Cited by 160Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesScience Education and PedagogyInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

Goals and Learning in Microworlds

Open access
Miller, Craig S., Lehman, Jill Fain, Koedinger, Kenneth R.·1999·Cognitive Science

Abstract

We explored the consequences for learning through interaction with an educational microworld called Electric Field Hockey (EFH). Like many microworlds, EFH is intended to help students develop a qualitative understanding of the target domain, in this case, the physics of electrical interactions. Through the development and use of a computer model that learns to play EFH, we analyzed the knowledge the model acquired as it applied the game‐oriented strategies we observed physics students using. Through learning‐by‐doing on the standard sequence of tasks, the model substantially improved its EFH playing ability; however, it did so without acquiring any new qualitative physics knowledge. This surprising result led to an experiment that compared students' use of EFH with standard‐goal tasks against two alternative instructional conditions, specific‐path and no‐goal, each justified from a different learning theory. Students in the standard‐goal condition learned less qualitative physics than did those in the two alternative conditions, which was consistent with the model. The implication for instructional practice is that careful selection and analysis of the tasks that frame microworld use is essential if these programs are to lead to the learning outcomes imagined for them. Theoretically, these results suggest a new interpretation for numerous empirical findings on the effectiveness of no‐goal instructional tasks. The standing “reduced cognitive load” interpretation is contradicted by the success of the specific‐path condition, and we offer an alternative knowledge‐dependent interpretation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15516709cog2303_2

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The benefits of prior knowledge activation are contingent on the relevance of the activation.

    “Research on goal specificity (e.g., Miller etal., 1999; Vollmeyer etal., 1996), mechanisms of errorful generation (Cyr & Anderson, 2015), as well as prior PS-I work (e.g., Kapur, 2015; Schwartz etal., 2011) has suggested that the benefits of prior knowledge activation such as noticing inconsistencies across multiple problem instances, encoding critical features from instruction, and so on, are”

    From When Problem Solving Followed by Instruction Works: Evidence for Productive Failure (2021) · cites this paper as Miller et al., 1999

    In “Implications for Learning Theory: Knowledge Dependencies” (page unavailable), the paper says that learning transfers when goal-dependent relationships coincide with pedagogically relevant relationships. This supports the importance of relevance, but the passage concerns knowledge acquired through microworld interaction, not the benefits of activating prior knowledge or the stated examples of noticing inconsistencies and encoding features from instruction. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Conati, C., & Lehman, J. F. (1993a). EFH-Soar: Modeling education in highly interactive environments. In P. Torasso (Ed.), Advances in artificial intelligence, lecture notes in artificial intelligence, LNCS 728 (pp. 47-58). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  2. Simon, T. (1987). Claims for Logo-What should we believe and why? In J. C. Rutkowska & C. Crook (Eds.), Computers, cognition, and development (pp. 115-133). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
  3. Vollmeyer, R., Burns, B. D., & Holyoak, K. J. (1994). The impact of goal specificity and systematicity of strategies on the acquisition of problem structure. In A. Ram & K. Eiselt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miller, C. S., Lehman, J. F., & Koedinger, K. R.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Corresponding author
Miller, Craig S.
Venue
Cognitive Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1999-07
Volume
23
Issue
3
Pages
305-336
ISSN
  • 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
  • 1551-6709
OpenAlex
W2058522826
Cited by
160
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 7
FWCI
5.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (9022511)
  • Carnegie Mellon University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
qualitative physics, physics learning, hands-on learning, goal-directed tasks

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