Browsing by Author "Orey, Michael Andrew"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Error patterns: what do they tell us?Orey, Michael Andrew (Virginia Tech, 1987-10-15)An analysis of computer diagnostic systems shows that most systems use answer data (product) for their analyses. This process of determining an error pattern, in addition, does little in the way of telling a teacher what should be done to help the child. This two-fold problem, extant in all computerized arithmetic diagnostic systems to date, prompted this study which sought other data sources in order to bring about more accurate computer analyses. A cognitive orientation suggested that the use of clinical diagnostic techniques should be explored as an alternative to error analysis. Essentially, these two approaches were compared. That is, to what extent does error pattern diagnosis (an essentially product oriented approach) and clinical mathematical diagnosis (a process oriented approach) interrelate? Participants for this study were five, eight year olds from southwest Virginia. These children completed a test that was developed by Van Lehn (1982). This test was analyzed for error patterns and the children were selected on the basis of their error patterns. These children were then tested in a clinical setting using a measure developed for this study in cooperation with a clinical mathematics diagnostician. The analysis was done on the results of these two measures and the protocols collected during the clinical interviews. The results indicated that there was no clear connection between the two types of diagnosis, but the analysis did yield a broader description of each individual participant. That is, error analysis or clinical mathematics alone does not completely describe an individual's knowledge of mathematics.
- POSIT: Process Oriented Subtraction-Interface for TutoringOrey, Michael Andrew (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1989)The purpose of this dissertation was to design, develop and field test an Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS) which I have called Process Oriented Subtraction-Interface for Tutoring or POSIT. POSIT is an Intelligent Tutoring System, developed on a microcomputer, and based on Anderson's (1982, 1987) ACT* model of learning. Unlike the tutoring systems that were developed by Anderson and his colleagues (Anderson, Boyle & Reiser, 1985; Anderson & Reiser, 1985) which focused on the tutoring of students in the context of problem solving, this system focuses on the tutoring of a cognitive skill-subtraction of whole-numbers. Because ACT* theory explicitly describes the interaction of declarative and procedural knowledge (procedural knowledge is dependent on declarative knowledge), this learning theory is ideally suited to the learning of a specific procedure. Further, other "intelligent" systems which have been applied to subtraction (Brown & Burton, 1978; Ohlsson & Langley, 1985; Young & O’Shea, 1981) tend to focus on the answers to subtraction exercises (product oriented). POSIT, on the other hand, is an interactive system that determines errors made by the child as the child attempts to solve subtraction problems. Another difference with previous systems is that POSIT has a teaching component. Other systems assume that instruction has been given at some other point in time prior to the use of the system. One final difference between POSIT and other systems is that it was developed with consideration of the diverse student population that is found in schools. Design decisions were based on the cognitive needs of low-, average- and high-achieving students. Such notions as reading level and complexity of the task were considered with regard to low achieving students. POSIT's ability to allow for a wide variety of algorithms was a consideration with regard to high achieving students and would also benefit students from all levels. The results of the field test of POSIT indicate that the error model used by POSIT was very successful (76% accurate, with potential to improve to between 80 to 90%). In addition, students appear to learn from the system as measured both on the system as well as on a paper and pencil transfer test.