Cited by 150Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

Rule-Learning Events in the Acquisition of a Complex Skill: An Evaluation of Cascade

VanLehn, Kurt·1999·Journal of the Learning Sciences

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

Crossref · 10.1207/s15327809jls0801_3

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”
  • 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.”

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
Venue
Journal of the Learning Sciences
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