Learning Problem-Solving Rules as Search Through a Hypothesis Space

Learning to solve a class of problems can be characterized as a search through a space of hypotheses about the rules for solving these problems. A series of four experiments studied how different learning conditions affected the search among hypotheses about the solution rule for a simple computational problem. Experiment 1 showed that a problem property such as computational difficulty of the rules biased the search process and so affected learning. Experiment 2 examined the impact of examples as instructional tools and found that their effectiveness was determined by whether they uniquely pointed to the correct rule. Experiment 3 compared verbal directions with examples and found that both could guide search. The final experiment tried to improve learning by using more explicit verbal directions or by adding scaffolding to the example. While both manipulations improved learning, learning still took the form of a search through a hypothesis space of possible rules. We describe a model that embodies two assumptions: (1) the instruction can bias the rules participants hypothesize rather than directly be encoded into a rule; (2) participants do not have memory for past wrong hypotheses and are likely to retry them. These assumptions are realized in a Markov model that fits all the data by estimating two sets of probabilities. First, the learning condition induced one set of Start probabilities of trying various rules. Second, should this first hypothesis prove wrong, the learning condition induced a second set of Choice probabilities of considering various rules. These findings broaden our understanding of effective instruction and provide implications for instructional design.

[1]  Hee Seung Lee,et al.  Student learning: what has instruction got to do with it? , 2013, Annual review of psychology.

[2]  J. Sweller,et al.  Consequences of history-cued and means–end strategies in problem solving. , 1982 .

[3]  John R. Anderson,et al.  An fMRI investigation of instructional guidance in mathematical problem solving , 2014, Trends in Neuroscience and Education.

[4]  J. Sweller,et al.  Effects of Subgoal Density and Location on Learning during Problem Solving. , 1982 .

[5]  Paul R. Cohen,et al.  Temporal Data Mining for Educational Applications , 2008, Int. J. Softw. Informatics.

[6]  Sumit Gulwani,et al.  Example-based learning in computer-aided STEM education , 2014, CACM.

[7]  Simon Farrell,et al.  Computational Modeling in Cognition: Principles and Practice , 2010 .

[8]  Shawn Betts,et al.  Not taking the easy road: When similarity hurts learning , 2015, Memory & Cognition.

[9]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning. , 1994, Psychological review.

[10]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Pragmatic versus syntactic approaches to training deductive reasoning , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[11]  Charles J. Brainerd Markovian Interpretations of Conservation Learning. , 1979 .

[12]  G. Bower,et al.  REVERSALS PRIOR TO SOLUTION IN CONCEPT IDENTIFICATION. , 1963, Journal of experimental psychology.

[13]  J. Michael O'Malley,et al.  Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition: A cognitive theory of learning , 1990 .

[14]  John R. Anderson,et al.  When does provision of instruction promote learning? , 2011, CogSci.

[15]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Thinking about the weather: How display salience and knowledge affect performance in a graphic inference task. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[16]  Jiajie Zhang,et al.  Representations in Distributed Cognitive Tasks , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[17]  G. Bower,et al.  Attention in Learning: Theory and Research , 1968 .

[18]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  Predicting Students' Performance with SimStudent: Learning Cognitive Skills from Observation , 2007, AIED.

[19]  D. Krantz,et al.  The effects of statistical training on thinking about everyday problems , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[20]  Mitchell J. Nathan,et al.  Expert Blind Spot Among Preservice Teachers , 2003 .

[21]  D. Towne,et al.  Exploring a domain through a computer simulation: traversing variable and relation space with the help of a hypothesis scratchpad , 1993 .

[22]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Discovering the structure of mathematical problem solving , 2013, NeuroImage.

[23]  F RESTLE,et al.  The selection of strategies in cue learning. , 1962, Psychological review.

[24]  Evelyne Cauzinille,et al.  Logical and memory processes in a unidimensional concept identification task by children and adults , 1973 .

[25]  Ann E. Hueter,et al.  A Cognitive Theory of Learning , 1976 .

[26]  T. Trabasso Stimulus emphasis and all-or-none learning in concept identification. , 1963, Journal of experimental psychology.

[27]  H. Simon,et al.  Learning Mathematics From Examples and by Doing , 1987 .

[28]  Stephen K. Reed,et al.  Use of examples and procedures in problem solving , 1991 .

[29]  Wouter van Joolingen,et al.  Design and implementation of simulation-based discovery environments: the SMISLE solution , 1996 .

[30]  Mitchell J. Nathan,et al.  The Real Story Behind Story Problems: Effects of Representations on Quantitative Reasoning , 2004 .

[31]  J. Kagan The concept of identification. , 1958, Psychological review.

[32]  Ton de Jong,et al.  Simulation-Based Experiential Learning , 1993, NATO ASI Series.

[33]  Susan Pedersen,et al.  Advancing young adolescents' hypothesis-development performance in a computer-supported and problem-based learning environment , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[34]  Kurt VanLehn,et al.  Learning one Subprocedure per Lesson , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[35]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[36]  Wouter van Joolingen,et al.  The SMISLE environment: Learning with and design of integrated simulation learning environments , 1995 .

[37]  Jack Mostow,et al.  Dynamic Cognitive Tracing: Towards Unified Discovery of Student and Cognitive Models , 2012, EDM.

[38]  Ton de Jong,et al.  Supporting hypothesis generation by learners exploring an interactive computer simulation , 1991 .

[39]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  How abstract is symbolic thought? , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[40]  Clayton Lewis,et al.  Why and How to Learn Why: Analysis-Based Generalization of Procedures , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[41]  G. Miller,et al.  Cognitive science. , 1981, Science.

[42]  Jörg Wittwer,et al.  Why Instructional Explanations Often Do Not Work: A Framework for Understanding the Effectiveness of Instructional Explanations , 2008 .

[43]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[44]  G. Bower,et al.  Presolution dimensional shifts in concept identification: A test of the sampling with replacement axiom in all-or-none models ☆ , 1966 .

[45]  Lawrence R. Rabiner,et al.  A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition , 1989, Proc. IEEE.

[46]  Jon M. Fincham,et al.  Learning From Examples Versus Verbal Directions in Mathematical Problem Solving , 2015 .

[47]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  How much of symbolic manipulation is just symbol pushing , 2009 .

[48]  Frank Bickenbach,et al.  Markov or not Markov - this should be a question , 2001 .

[49]  J. Sweller Control mechanisms in problem solving , 1983, Memory & cognition.