Procedure learning: Difference between revisions
m (using an external editor) |
m (using an external editor) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Many authors (e.g. Anderson) make a a distinction between two fundamental modes: declarative knowledge, i.e. what we know (propositions), and procedural knowledge, i.e. what we can perform (skills) | Many authors (e.g. Anderson) make a a distinction between two fundamental modes: declarative knowledge, i.e. what we know (propositions), and procedural knowledge, i.e. what we can perform (skills) | ||
=== Anderson's ACT theory === | == Theories == | ||
* See [[adaptive control of thought theory]] (ACT) | |||
== ACT* theory == | |||
=== John R. Anderson's ACT* theory === | |||
'''Adaptive Control of Thought''' (ACT*) theory is a [[human information processing]] and [[knowledge representation]] theory | |||
Related to the distinction of declarative vs. procedural knowledge, | Related to the distinction of declarative vs. procedural knowledge, | ||
| Line 13: | Line 21: | ||
According to Yates (2007:33): | According to Yates (2007:33): | ||
{{quotationbox|Procedural knowledge consists of condition-action | {{quotationbox|Procedural knowledge consists of condition-action (IF-THEN) pairs called productions which are activated according to rules relating to a goal structure (Anderson, 1983). Within the ACT framework, all knowledge is initially declarative and is interpreted by general procedures. Productions, then, connect declarative knowledge with behavior. Procedural knowledge represents "how to do things." It is knowledge that is displayed in our behavior, but that we do not hold consciously (Anderson & Lebiere, 1998). | ||
(IF-THEN) pairs called productions which are activated according to rules relating to a goal structure (Anderson, 1983). Within the ACT framework, all knowledge is initially declarative and is interpreted by general procedures. Productions, then, connect declarative knowledge with behavior. Procedural knowledge represents "how to do things." It is knowledge that is displayed in our behavior, but that we do not hold consciously (Anderson & Lebiere, 1998). | |||
As a task is performed, interpretive applications are gradually replaced with | As a task is performed, interpretive applications are gradually replaced with | ||
productions that perform the task directly, a process called proceduralization. For example, rehearsing how to manually shift gears in a car is gradually replaced by a production that recognizes and executes the production. In other words, explicit declarative knowledge is replaced by direct application of procedural knowledge (Anderson, 2005). Sequences of productions may be combined into a single production, a process called composition. Together, proceduralization and composition are called knowledge compilation, which creates task-specific productions during practice. The process of proceduralization affects working memory by reducing the load resulting from information being retrieved from long-term memory.}} | productions that perform the task directly, a process called proceduralization. For example, rehearsing how to manually shift gears in a car is gradually replaced by a production that recognizes and executes the production. In other words, explicit declarative knowledge is replaced by direct application of procedural knowledge (Anderson, 2005). Sequences of productions may be combined into a single production, a process called composition. Together, proceduralization and composition are called knowledge compilation, which creates task-specific productions during practice. The process of proceduralization affects working memory by reducing the load resulting from information being retrieved from long-term memory.}} | ||
See [[production system]] for some technical background. | |||
According to ACT*, all knowledge begins as declarative information; procedural knowledge is learned by making inferences from already existing factual knowledge. ACT* supports three fundamental types of learning: generalization, in which productions become broader in their range of application, discrimination, in which productions become narrow in their range of application, and strengthening, in which some productions are applied more often. New productions are formed by the conjunction or disjunction of existing productions. (Kearsley: 1994) | |||
== Act theory in education == | |||
ACT* theory can explain a range of learning types. | |||
was quite popular in research on [[intelligent tutoring system]]s. | |||
== Links == | |||
* [http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/ ACT Theory HomePage] | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
* Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. | * Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. | ||
* Anderson, J., Boyle, C., Farrell, R. & Reiser, B. (1987). "Cognitive principles in the design of computer tutors", in P. Morris (ed.), Modeling Cognition. NY: John Wiley. | |||
* Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51(4), 355-365. | * Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51(4), 355-365. | ||
| Line 29: | Line 51: | ||
* Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. | * Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. | ||
* Kearsley, G., Seidel, R. & Park, D.K. (1993). Theory Into Practice. | |||
* Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y . (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review 111, (4). 1036-1060. | |||
* Yates, Kenneth A. (2007). Towards a taxonomy of cognitive task analysis methods: A search for cognition and task analysis interactions. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. [http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/cogtech/publications/yates_dissertation_2007.pdf PDF] | * Yates, Kenneth A. (2007). Towards a taxonomy of cognitive task analysis methods: A search for cognition and task analysis interactions. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. [http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/cogtech/publications/yates_dissertation_2007.pdf PDF] | ||
[[Category:Learning theories]] | [[Category:Learning theories]] | ||
Revision as of 10:33, 16 November 2007
Definition
Procedure learning refers to a major learning type.
Many authors (e.g. Anderson) make a a distinction between two fundamental modes: declarative knowledge, i.e. what we know (propositions), and procedural knowledge, i.e. what we can perform (skills)
Theories
- See adaptive control of thought theory (ACT)
ACT* theory
John R. Anderson's ACT* theory
Adaptive Control of Thought (ACT*) theory is a human information processing and knowledge representation theory
Related to the distinction of declarative vs. procedural knowledge, the critical atomic components of cognition and human memory are chunks and productions. According to Yates (2007:32), Anderson (1996) claims the following: {{quotation| All that there is to intelligence is the simple accrual and tuning of many small units of knowledge that in total produce complex cognition. The whole is no more than the sum of its parts, but it has a lot of parts. (p. 356).
According to Yates (2007:33):
Procedural knowledge consists of condition-action (IF-THEN) pairs called productions which are activated according to rules relating to a goal structure (Anderson, 1983). Within the ACT framework, all knowledge is initially declarative and is interpreted by general procedures. Productions, then, connect declarative knowledge with behavior. Procedural knowledge represents "how to do things." It is knowledge that is displayed in our behavior, but that we do not hold consciously (Anderson & Lebiere, 1998). As a task is performed, interpretive applications are gradually replaced with
productions that perform the task directly, a process called proceduralization. For example, rehearsing how to manually shift gears in a car is gradually replaced by a production that recognizes and executes the production. In other words, explicit declarative knowledge is replaced by direct application of procedural knowledge (Anderson, 2005). Sequences of productions may be combined into a single production, a process called composition. Together, proceduralization and composition are called knowledge compilation, which creates task-specific productions during practice. The process of proceduralization affects working memory by reducing the load resulting from information being retrieved from long-term memory.See production system for some technical background.
According to ACT*, all knowledge begins as declarative information; procedural knowledge is learned by making inferences from already existing factual knowledge. ACT* supports three fundamental types of learning: generalization, in which productions become broader in their range of application, discrimination, in which productions become narrow in their range of application, and strengthening, in which some productions are applied more often. New productions are formed by the conjunction or disjunction of existing productions. (Kearsley: 1994)
Act theory in education
ACT* theory can explain a range of learning types. was quite popular in research on intelligent tutoring systems.
Links
References
- Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Anderson, J., Boyle, C., Farrell, R. & Reiser, B. (1987). "Cognitive principles in the design of computer tutors", in P. Morris (ed.), Modeling Cognition. NY: John Wiley.
- Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51(4), 355-365.
- Anderson, J. R. (2005). Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.
- Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036-1060.
- Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Kearsley, G., Seidel, R. & Park, D.K. (1993). Theory Into Practice.
- Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y . (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review 111, (4). 1036-1060.
- Yates, Kenneth A. (2007). Towards a taxonomy of cognitive task analysis methods: A search for cognition and task analysis interactions. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. PDF