Skip to main content

LKC: Learning by Knowledge Construction

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2002)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2363))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Domain knowledge is mainly communicated to learners via un-assessed content such as text. Lack of effective support in reading activity of this type of resources, induces students misconceptions while increasing their cognitive load, leading to their demotivation. In this paper, we present the Learning by knowledge Construction approach (LKC). This system provides full student support for knowledge acquisition in reading activity. Aspects such as document annotation, external representations and argumentation are all taken into account. We describe an ITS architecture that implements this approach and give details on the authoring and student learning environments.

Financial support from Bishop’s University is gratefully acknowledged.

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

Access this chapter

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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, J. (1988). The expert module. In M.C. Polson and J.J. Richardson (eds.), Foundations of Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Hillsdale, New Jersey, LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson-Inman, L. and Zeitz, L. (1999). Computer-Based Concept Mapping: A Tool for Negotiating Meaning. The Computing Teacher, 26(08).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ben-Ari, M. (1998). Constructivism in computer science education. Proceedings of the twenty-ninth SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 257–261.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bruner, J. (1973). Going Beyond the Information Given. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chi, M., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., and Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanation: How students study and use examples in learing to solve problems, volume 13. Cognitives Science. Pages 145–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cox, R. and Brna, P. (1995). Supporting the use of external representations in problem solving: the need for flexible learning environments. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(2), pages 239–302.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dijk, T. A. V. and Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dimitrova, V., Self, J., and Brna, P. (1999). The interactive maintenance of open learner models. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pages 405–412.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Grossen, G. and Carnine, D. (1990). Diagramming a logic strategy: Effect on difficult problem types and transfer, volume 13, pages 168–182. Learning Disability Quarterly.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Inspiration, I. (2002). Inspiration Software. http://www.inspiration.com.

  11. Luger, G. and Stubblefield, W. (1998). Artificial Intelligence, Structure And Strategies For Complex Problem Solving. Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts, 3 edition.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mindjet (2002). MindManager Business and Standard Edition. http://www.mindjet.com/.

  13. Murray, T. (1998). Authoring Knowledge Based Tutors: Tools for Content, Instructional Strategy, Student Model, and Interface Design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(1), pages 5–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. O’Hara, K. (1996). Towards a Typology of Reading Goals. Technical Report EPC-1996-107, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ohlsson, S. (1996). Learning to do and learning to understand. in Reimann, P. and Spada, H. (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines, Pergamon, oxford edition.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Polson, M. and Richardson, J. (1988). Foundations of Intelligent Tutoring Systems. LEA, Hillsdale, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rodenburg, D. (2001). Learning System Design: More than Atomic Science. Learning Technology, IEEE Computer Society (LTTF), 3(1).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Stenning, K. and Oberlander, J. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation, volume 19. Cognitive Science. Pages 97–140.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Suthers, D., Weiner, A., Connelly, J., and Paolucci, M. (1995). Belvedere: Engaging students in critical discussion of science and public policy issues. 7th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 95). Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Rouane, K., Frasson, C., Kaltenbach, M. (2002). LKC: Learning by Knowledge Construction. In: Cerri, S.A., Gouardères, G., Paraguaçu, F. (eds) Intelligent Tutoring Systems. ITS 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2363. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47987-2_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47987-2_23

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-43750-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-47987-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics