Abstract
This paper traces a progression of four computer-based methods for studying and fostering both the structure and the on-line development of knowledge. Each empirical technique employs ECHO, a connectionist model that instantiates the theory of explanatory coherence (TEC). First, verbal protocols of subjects’ reasonings were modeled post hoc. Next, ECHO predicted, a priori, subjects’ text-based believability ratings. Later, the bifurcation/bootstrapping method was developed to elicit and account for individuals’ background knowledge, while assessing intercoder reliability regarding ECHO simulations. Finally,Convince Me, our “reasoner’s workbench,” automated the explication both of subjects’ knowledge bases and of their belief assessments; theConvince Me software permits contrasts between the model’s predictions and subjects’ proposition-wise evaluations. These experimental systems enhance our understanding of the relationships among—and determinant features regarding—hypotheses, evidence, and the arguments that incorporate them.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Austin, L. B., &Shore, B. M. (1993). Concept mapping of high and average achieving students and experts.European Journal for High Ability,4, 180–195.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932).Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carey, S. (1985).Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., &Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices.Cognitive Science,5, 121–152.
Chinn, C. A., &Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction.Review of Educational Research,63, 1–49.
Diehl, C.,Ranney, M., &Schank,P. (1995, April).Multiple representations for improving scientific thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Ericsson, K. A., &Simon, H. A. (1993).Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gentner, D., &Stevens, A. L. (Eds.) (1983).Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hoadley, C. M., Ranney, M., &Schank, P. (1994). WanderECHO: A connectionist simulation of limited coherence. In A. Rum & K. Eiselt (Eds.),Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 421–426). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Miller, L. C., &Read, S. J. (1991). On the coherence of mental models of persons and relationships: A knowledge structure approach. In F. Fincham & G. J. O. Fletcher (Eds.),Cognition in close relationships (pp. 69–99). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pearl, J. (1988).Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.
Ranney, M. (1988). Changing naive conceptions of motion. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center, 1987.)Dissertation Abstracts International,49, 1975B.
Ranney, M. (1994a). Assessing and contrasting formal and informal/experiential understandings of trajectories. In G. H. Marks (Ed.),Proceedings of the International Symposium on Mathematics/Science Education and Technology (pp. 142–146), Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Ranney, M. (1994b). Relative consistency and subjects’ “theories” in domains such as naive physics: Common research difficulties illustrated by Cooke and Breedin.Memory & Cognition,22, 494–502.
Ranney, M. (in press). Explorations in explanatory coherence. In E. Bar-On, B. Eylon, & Z. Schertz (Eds.)Designing intelligent learning environments: From cognitive analysis to computer implementation. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Ranney, M.,Schank, P., &Diehl, C. (in press). Competence and performance in critical reasoning: Reducing the gap by usingConvince Me. Psychology Teaching Review.
Ranney, M.,Schank, P.,Hoadley, C., &Neff, J. (1994).“I know one when I see one”: How (much) do hypotheses differ from evidence? In R. Fidel, C. Beghtol, B. H. Kwasnik, & P. J. Smith (Eds.),Proceedings of the Fifth Annual American Society for Information Science SIG/CR Workshop on Classification Research (pp. 139–156). [An updated version will appear in B. H. Kwasnik (Ed.) (in press),Advances in classification research: Vol. 5. (ASIS Monograph Series), Medford, NJ: Learned Information]
Ranney, M., Schank, P., Mosmann, A., &Montoya, G. (1993). Dynamic explanatory coherence with competing beliefs: Locally coherent reasoning and a proposed treatment. In T.-W. Chan (Ed.),Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education: Applications of Intelligent Computer Technologies (pp. 101–106). Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.: The Artificial Intelligence in Education Society.
Ranney, M., &Thagard, P. (1988). Explanatory coherence and belief revision in naive physics. In V. L. Patel & G. J. Groen (Eds.),Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 426–432). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Read, S. J., &Marcus-Newhall, A. (1993). Explanatory coherence in social explanations: A parallel distributed processing account.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,65, 429–447.
Ritter, C. (1991).Thinking about ECHO. Unpublished master’s project, University of California, Berkeley.
Schank, P., &Ranney, M. (1991). An empirical investigation of the psychological fidelity of ECHO: Modeling an experimental study of explanatory coherence. In K. J. Hammond & D. Gentner (Eds.),Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 892–897). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schank, P., &Ranney, M. (1992). Assessing explanatory coherence: A new method for integrating verbal data with models of on-line belief revision. In J. K. Kruschke (Ed.),Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 599–604). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schank, P., &Ranney, M. (1993). Can reasoning be taught?Educator,7, 16–21.
Schank, P., Ranney, M., &Hoadley, C. (1994). Convince Me [Computer program and manual]. In J. R. Jungck, V. Vaughan, J. N. Calley, N. S. Peterson, P. Soderberg, & J. Stewart (Eds.),The BioQUEST Library. College Park, MD: Academic Software Development Group, University of Maryland.
Thagard, P. (1989). Explanatory coherence.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,12, 435–502.
Thagard, P. (1992).Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Thagard, P. (in press). Probabilistic networks and explanatory coherence. In P. O’Rorke & J. Josephson (Eds.)Automated abduction: Inference to the best explanation. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
We thank the National Academy of Education, the Spencer Foundation, and the University of California’s Committee on Research for supporting various aspects of this research. We especially extend thanks to Christine Diehl, Christopher Ritter, Christopher Hoadley, George Montoya, Kathryn Ann Dougery, Andrea Mosmann, and Jonathan Neff for their help on these various studies. Helpful conversations and comments from Brian Reiser, Paul Thagard, Carl Bereiter, Vimla Patel, Michelle Million, and other colleagues are similarly greatly appreciated. An earlier version ofConvince Me is available for purchase as part of the 1994BioQUEST library (Schank, Ranney, & Hoadley, 1994) by calling(301) 405-7600.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ranney, M., Schank, P. Protocol modeling, textual analysis, the bifurcation/bootstrapping method, andConvince Me: Computer-based techniques for studying beliefs and their revision. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 27, 239–243 (1995). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204739
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204739