Process Highlighters in a Computer Simulation: Facilitation of Theory-Oriented Problem Solving

Abstract

This experiment investigates whether or not process highlighters, incorporated in a computer simulation, facilitate the knowledge representation of early adolescent children. Process highlighters are perceptual cues (usually visual) that are designed to focus attention toward critical features of events and processes occurring in a problem domain. The two questions addressed in this study are: a) do process highlighters increase the percentage of subjects who employ theory-oriented explanation?, and b) do process highlighters increase the percentage of subjects who demonstrate an understanding of the concept presented in the simulation? Thirty-two twelve-year-old children from two middle schools played a computer game about light reflecting off flat mirrors, presenting the physical law that the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. Each child played either the game with process highlighters or the game without process highlighters for forty minutes. Three independent evaluators analyzed each subject's transcript to determine his/her mode of explanation (random, concrete, or hypothetical) and also the level of understanding (none, preliminary, or good). The results indicate that the use of process highlighters is positively correlated with the subject's level of understanding, but is less conclusive with respect to encouraging students to use theory-oriented problem solving. The results are interpreted with respect to clarifying the relationship between a student's understanding of a concept and his or her expressing that understanding in concrete or hypothetical terms.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Norman

, Some Observations on Mental Models, in Mental Models, Gentner

and Stevens

A. L.

(eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 7–14, 1983.

Glaser

, Education and Thinking: The Role of Knowledge, American Psychologist, 39: 2, pp. 93–104, 1984.

Brewer

W. F.

, Schemas Versus Mental Models in Human Memory, in Modelling Cognition, Moris

(ed.), John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 187–197, 1987.

Minsky

, A Framework for Representing Knowledge, in The Psychology of Computer Vision, Winston

P. H.

(ed.), McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 211–277, 1975.

Schank

R. C.

and Abelson

R. P.

, Scripts, Plans and Understanding, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1977.

Rumelhart

D. E.

, Schemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition, in Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension, Spiro

R. S.

Bruce

B. C.

, and Brewer

W. F.

(eds.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 33–58, 1980.

Johnson-Laird

P. N.

, Mental Models in Cognitive Science, Cognitive Science, 4, pp. 71–115, 1980.

Johnson-Laird

P. N.

, Mental Models: Toward a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1983.

De Kleer

and Brown

Seely J.

, Assumptions and Ambiguities in Mechanistic Mental Models, in Mental Models, Gentner

and Stevens

A. L.

(eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 155–190, 1983.

10.

White

B. Y.

and Frederiksen

J. R.

, Causal Models as Intelligent Learning Environments for Science and Engineering Education, Applied Artificial Intelligence, 3: 2–3, 1989.

11.

Collins

and Gentner

, How People Construct Mental Models, in Cultural Models in Language and Thought, Holland

and Quinn

(eds.), Cambridge University Press, New York, 1987.

12.

Karmiloff-Smith

and Inhelder

, If You Want to Get Ahead, Get a Theory, Cognition, 3, pp. 195–212, 1974.

13.

Inhelder

and Piaget

, The Growth of Logical Thinking: From Childhood to Adolescence, Parsons

and Milgram

(trans.), Basic Books Inc., 1958.

14.

Piaget

, The Grasp of Consciousness: Action and Concept in the Young Child, Wedgewood

(trans.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1976.

15.

Piaget

, Success and Understanding, Pomerans

A. J.

(trans.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978.

16.

Chaillé

and Littman

, Computers in Early Education: The Child as Theory Builder, in Children and Computers, Klien

E. L.

(ed.), New Directions for Child Development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 28, pp. 5–18, 1985.

17.

Siegler

R. S.

, Children's Thinking, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1986.

18.

Carey

, Are Children Fundamentally Different Kinds of Thinkers and Learners than Adults?, in Thinking and Learning Skills: Current Research and Open Questions, Chipman

S. F.

Segal

J. W.

, and Glaser

(eds.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 2, pp. 485–517, 1985.

19.

Brewer

and Chinn

, Entrenched Beliefs, Inconsistent Information, and Knowledge Change, proceedings from the International Conference on the Learning Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, August 1991.

20.

Leiser

and Gilleiron

, Cognitive Science and Genetic Epistemology: A Case Study of Understanding, Plenum Press, New York, 1990.

21.

Chaillé

and Chandler

, Playing a Computer Game with and without Process Highlighters, Success vs. Theory-Oriented Problem Solving, paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., April 1987.

22.

Larkin

J. H.

, The Role of Problem Representation in Physics, in Mental Models, Gentner

and Stevens

A. L.

(eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 75–97, 1983.

23.

Bransford

J. D.

Vye

N. J.

Adams

L. T.

, and Perfetto

G. A.

, Learning Skills and the Acquisition of Knowledge, in Foundation for a Psychology of Education, Lesgold

and Glaser

(eds.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 199–249, 1989.

24.

Bassok

and Holyoak

, Interdomain Transfer Between Isomorphic Topics in Algebra and Physics, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15: 1, pp. 153–166, 1989.

25.

Minstrell

and di Sessa

, Explaining Falling Bodies, manuscript in preparation.