Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (2010) 386–397

Copyright  2010 Cognitive Science Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

ISSN: 1756-8757 print / 1756-8765 online
DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01098.x

Applications in Education and Training: A Force Behind

the Development of Cognitive Science
Susan E. F. Chipman
Arlington, VA and Boulder, CO

Received 5 April 2009; received in revised form 29 August 2009; accepted 23 October 2009

Abstract
This paper reviews 30 years of progress in U.S. cognitive science research related to education
and training, as seen from the perspective of a research manager who was personally involved in
many of these developments.

Keywords: Cognitive science; History; Artificially intelligent tutoring; Reading comprehension;

Mathematics education; Physics education

When the Cognitive Science Society was founded in 1978, I had already been working
for the U.S. National Institute of Education (NIE) for 2 years, attempting to attract cognitive
researchers to work on significant educational problems. Just as I joined the agency, propos-
als for a Center for the Study of Reading were being reviewed, and I sat in on the review.
The RFP (request for proposals) already had a cognitive science character, calling for the
participation of researchers from multiple disciplines: psychologists, linguists, educators,
and perhaps more. The emphasis of the RFP was on reading comprehension. Both a small
workshop (Miller, 1973) and a massive conference in 1974 that produced a 10-volume
report concluded that reading comprehension should be the priority. It was felt that ‘‘we’’
knew how to teach early reading, and the gap in reading achievement between minority
group and majority group students was closing for the early years of schooling. The Center
for the Study of Reading went to Richard Anderson at the University of Illinois and his
many collaborators, including Ann Brown, Nancy Stein, and Andrew Ortony, all recognized
members of the cognitive science community.
Shortly thereafter, I unexpectedly took over the management of a large grants competi-
tion in Teaching and Learning. This competition had several subtopics, including reading
comprehension, mathematics learning, testing, and research on teaching—where the goal
was movement from behaviorist research to discourse analysis. The reading comprehension

Correspondence should be sent to Susan E. F. Chipman, E-mail: susan.chipman@gmail.com (preferred) or

2606 S. Joyce St., Arlington, VA 22202.
 S. E. F. Chipman ⁄ Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (2010) 387

competition revealed that there were few researchers working on reading comprehension:
Proposals on letter and word recognition were about as close as one could get. To borrow
behaviorist terminology, shaping of researchers’ efforts went on over several years of NIE’s
investments so that, ultimately, researchers were beginning to address questions of reading
comprehension. The reading comprehension research program of Just and Carpenter began
under the NIE grants program, and Walter Kintsch also received an NIE grant early in the
development of his work on comprehension. The emphasis that NIE placed on reading com-
prehension made it a major topic in cognitive psychology and cognitive science. For a few
years, the NIE investment in the single topic of reading comprehension was about the same
as the entire budget of the Memory and Cognition program at NSF. It was enough to shape
the direction of the field, an effect parallel to the effect of the recent large investments in
cognitive aging research.
NIE’s basic skills agenda included mathematics learning. At that time, research on mathe-
matics learning was even less well developed than research on reading. Very few people had
been able to make a career out of doing research on mathematics learning and teaching. If one
were to review a topic or question, most of the research that would be found would be unpub-
lished doctoral dissertations in education. The career researchers who did exist functioned as
unquestioned gurus of the topic areas they addressed because there were so few researchers:
the field was below critical mass. The contrast with the situation in cognitive developmental
research, with lively arguments among researchers exploring Piagetian tasks, as one example,
was striking. Some research on topics relevant to mathematics education was, of course, being
done by psychologists. However, the two groups of researchers, mathematics educators and
cognitive psychologists, rarely read, cited, or were in any way influenced by each other’s
research, exacerbating the critical mass problem. A few research efforts from that era stand
out in my mind: Sandra Marshall did research that combined the analysis of mass test data
with computational cognitive modeling of problem-solving processes, eventually leading to
her schema theory of math word problem solving (Marshall, 1995). Ginsburg and Russell
(1981) did research demonstrating that disadvantaged children had the same basic number
concepts as more advantaged children, if only one asked the questions in just the right way.
Lave (1988) received a grant that was supposed to illuminate the way people use mathematics
in their lives. In addition, research by Greeno, Resnick, and others at the Learning Research
and Development Center was supported via institutional grant support.
In 1978, just as the Cognitive Science Society was founded, I was asked to be the NIE
program officer on a joint NIE-NSF program that was called ‘‘Cognitive Processes and the
Structure of Knowledge in Science and Mathematics.’’ The intent was to get excellent cog-
nitive researchers to work on problems in mathematics and science education, and to sup-
port researchers originating in traditional scientific fields who had begun doing research of a
cognitive character on the teaching and learning of science. The creation of this grants pro-
gram was probably the long-delayed effect of the first conference bringing psychologists
together with people concerned with mathematics and science education, reported in
Bruner’s (1960) book The Process of Education. Although only two competitions were held,
in 1978 and 1979, some very well known and influential research was supported by it, such
as McCloskey, Caramazza, and Green’s (1980) research on physics misconceptions. Larkin
388 S. E. F. Chipman ⁄ Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (2010)

