Upload File

using similarity rating tasks to assess case reuse in problem solving

  • Home
  • Documents
  • Using Similarity Rating Tasks to Assess Case Reuse in Problem Solving
1
4. METHODOLOGY 4. METHODOLOGY Using Similarity Rating Tasks to Assess Case Reuse in Problem Solving Fran Mateycik, 1 and David Jonassen 2 , N. Sanjay Rebello 1 1 Kansas State University, 2 University of Missouri This work is supported in part by US National Science Foundation under grant DUE-06185459. REFERENCES REFERENCES 2. QUESTIONS 2. QUESTIONS To what extent do students focus on principle similarities and differences? Given problem pairs, how do students’ similarity ratings of the pairs change after the group learning interviews? How do student ratings compare with faculty ratings? 1. BACKGROUND 1. BACKGROUND Facilitate the development of conceptual schema using case reuse. Conducted semester long treatment in algebra-based physics. 2 Individual interviews conducted at mid- and end- points of semester. Asked to rate problem pairs of varying similarity 5. RESULTS 5. RESULTS Given problem pairs with facial differences: Students are seemingly seemingly unfocused unfocused on Principle Similarities during 1st interview. 1st interview. Students begin to focus begin to focus on Principle Similarities during 2 2 nd nd Interview Interview . . Student rating of problem Type B (Surface Different and Principle Similar) increases significantly. Student rating of problem Type B looks more 6. Summary 6. Summary 3. THEORY 3. THEORY 1 Surface and Principle Differences Surface different problems: multiple contexts can be associated with a principle. Principle different problems: Problems are not associated by the same principles. Principles are basic rules or assumptions. 4 Categories of Pairing FS FD PS A A B B PD C C D D Facial Similarity (FS) Facial Difference (FD) Principle Similarity (PS) Principle Difference (PD) Type C Type C: Pairs are FS and PD Students are given 8 problem pairs in the order of A,A,B,B,C,C,D,D 4. METHODOLOGY 4. METHODOLOGY Research Design Research Design 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1.2-D Kinematics 2.Force 3.Rotational Motion 4.Work-Energy 5. Rotational Motion 6. Pressure in Fluids 7. Simple Harmonic Motion 8. Standing Waves & Resonance Group Learning Group Learning Interviews Interviews 1 st Individual Interview Screening Interview 2 nd Individual Interview Evolving Evolving Protocol Protocol Finalized Finalized Protocol Protocol N=10 Students Enrolled in Algebra-based physics Participating in weekly Group Learning Interviews Method: 2 Individual Interviews 50 minutes each 1 st Individual Interview at mid-point of semester 2 nd Individual Interview at end of semester Students rate similarities between problem pairs F Facial D Difference ( FD FD) : roller coaster vs. gun P Principle D Difference ( PD PD) : friction vs. no friction F Facial S Similarity ( FS FS) : both roller coasters P Principle S Similarity ( PS PS) : both no friction Type A Type A: Pairs are FS and PS Type B Type B: Pairs are FD and PS Type D Type D: Pairs are FD and PD F Facial D Difference ( FD FD) : roller coaster vs. gun P Principle S Similarity ( PS PS) : both no friction F Facial S Similarity ( FS FS) : both roller coasters P Principle D Difference ( PD PD) : friction vs. no friction (continued) (continued) 1.T.J. Nokes & B.H.Ross, AIP Conference Proceedings 951, 7-10 (2007). 2.M.T.H. Chi, P.J. Feltovich, and R. Glaser, Cognitive Science 5 (2), 121-152 (1981). 3.L. Hsu, et al., American Journal of Physics 72 (9), 1147-1156 (2004). 4.D.H. Jonassen, Educational Technology and Research and Development 48 (4), 63- 85 (2000). 5.D. Gentner, Cognitive Science 7 (2), 155-170 (1983). A > B (p-value 0.000) B < C (p-value 0.003) C > D (p-value 0.008) Interview 1 Ratings Significant Differences: A B C D Similarity rating Significant Difference: C > D (p-value 0.014) Interview 2 Ratings Differences between A & B, B & C are no longer significant A B C D Similarity rating Differences between B & C in Interview 2 Interview 2 negligible compared to Differences between B & C in Interview 1 Interview 1 Interview 1 & 2 Ratings Interview 1 Interview 1 Interview 2 Interview 2 A B C D Similarity rating Similarity rating Interview 2 & Faculty Ratings Interview 2 Interview 2 Faculty Faculty A B C D Students’ end- semester ratings for three of the four problem types are similar to four volunteer faculty ratings.

