1. Slide 1 Kirsten Butcher Elaborated Explanations for Visual/Verbal Problem Solving: Interactive Communication Cluster July 24, 2006

2. Slide 2 Visual & Verbal Information in Geometry Geometry Cognitive Tutor: Angles and Circles Units.

3. Slide 3 Research Goals To understand how coordination between & integration of visual and verbal knowledge influences robust learning To explore the potential transfer of laboratory- identified multimedia principles to classroom context To inform the design of effective educational multimedia for classroom use

4. Slide 4 Relevant Learning Research Learning with Multimedia Contiguity Effect (e.g., Mayer, 2001) Diagrams support inference-generation & integration of information (Butcher, 2006) Self-explanations & Cognitive Tutors Self-explanations promote learning (e.g., Chi et al., 1994) Simple (menu-based) self-explanations support Geometry Learning (Aleven & Koedinger, 2002)

5. Slide 5 Hypotheses: Sense-making Scaffolds Contiguity Work & receive feedback in diagram Integrated Hints Apply verbal hints to visual problem situation (diagram) Elaborated Explanations Visual “explanations” to justify problem-solving

6. Slide 6 Hypotheses: Sense-making Scaffolds Contiguity Work & receive feedback in diagram Integrated Hints Apply verbal hints to visual problem situation (diagram) Elaborated Explanations Visual “explanations” to justify problem-solving

7. Slide 7 Connections to PSLC Theory Sense-making Coordinative Learning: Integrate results from multiple inputs & representations. Verbal information Visual information Scaffolds change the format of the interface to promote coordinative learning. Contiguous representation: reduces mapping & supports inferences made directly from diagram Integrated hints: reduce mapping & support recognition of critical visual elements

8. Slide 8 Hypotheses: Sense-making Scaffolds Contiguity Work & receive feedback in diagram Integrated Hints Apply verbal hints to visual problem situation (diagram) Elaborated Explanations Visual “explanations” to justify problem-solving

9. Slide 9 Connections to PSLC Theory Sense-making Interactive Communication: Tutor prompts explanations Students “explain” geometry principles that justify problem- solving steps Students receive feedback and hints on explanations Scaffold: Elaborated explanations require student to “explain” the application of geometry principles Rationale for explanations are visual in nature Diagram Condition: Visual format for explanation Table Condition: Verbal format for explanation

10. Slide 10 Existing Tutor: Explanations are verbal-only

11. Slide 11 Elaborated Explanations Tutor

12. Slide 12 Elaborated Explanations Tutor

13. Slide 13 Elaborated Explanations Tutor Demo of the Geometry Cognitive Tutor with Elaborated Explanations New & Improved! Now with more explanations!

14. Slide 14 Connections to PSLC Theory What are the relevant knowledge components? (Verbal) Geometry principles. E.g., Inscribed Angle Theorem means that the measure of the angle is half the measure of the intercepted arc. (Visual) Geometry elements. E.g., Recognizing angles, arcs, and their relationships. (Integrated) Geometry inferences E.g., Recognizing that an arc, which is associated with a known (or found) inscribed angle, can be found via the Inscribed Angle Theorem

15. Slide 15 Knowledge Components vs. Overall Visual Match

16. Slide 16 Knowledge Components vs. Overall Visual Match

17. Slide 17 Mapping Given Information to Elements

18. Slide 18 Integration of Principles and Elements

19. Slide 19 Superficial Strategies of Integration: Close = Connected

20. Slide 20 Robust Knowledge: Relationships connect Elements via Principles

21. Slide 21 Difficulty Factors Analysis (DFA): Problem Format & Explanation Type 3 Problem Formats Diagram Quadrant Table 2 Explanation Types Simple Explanations (Reasons Only) Elaborated Explanations (Reasons + Application)

22. Slide 22 DFA: Diagram Problem Format with Simple Explanations

23. Slide 23 DFA: Diagram Problem Format with Elaborated Explanations

24. Slide 24 DFA: Quadrant Problem Format with Elaborated Explanations

25. Slide 25 DFA: Table Problem Format with Elaborated Explanations

26. Slide 26 DFA Results: Given Information Linear trend for Explanation Type, F (1, 88) = 3.8, p =.055

27. Slide 27 DFA Results: Problem Solving Linear trend for Explanation Type, F (1, 88) = 2.9, p =.09 Quadratic effect for Problem Format, F (1, 88) = 3.8, p =.053 Trend for interaction, F (1, 88) = 3.0, p =.088

28. Slide 28 Preliminary Results: Process Observational pilot data Longer latency of responses in table condition BEFORE entering quantities Longer latencies AFTER quantities entered when elaborated explanations are required Classroom Feedback Teachers report student preference for diagram tutor Students report no perceived differences in the “amount of work” for the elaborated explanations Students adapt quickly to the elaborated explanations, but performance far from ceiling even after successful completion of tutor with simple explanations.

29. Slide 29 Next Steps Log files??????!!!! Think-aloud protocols with elaborated explanations Summer 2006 Lab testing of elaborated explanations Summer 2006 In-vivo testing with the elaborated explanations & contiguous interface (2 X 2) Late Fall 2006

30. Slide 30 Research Team Vincent Aleven: Research Scientist, CMU HCII Kirsten Butcher: Research Postdoc, Pitt LRDC Shelley Evenson: Assoc Prof, CMU School of Design Octav Popescu: Research Programmer, CMU HCII Andy Tzou: Masters Student: CMU HCII Honors Program Carl Angiolillo: Masters Student: CMU HCII Honors Program Grace Leonard: Research Associate, CMU HCII Thomas Bolster : Research Associate, CMU HCII

31. Slide 31 Questions?

32. Slide 32 Extra Slides

33. Slide 33 Existing Tutor: Multiple Verbal Inputs

34. Slide 34 Existing Tutor: Multiple Visual Inputs

35. Slide 35 Table Condition = Noncontiguous

36. Slide 36 Diagram Condition = Contiguous

37. Slide 37 Methods: Contiguity (Study 1) Geometry Cognitive Tutor: 2 conditions Table (noncontiguous) Diagram (contiguous) Procedure Pretest (in class) Training (classroom use of tutor, grade-matched pairs randomly assigned to conditions within classes) Posttest (in class)

38. Slide 38 Assessment: 3 types of items Answers

39. Slide 39 Assessment: 3 types of items Reasons

40. Slide 40 Assessment: 3 types of items Transfer

41. Slide 41 Preliminary Results: Answers Main effect of test time: F (1, 38) = 29.5, p <.01

42. Slide 42 Preliminary Results: Reasons Main effect of test time: F (1, 38) = 65.7, p <.01

43. Slide 43 Preliminary Results: Transfer 3-way interaction: Test Time * Condition * Ability: F (1, 38) = 4.3, p <.05