and Simon’s (1987) well-known work on the role of diagrams in scientific thinking was also
supported in this program. A side effect of the program was the recruitment of many young
cognitive psychologists to this kind of research, largely through their service as reviewers.
For example, Susan Carey, winner of the 2008 Rumelhart Prize, served as a panel reviewer
in the first year and then later submitted a proposal that initiated her well-known program of
research on children’s understanding of heat, temperature, and related concepts.
In addition to the grants, at NIE we issued some RFPs for specific research, some of it
quite basic in character. These were for larger projects that could not reasonably be awarded
out of the regular grants competition budget, projects that we had to design and sell to upper
management in order to get funding allocated. Interesting examples included ‘‘Research on
the Perception and Comprehension of Graphs and Charts’’ for which the key performers
were Kosslyn and Pinker (Kosslyn, 1989). Another was ‘‘The Cognitive Demands and Con-
sequences of Computer Learning’’ that pursued the claims then being made by Papert.
Another led to a survey of programs that claim to teach general thinking, learning, or prob-
lem-solving skills (Nickerson, Perkins, & Smith, 1985).

1. Meanwhile at the Office of Naval Research

At the same time as cognitive educational research was getting underway at NIE, the
Office of Naval Research was becoming a significant factor in supporting the emerging field
of cognitive science. At the level of relatively basic research on learning and teaching meth-
ods, the distinction between education and training is not very important. In what was then
called the Personnel and Training research program, ONR was supporting rather diverse
cognitive research in some way relevant to training and testing applications. There was a
special interest in investigating the cognitive processes involved in doing test items and also
in ending the disconnect between psychometric theory and modern cognitive understanding
of knowledge and skill (Frederiksen, Glaser, Lesgold, & Shafto, 1990; Nichols, Chipman, &
Brennan, 1995). Both Robert Sternberg and John Anderson became ONR grantees as soon
as they finished graduate school. There was something of an emphasis on spatial and imag-
ery abilities (Carpenter and Just, Kosslyn, Hunt, and Pellegrino) because the Armed
Services Vocational Aptitude Battery did not include any tests of spatial ability, despite its
evident importance to many military tasks. During this period, ONR also became known for
its support of research on expertise that could be seen as defining cognitive objectives for
instruction (Chi, Glaser, & Farr, 1988). In the broader research community, many viewed
cognitive science research approaches as too risky and preferred the analytic approach char-
acterizing experimental psychology—studying very simple, elementary tasks in the labora-
tory that might, hopefully, one day cumulate to something that could be applied. For ONR,
I think the prospect of application to complex, realistic training within a reasonable amount
of time (perhaps 30 years) compensated for increased scientific risk. This is one major
reason why ONR became so important to the development of cognitive science.
Like the other DoD agencies, ONR had played an important role in the development
of education and training technology, but ONR became particularly important to the
 S. E. F. Chipman ⁄ Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (2010) 389

development of artificially intelligent tutoring technology, probably because ONR had the
strongest basic research orientation and therefore the longest term outlook on research
investments. The first ONR award in artificially intelligent tutoring was made to the late
Jaime Carbonnell at BBN in 1969. The computer used in the research cost $2 million. Alan
Collins, John Seeley Brown, and Kurt VanLehn (then a graduate student at MIT) were also
involved in ONR-supported tutoring research at BBN.

