Skip to main content

The Impact of Representation on Coaching Argument Analysis

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1839))

Abstract

Graphical representations have long been associated with more efficient problem solving. More recently, researchers have begun looking at how representation may affect the information that students attend to and what they learn. In this paper we report on a study of how graphical representation may influence interaction between a human coach and a student engaged in analyzing argument texts. We compared coaching interaction with subjects working with a predefined graphical representation to subjects who developed their own representation. The predefined representation, with a better “cognitive fit”, to the task, allowed subjects to do more work on their own. Coaching was more systematic and both more efficient and more effective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cavalli-Sforza, V., Moore, J.D., Suthers, D.D.: Helping students articulate and criticize scientific explanations. In: Brna, P., Ohlsson, S., Pain, H. (eds.): Proceedings of AI-ED 93, World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (1993) 113–120

    Google Scholar 

  2. Suthers, D., Weiner, A, Connelly, J., Paolucci, M.: Belvedere: Engaging students in critical discussions of science and public policy issues. In: Proceedings AI-ED 95, World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Suthers, D.D., Cavalli-Sforza, V.: Issues in graphical media for evaluating and debating scientific theories. In: Cox, R., Petre, M., Brna, P., Lee, J. (eds.): Proceedings of the Workshop on Graphical Representations, Reasoning, and Communication. AI-ED 93, World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. (1993) 5–8

    Google Scholar 

  4. Paolucci, M., Suthers, D.D., Weiner, A.: Automated advice-giving strategies for scientific inquiry. In: Frasson, C., Gauthier, G., Lesgold, A. (eds.): Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Third International Conference. Lecture Notes In Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY (1996) 372–381

    Google Scholar 

  5. Toth, J.A., Suthers, D.D., Weiner, A.: Providing expert advice in the domain of collaborative scientific inquiry. In: du Boulay, B., Mizoguchi, R. (eds.): Proceedings AI-ED 97, World Conference of the Artificial Intelligence in Education Society. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Suthers, D.D.: Representational bias as guidance for learning interactions: A research agenda. In: Lajoie, S.P., Vivet, M. (eds.): Proceedings of AI-ED 99, World Conference of the Artificial Intelligence in Education Society IOS Press, Amsterdam (1999) 121–128

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cavalli-Sforza, V.: Constructed vs. received representations for scientific argument: Implications for learning and coaching. In: Proceedings of The Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (1999) 108–113

    Google Scholar 

  8. Pilkington, R.M.: Analyzing educational discourse: The DISCOUNT scheme. Technical Report No. 019703, Computer Based Learning Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Katz, S., O’Donnell, G., Kay, H.: An approach to coding educational dialogues for descriptive and prescriptive purposes. In: Proceedings of the AI-ED 99 Workshop on Analyzing Educational Dialogue Interaction: Towards Models that Support Learning. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1999) 22–32

    Google Scholar 

  10. Pilkington, R.M., Hartley, J.R., Hintze, D.: Learning to argue and arguing to learn: An interface for computer-based dialogue games. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 3(3) (1992) 275–295

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bouwer, A.: ArgueTrack: Computer support for educational argumentation. In: Lajoie, S.P., Vivet M. (eds.): Proceedings of AI-ED 99, World Conference of the Artificial Intelligence in Education Society. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1999) 121–128

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Cavalli-Sforza, V. (2000). The Impact of Representation on Coaching Argument Analysis. In: Gauthier, G., Frasson, C., VanLehn, K. (eds) Intelligent Tutoring Systems. ITS 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1839. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45108-0_45

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45108-0_45

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-67655-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45108-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics