Combatting Shallow Learning in a Tutor for Geometry Problem Solving

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1452)


The PACT Geometry tutor has been designed, with guidance from mathematics educators, to be an integrated part of a complete, new-standards-oriented course for highschool geometry. We conducted a formative evaluation of the third “geometric properties” lesson and saw significant student learning gains. We also found that students were better able to provide numerical answers to problems than to articulate the reasons that are presumably involved in finding these answers. This suggests that students may provide answers using superficial (and possibly unreliable) visual associations rather than reason logically from definitions and conjectures. To combat this type of shallow learning, we are developing a new version of the tutor’s third lesson, aimed at getting students to reason more deliberately with definitions and theorems as they work on geometry problems. In the new version, students are required to state a reason for their answers, which they can select from a Glossary of geometry definitions and theorems. We will conduct an experiment to test whether providing tutoring on reasoning will transfer to better performance on answer giving.


Classroom Instruction Interior Angle Geometry Problem Cognitive Tutor Numerical Answer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, J. R., 1993. Rules of the Mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R., A. T. Corbett, K. R. Koedinger, and R. Pelletier, 1995. Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4,167–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. R., and R. Pelletier, 1991. A development system for model-tracing tutors. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, 1–8. Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
  4. Burton, R. R., and J. S. Brown, 1982. An Investigation of Computer Coaching for Informal Learning Activities. In D. H. Sleeman and J. S. Brown (eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 79–98. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chi, M. T. H., P. J. Feltovich, and R. Glaser, 1981. Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corbett, A. T., and J. R. Anderson, 1995. Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 4: 253–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Holland, J. H., K. J. Holyoak, R. E. Nisbett, and P. R. Thagard, 1986. Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning, and Discovery. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Koedinger, K. R., and J. R. Anderson, 1990. Abstract planning and perceptual chunks: Elements of expertise in geometry. Cognitive Science, 14, 511–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Koedinger, K. R., and J. R. Anderson, 1993. Reifying implicit planning in geometry. In S. Lajoie and S. Derry (eds.), Computers as Cognitive Tools, 15–45. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Miller, C. S., J. F. Lehman, and K. R. Koedinger, 1997. Goals and learning in microworlds. Submitted to Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
  11. NCTM, 1989. Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Reston, VA: The Council.Google Scholar
  12. Paivio, A., 1971. Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  13. Ritter, S., and K. R. Koedinger, 1997. An architecture for plug-in tutoring agents. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 7(3/4), 315–347. Charlottesville, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  14. Ritter, S., and J. R. Anderson, 1995. Calculation and strategy in the equation solving tutor. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 413–418. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HCI Institute School of Computer ScienceCarnegie Mellon UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Langley High SchoolPittsburgh Public SchoolsPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations