Upload
joseph-jay-williams
View
147
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Why does explaining “why?” help learning? A subsumptive constraints account
Joseph Jay [email protected]
Josephjaywilliams.com
Explanation
Explanation & Learning• Education: Biology, physics, math.
(Chi et al, 1994; 1989; Nokes et al, 2011; Siegler, 2002; Renkl, 1997)
• Cognitive Development: Conceptual change in theory of mind and number conservation.(Siegler, 1985; Amsterlaw & Wellman, 2006; Wellman & Liu, 2006)
• Cognitive Psychology: Category learning, causal reasoning, property induction.(Ahn & Kalish, 2000; Murphy, 2002; Rehder, 2006; Williams & Lombrozo, 2010)
• Artificial Intelligence(Mitchell & Cedar-Kabelli, 1986; DeJong, 2008)
• Philosophy of Science (Salmon, 1990; Woodward, 2010)
Explanation
• “Why?” Explanation: Why a fact is true
• Explaining the meaning of a text passage• Explaining one’s reasoning• Explaining how a conclusion was reached• Explaining how something works• Explaining what is anticipated• Step-focused, Gap-filling, Mental-model revising
(Nokes et al, 2011)4
Explaining explanation
• General effects:• Learning Engagement (e.g. Siegler, 2002)• Metacognitive monitoring (e.g. Chi, 2000)
• Selective effects:• Subsumptive Constraints account
(Williams & Lombrozo, 2010, Cognitive Science)
Explaining engages search for underlying generalizations
Subsumptive Constraints• Subsuming: An explanation of why a fact or
observation is true shows how it is subsumed as an instance of a generalization
• Unifying: Better explanations have broader scope
Why?
Subsumptive Constraints• Subsumption: An explanation of why a fact or
observation is true shows that it might be expected as an instance of a generalization
• Ex. 1: Observation: John is a teacher.– Generalization: Caring people tend to become teachers.– Subsumed: John is an instance of a caring person being a
teacher.• Ex. 2: Giraffes have long necks.– Generalization: Wanting a goal can make animals grow.
7
Predictions
Subsumptive constraint on explanation:1. Promotes discovery of generalizations2. Favors broad generalizations: which
prior knowledge suggests apply beyond specific cases3. Impairs learning when generalizations
are unreliable4. Promotes belief revision from anomalies
8
I. Discovery in Category Learning• Learn to categorize robots on the planet ZARN.
9
Body Shape Generalization
10
Broad Foot Shape Generalization
11
Design Overview
Explain vs
Control
Differences between categories?
EXPLAIN:Explain why this might be a Glorp.
DESCRIBE: Describe this glorp.
THINK ALOUD:Say out loud
what you are thinking.
FREE STUDY
12
Categorization& MemoryTest
Discovery of foot shape generalization(Williams & Lombrozo, 2010)
Describe Think Aloud Free Study0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5ExplainControl
Prop
ortio
n di
scov
erin
g ge
nera
lizati
on
13
II. Subsumptive scope & prior knowledge
Blank Labels
Glorp
Drent
Informative Labels
Outdoor
Indoor
Antenna Generalization Foot Generalization
14
Discovery of knowledge-relevant generalization
Low PK High PK0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
ExplainFree Study
Prop
ortio
n di
scov
erin
gkn
owle
dge-
rele
vant
gen
-er
aliz
ation
N = 40715Blank labels Informative labels
Children’s sensitivity to subsumptive scope
Frequent & Sophisticated(Chouinard, 2008; Hickling & Wellman, 2001)
Drives Conceptual Change(Siegler, 2005; Wellman & Liu, 2007)
• Less developed than adults• Explaining a guide to favor subsumptive
scope?– In breadth of observations– In using prior knowledge
Learning about a novel cause
Blicket Detector
18
Explanation Prompt
NO GO
GO
100% Pattern:Green = GO
Explain: “Why did this one make my machine play music?”