Upload: burke

Post on 06-Jan-2016

28 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

Report

DESCRIPTION

1. BACKGROUND. Facilitate the development of conceptual schema using case reuse. Conducted semester long treatment in algebra-based physics. 2 Individual interviews conducted at mid- and end-points of semester. Asked to rate problem pairs of varying similarity. REFERENCES. 2. QUESTIONS. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Using Similarity Rating Tasks to Assess Case Reuse in Problem Solving

4. METHODOLOGY4. METHODOLOGY

Using Similarity Rating Tasks to Assess Case Reuse in Problem SolvingFran Mateycik,1 and David Jonassen2, N. Sanjay Rebello1

1Kansas State University, 2University of Missouri

This work is supported in part by US National Science Foundation under grant DUE-06185459.

REFERENCESREFERENCES

2. QUESTIONS2. QUESTIONSTo what extent do students focus on principle similarities and differences?

Given problem pairs, how do students’ similarity ratings of the pairs change after the group learning interviews?

How do student ratings compare with faculty ratings?

1. BACKGROUND1. BACKGROUNDFacilitate the development of conceptual schema using

case reuse.

Conducted semester long treatment in algebra-based physics.

2 Individual interviews conducted at mid- and end-points of semester.

Asked to rate problem pairs of varying similarity

5. RESULTS5. RESULTS

Given problem pairs with facial differences:Students are seeminglyseemingly unfocusedunfocused on Principle

Similarities during 1st interview.1st interview.Students begin to focusbegin to focus on Principle Similarities during

22ndnd Interview Interview..Student rating of problem Type B (Surface Different and

Principle Similar) increases significantly.Student rating of problem Type B looks more expert-like.

6. Summary6. Summary

3. THEORY3. THEORY1Surface and Principle Differences

Surface different problems: multiple contexts can be associated with a principle.

Principle different problems: Problems are not associated by the same principles.

Principles are basic rules or assumptions.

4 Categories of Pairing

FS FD

PS AA BB

PD CC DD

Facial Similarity (FS)

Facial Difference (FD)

Principle Similarity (PS)

Principle Difference (PD)

Type CType C: Pairs are FS and PD

Students are given 8 problem pairs in the order of A,A,B,B,C,C,D,D

4. METHODOLOGY4. METHODOLOGY

Research DesignResearch Design

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. 2-D Kinematics

2. Force

3. Rotational Motion

4. Work-Energy

5. Rotational Motion

6. Pressure in Fluids

7. Simple Harmonic Motion

8. Standing Waves & Resonance

Group Learning InterviewsGroup Learning Interviews

1st Individual Interview

ScreeningInterview

2nd Individual Interview

Evolving ProtocolEvolving Protocol Finalized ProtocolFinalized Protocol

N=10 StudentsEnrolled in Algebra-

based physicsParticipating in weekly

Group Learning Interviews

Method:2 Individual Interviews

50 minutes each1st Individual Interview at mid-point of

semester2nd Individual Interview at end of semester

Students rate similarities between problem pairs

FFacial DDifference (FDFD) : roller coaster vs. gun

PPrinciple DDifference (PDPD) : friction vs. no friction

FFacial SSimilarity (FSFS) : both roller coasters PPrinciple SSimilarity (PSPS) : both no friction

Type AType A: Pairs are FS and PS

Type BType B: Pairs are FD and PS

Type DType D: Pairs are FD and PD

FFacial DDifference (FDFD) : roller coaster vs. gun PPrinciple SSimilarity (PSPS) : both no friction

FFacial SSimilarity (FSFS) : both roller coasters PPrinciple DDifference (PDPD) : friction vs. no friction

(continued)(continued)

1. T.J. Nokes & B.H.Ross, AIP Conference Proceedings 951, 7-10 (2007).

2. M.T.H. Chi, P.J. Feltovich, and R. Glaser, Cognitive Science 5 (2), 121-152 (1981).

3. L. Hsu, et al., American Journal of Physics 72 (9), 1147-1156 (2004).

4. D.H. Jonassen, Educational Technology and Research and Development 48 (4), 63-85 (2000).

5. D. Gentner, Cognitive Science 7 (2), 155-170 (1983).

A > B (p-value 0.000)B < C (p-value 0.003)C > D (p-value 0.008)

Interview 1 Ratings

Significant Differences:A

B

C

D

Sim

ilarit

y ra

ting

Significant Difference:

C > D (p-value 0.014)

Interview 2 Ratings

Differences between A & B, B & C are no longer

significantA

B

C

D

Sim

ilarit

y ra

ting

Differences between B & C in Interview 2Interview 2

negligible compared to Differences

between B & C in Interview 1Interview 1

Interview 1 & 2 Ratings

Interview 1Interview 1

Interview 2Interview 2A

B

C

D

Sim

ilarit

y ra

ting

Sim

ilarit

y ra

ting

Interview 2 & Faculty Ratings

Interview 2Interview 2

FacultyFacultyA

B

C

D

Students’ end-semester ratings for three of the four problem types are similar to four volunteer

faculty ratings.

