Mandl (Eds.), Intelligent learning environments and knowledge acquisition in physics. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Bravo, C., van Joolingen, W. R., & deJong, T. (2006). Modeling and simulation in inquiry learning: Checking solutions and giving intelligent advice. Simulation, 82(11), 769–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bredeweg, B., Linnebank, F., Bouwer, A., & Liem, J. (2009). Garp3: Workbench for qualitative modelling and simulation. Ecological Informatics, 4(5–6), 263–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). Factors that influence how people respond to anomalous data. In Cognitive Science Society (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 318–323). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Crews, T. R., Biswas, G., Goldman, S. R., & Bransford, J. D. (1997). Anchored interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8, 142–178.Google Scholar
  8. Forbus, K. D., Carney, K., Sherin, B., & Ureel, L. (2004, August). Qualitative modeling for middle-school students. Paper presented at the 18th International Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning (QR04), Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
  9. Forbus, K. D., & de Kleer, J. (1993). Building problem solvers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glynn, S. M., Yeany, R. H., & Britton, B. K. (1991). The psychology of learning science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Hirashima, T., Horiguchi, T., Kashihara, A., & Toyoda, J. (1998). Error-based simulation for error-visualization and its management. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9(1–2), 17–31.Google Scholar
  13. Hirashima, T., Imai, I., Horiguchi, T., & Toumoto, T. (2009). Error-based simulation to promote awareness of errors in elementary mechanics and its evaluation. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 409–416). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Ios Press.Google Scholar
  14. Horiguchi, T., & Hirashima, T. (2000). A method of creating counterexamples by using error-based simulation. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE2000), Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  15. Horiguchi, T., & Hirashima, T. (2006). Robust simulator: A method of simulating learners’ erroneous equations for making error- based simulation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4053, 655–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horiguchi, T., & Hirashima, T. (2008). Domain-independent error-based simulation for error-awareness and its preliminary evaluation. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 5351, 951–958.Google Scholar
  17. Horiguchi, T., Hirashima, T., & Forbus, K. D. (2012, July). A model-building learning environment with error-based simulation. Paper presented at the 26th International Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning (QR12), Playa Vista, CA.Google Scholar
  18. Horiguchi, T., Hirashima, T., Kashihara, A., & Toyoda, J. (1998). Two points of view for managing error-based simulation. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE1998), Beijing, China.Google Scholar
  19. Horiguchi, T., Hirashima, T., Kashihara, A., & Toyoda, J. (1999). Error-visualization by error-based simulation considering its effectiveness -introducing two viewpoints. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 421–428). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Ios Press.Google Scholar
  20. Horiguchi, T., Imai, I., Toumoto, T., & Hirashima, T. (2007). A classroom practice of error-based simulation as counterexample to students’ misunderstanding of mechanics. Paper presented at the 15th International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE2007), Hiroshima, Japan.Google Scholar
  21. Horiguchi, T., Imai, I., Toumoto, T., & Hirashima, T. (2014). Error-based simulation for error-awareness in learning mechanics: An evaluation. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(3), 1–13.Google Scholar
  22. Klahr, D. (2009). To every thing there is as season, and a time to every purpose under the heavens: What about direct instruction. In S. Tobias & T. H. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 291–310). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  23. Kunichika, H., Hirashima, T., & Takeuchi, A. (2006). Visualizing errors for self-correcting discrepancy between thinking and writing. In R. Mizoguchi, P. Dillenbourg, & Z. Zhu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th international conference on computers in education (pp. 483–490). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Ios Press.Google Scholar
  24. Leelawong, K., & Biswas, G. (2008). Designing learning by teaching agents: The Betty’s brain system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 18, 181–208.Google Scholar
  25. Loh, B., Reiser, B. J., Radinsky, J., Edelson, D. C., Gomez, L. M., & Marshall, S. (2000). Developing reflective inquiry practices: A case study of software, the teacher, and students. In K. Crowley, C. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 247–286). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1993). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 431–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Matsuda, N., Takagi, S., Soga, M., Hirashima, T., Horiguchi, T., Taki, H., … Yoshimoto, F. (2003, December). Tutoring system for pencil drawing discipline. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE2003), Hong Kong, China.Google Scholar
  28. Or-Bach, R., & Bredeweg, B. (2013). Support options provided and required for modeling with DynaLearn: A case study. Education and Information Technologies, 18(4), 621–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (Eds.). (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children’s science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  30. Perkinson, H. (1983). Learning from our mistakes: A reinterpretation of twentieth-century educational theory. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  31. Plötzner, R. (1994). The integrative use of qualitative and quantitative knowledge in physics problem solving. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar
  32. Robertson, W. C. (1990). Detection of cognitive structure with protocol data: Predicting performance on physics transfer problems. Cognitive Science, 14, 253–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Takeuchi, A., & Otsuki, S. (1997). An intelligent tutor for kinetic system modeling. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 340–346). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Ios Press.Google Scholar
  34. Weld, D. S., & de Kleer, J. (1990). Readings in qualitative reasoning about physical systems. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning Engineering Laboratory, Department of Information EngineeringHiroshima UniversityHiroshimaJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of Maritime SciencesKobe UniversityKobe, HyogoJapan

Personalised recommendations