Control: “What happened to my machine when I put this one on?”
75% Pattern:RED = GO
100% Pattern:Yellow = NO GO
75% Pattern:WHITE = GO
19
100% vs. 75% Pattern
*
PK matched PK favors 75%0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Verbalize
Explain
Prop
ortio
n Ch
oice
s fa
vorin
g 10
0% P
atter
n
20
PK favors 75% pattern
NO GO
GO
100% Pattern:Green = GO
Explain: “Why did this one make my machine play music?”
Control: “What happened to my machine when I put this one on?”
75% Pattern: =
GO
100% Pattern:Yellow = NO GO
100% Pattern: = NO GO
PK favors 75% pattern: Big blocks make it go
21
Effect of prior knowledge
*
PK matched PK favors 75%0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Verbalize Explain
Prop
ortio
n Ch
oice
s fa
vorin
g 10
0% P
atter
n
Hazards of explanation
Malle, 2011
Explanation’s benefits and hazards
Subsumptive Constraints:
Driven to find generalizations
Enhancement
Impairment
Reliable patterns Spurious or misleading patterns
Learning Engagement:Motivation, Attention, Extended Processing
Enhancement
Enhancement
Explain
Williams, Lombrozo & Rehder, CogSci 2011; Kuhn & Katz, 2009
Predicting people’s behavior
Person
Rarely or frequently donates?Predict
Explain
N = 182
10 people: 5 rarely donated, 5 frequently
Anna isliving on East Coast
dominating28
A science major
Anna isliving on East Coast
dominating28
A science major
Explain why Anna rarely donates
to charities.Vs.
Control (Study)
Feedback Anna rarely donates to charities.
Instances vs. Generalizations
Reliable Patterns:10/10 predictions
Misleading Patterns:Mistakes in predictions
Unique features Pattern related features
Irrelevant features
Picture Name Age Personality "living on the" "a graduate of a"
Rarely donates to charities
Anna 28 dominating East coast science major
Joseph 32 friendly West coast humanities major
Sarah 24 boastful West coast science major
Jessica 26 self-assured East coast science major
Kevin 30 energetic West coast humanities major
Frequently donates to charities
Steven 42 cautious East coast science major
Josh 38 discreet West coast humanities major
Laura 37 studious West coast science major
Janet 45 self-conscious West coast humanities major
Karen 39 quiet East coast science major
energetic
quiet
Unique features:10/10 predictions
Effect of explaining?
26
45
Explanation Impairment Effect
Reliable Unreliable0
0 .2 5
0 .5
Explain
Free Study
Lear
ning
Err
or28
On East CoastDominating
science major
Anna donates to charities.All 10 descriptions shown
five times.
Category Learning
Reliable Misleading5
10
ExplainThink AloudN
umbe
r of
bloc
ks to
lear
n
Control
*
N = 240
Anomalous Evidence
• Anomalies contradict current or prior beliefs• Often ignored (Chinn & Brewer, 1993 )• When does explaining lead to their use?• Manipulated number of anomalies• Learning about importance of deviation in
ranking scores
Anomalous Evidence
Strength of Anomalous Evidence
Interaction with strength of anomalous evidence
Conclusions• Explaining “Why?” guided by a subsumptive constraint:
1. Promotes discovery of generalizations2. Favors generalizations that prior knowledge suggests apply broadly beyond specific cases3. Impairs learning when generalizations are unreliable4. Promotes belief revision from anomalies
• Implications for predicting explanation’s effects• Future directions
– More complex contexts– How does explaining recruit other cognitive processes?
32
Acknowledgements
• Bob Rehder• Norielle Adricula, Dhruba Banerjee, Adam
Krause, Sam Maldonaldo, Kelly Whiteford• Joe Austerweil, Randi Engle, Nick Gwynne,
Luke Rinne, and Karen Schloss.• Concepts and Cognition Lab.
33