Triangle Similarity: AA, SSS, SASTriangle Similarity: AA ... · 77-3-3 Triangle Similarity: AA, SSS, SASTriangle Similarity ... Prove certain triangles are similar by ... Using the

Similarity and Congruence - intranet.cesc.vic.edu.au · Similarity and Congruence Curriculum Ready Similarity and Congruence ACMMG: 201, 220, 221, 243, 244

UNIT 2: SIMILARITY, CONGRUENCE, AND PROOFS · UNIT 2: SIMILARITY, CONGRUENCE, AND PROOFS This unit introduces the concepts of similarity and congruence. The definition of similarity

Similarity Search for Scientific Workflowslic repositories are gaining importance as a means to share, nd, and reuse such work ows. As the sizes of these repos-itories grow, methods

Proving triangle similarity using sas and sss similarity

User profile correlation-based similarity (UPCSim) algorithm ......collaborative ltering similarity [29], the Triangle Multiplying Jaccard (TMJ) similarity [30], and the similarity

Similarity Checker ‘turn it in’ Guide for self-checking...⑤Viewing a similarity report • Result: Percentage of similarity ※A first similarity reports is usually available

Pubmet - Crossref workshop slides - Vanessa Fairhurst...Crossref makes research outputs easy to find, cite, link, assess, and reuse. We’re a not-for-profit membership organization

Ohio’s State Tests...similarity. Use congruence and similarity criteria for triangles to solve ... similarity in terms of similarity transformations. ... and that the lateral face

Similarity of Semantic Relations · Similarity of Semantic Relations Peter D. Turney∗ National Research Council Canada There are at least two kinds of similarity. Relational similarity

iot.schema - World Wide Web Consortium · •Adapt schema.org patterns, integrate with and reuse other ontologies and vocabularies •Rosetta stone approach based on similarity of

REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE reuse-recycle

Knowledge Reuse for Software Reuse - University College Dublin

Similarity in Triangles Unit 13 Notes Definition of Similarity

Melodic Similarity through Shape Similarity · Melodic Similarity through Shape Similarity 339 In the next section we outline several problems that a symbolic music retrieval system

OVERVIEW AGENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ......inventory, assess, clean up, and reuse brownfield sites. This guidance provides information on applying for Cleanup Grants. COVID-19

Sustainable reuse: the adaptive reuse of the Chattanooga

Text Similarity - Columbia Universitycompute similarity • Cosine similarity • When vectors have unit length, cosine similarity is the dot product • Common to normalize embeddings

Unsupervised Learning of Optical Flow with Deep Feature Similarity · 2020. 7. 24. · Fused similarity (ours) Similarity Extracted features Fig.1: This gure shows di erent similarity

String Similarity Join With Different Similarity Thresholds ...ynsilva/publications/StringSimilarityJoin.pdf · String Similarity Join With Different Similarity Thresholds Based

Similarity Through Transformations 6 - CUSD 4 · LEARNING GOALS KEY TERMS t Angle-Angle Similarity Theorem ... (SAS) Similarity ... In this problem, you will explore the similarity

Similarity and Transformations...Holt McDougal Geometry Similarity and Transformations A transformation that produces similar figures is a similarity transformation. A similarity transformation

Chapter 6: Similarity Perform Similarity Transformations 6.7

Cross-lingual similarity calculation for plagiarism ... · Cross-lingual similarity calculation for plagiarism ... • Calculate similarity ... Cross-lingual similarity calculation

Reuse #2 More Than Words - Book Reuse

Similarity 50 40 30 20 10 Indirect Measurement SSS~, SAS~, AA~ Similarity Ratio Similarity Statements Proportions

Scaling Datacenter Accelerators With Compute-Reuse ... · Face recognition in unconstrained videos with matched background similarity _, Wolf et al., VPR 2011 Observation II: Datacenter

Document Similarity Measures Content: Precision Recall and F-measure Dice Coefficient Jaccard Coefficient Cosine Similarity Asymmetric Similarity

dx.doi.org/10.14227/DT200113P13 : Open-Source Software 2f ... · PhEq_bootstrap is a free software tool that uses the similarity factor (f 2) to assess dissolution profile similarity

Ch. 11 - Similarity Class Notes. What Is Similarity?

Efficient Similarity Search : Arbitrary Similarity Measures, Arbitrary Composition

WASTEWATER REUSE FOR AGRICULTURE - World Banksiteresources.worldbank.org/.../WasteWater_reuse_for_agriculture.pdf · WASTEWATER REUSE FOR AGRICULTURE POTENTIAL FOR WASTEWATER REUSE

Reuse Reduce Recycle - Colégio Catarinense · Reuse Reduce Recycle . GLASS REUSE . Ways to reuse the glass: We can reuse the glass in decoration. One example is, you can use your

RCTs Chart - American Psychological Association · 2020-03-23 · Collect and report descriptive dato that will allow policymakers to assess the similarity of the sample population

Triangle Similarity: AA, SSS, SASTriangle Similarity: AA