Rule-Learning Events in the Acquisition of a Complex Skill: An Evaluation of Cascade
Abstract
Acquiring a complex cognitive skill often involves learning principles of the task domain in the midst of solving problems or studying examples. Cascade is a model of such learning. It includes both rule-based reasoning and several kinds of analogical, case-based reasoning. Task domain principles are represented as rules, and Cascade learns new rules at rule-learning events, which are initiated by an impasse and utilize multiple kinds of reasoning. In this article, I evaluate Cascade's model of rule-learning events by analyzing ones gleaned from protocols of physics students solving problems and studying examples. As expected, Cascade's model is overly simple, but it appears feasible to extend it to cover all the observed learning events. The data themselves were surprising in that there are few learning events relative to the number that could have occurred, and those that did occur often involved forms of reasoning that are considerably shallower than expected. The data suggest ways that instruction can be improved to increase both the quantity and depth of learning events.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Problem solving yields poorer learning outcomes not because students' cognitive resources are depleted, but because there is less environmental information to support students in filling KC gaps.
“An alternative, but possibly complementary, theory proposes that problem solving yields poorer learning outcomes not because students' cognitive resources are depleted, but because there is less environmental information to support students in filling KC gaps (cf., McNamara, Kintsch, Songer, & Kintsch 1996 ;VanLehn, 1999).”
From The Knowledge‐Learning‐Instruction Framework: Bridging the Science‐Practice Chasm to Enhance Robust Student Learning (2012) · cites this paper as VanLehn, 1999
Simulations replicated the benefits of faded examples over complete worked examples on subsequent problem solving.
“These simulations, which model information available in the environment but not cognitive load nor motivation, replicated the benefits of faded examples over complete worked examples on subsequent problem solving.”
From The Knowledge‐Learning‐Instruction Framework: Bridging the Science‐Practice Chasm to Enhance Robust Student Learning (2012) · cites this paper as VanLehn, 1999
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 80 · Cited by 150
- Authors
- VanLehn, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Corresponding author
- VanLehn, Kurt
- ORCID
- VanLehn, Kurt
- Venue
- Journal of the Learning Sciences
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1999-01
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 71-125
- ISSN
- 1050-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7809
- OpenAlex
- W2000052479
- Cited by
- 150
- References
- 80
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 1.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the Learning Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Keywords
- cascade model, rule-based reasoning, analogical reasoning, case-based reasoning, physics problem solving, impasse, teaching improvement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review