2. A political crisis in educational research

When I went to work at NIE in 1976, I was surprised to discover that there was a
right-wing way of teaching reading (phonics) and a left-wing way of teaching reading (an
emphasis on comprehension and interpretation), a right-wing way of teaching math (memo-
rization), and a left-wing way of teaching math (again an emphasis on comprehension). It
seemed to me that these should be empirical questions, and that the answers were likely to
be more complex than envisioned by the participants in the reading wars and the math wars.
Most of the curriculum development projects at both NSF and NIE had already been termi-
nated because of pressures from the political right. Ironically, cognitive science played an
important role in right-wing opposition to the curriculum development projects, although
traditional issues of local control and states’ rights were also involved. The bête noire of the
right wing was a curriculum called MACOS (Man: A Course of Study). The outline of this
curriculum was virtually identical to a very early (1960–1961) cognitive science course that
Jerome Bruner and George Miller taught together at Harvard: Psychological Conceptions of
Man. What most provoked the right wing were films by anthropologist Irven DeVore that
expressed an evolutionary viewpoint and cultural relativism.
When Reagan was elected President, his administration moved rapidly to implement the
right-wing educational agenda. The budget of the Science Education Directorate at NSF
promptly went to zero and almost the entire staff was dismissed. The demise of NIE came
more slowly. Many of the grants which had been selected in the last grant competition fell
victim to a budget recision taking back money that had previously been allocated. The inter-
nal environment became extremely and unpleasantly politicized.
During this catastrophic period for educational research funding, the James S. McDonnell
Foundation under the leadership of John Bruer stepped into the breach, creating their pro-
gram Cognitive Studies for Educational Practice. A very select group of grantees was able
to continue their research with support under that program.

3. The intervening years: 1984–2008

3.1. ONR and artificially intelligent tutoring

Early in 1984, I moved from NIE to ONR, a relatively apolitical environment where an
ONR program officer position happened to be open in the Personnel and Training Research
390 S. E. F. Chipman ⁄ Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (2010)

area. To my surprise, by December 1985, I found myself primarily responsible for manag-
ing, reviewing, and defending the ONR program. At that time, the program addressed a very
broad cognitive research agenda, with spotty coverage. Over the years I refined the focus of
the program to emphasize what seemed to make ONR unique in the total federal funding
scene: computational theories of human cognitive architecture and artificially intelligent
tutoring systems (ITS).
As of 1984, Henry Halff had just obtained special funding for the first practical applica-
tion of ITS to a Navy maintenance training system (Towne, 2007), as well as several years
of substantial funding for a combination of intelligent tutoring research and research related
to basic skills training (i.e., remedial reading and math). The basic skills emphasis may seem
surprising, but the military inherits the failures of the schools. Some of the most significant
publications produced under that Navy Training research budget were: Anderson, Boyle,
Corbett, & Lewis (1990), Clancey (1986), Wenger (1987), Schofield (1995), and Marshall
(1995).
When this Navy Training program began, building an intelligent tutor was legitimately a
basic research project, although the constructive nature of the work made it quite different
from typical scientific investigations of natural phenomena. By the time it ended, a limited
community knew how to build tutors that could be expected to be effective. Tutors were
becoming an applied enterprise. At ONR, basic research investments in intelligent tutoring
turned to the unsolved problem of true natural language interaction. Computational linguists
played a major role in this instructional research, and they began to discover and define
instructional strategies at a very fine grain, as they appear in the interactions of human tutors
and students. This was very exciting multidisciplinary cognitive science research because
phenomena that had never been studied before were now subject to very careful study by
multidisciplinary teams, in order to support high-quality artificial imitation of the human
tutorial behavior.
Eventually, Evens was able to produce the first tutor with true natural language inter-
action capability that was good enough to be used with actual students for real
instruction—in this case medical students of cardiac physiology. The story of this tutor
and much related work can be read in Evens and Michael (2005), Graesser, VanLehn,
Rosé, Jordan, and Harter (2001) and Chipman (2004). Another landmark event in this
research came when Stanley Peters added natural language interaction—including
high-quality speech recognition and generation—to a tutor of shipboard damage control
(fire-fighting) that David Wilkins had been working on.

3.2. Reading comprehension

Under the Reagan administration, priorities for reading research abruptly switched to
phonetic approaches to reading instruction. The RFP for the renewal of the Center for the
Study of Reading called for a review of research on the value of phonics instruction, even
though the major publication of the center, Becoming a Nation of Readers (Anderson,
Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985), had already endorsed the importance of early phonics
instruction. Under the leadership of Reid Lyon, NICHD invested heavily in phonetic
 S. E. F. Chipman ⁄ Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (2010) 391

approaches to reading instruction. This culminated in the recently completed Reading First
Impact Study (Gramse, Jacob, Horst, Boulay, & Unlu, 2008), a large-scale implementation
study emphasizing phonetic instruction that showed no positive impact on student reading
comprehension and only a minor improvement in decoding skills. This entire politically
motivated episode made me feel that we had cycled back to my entrance on the scene
30 years ago.
However, research on reading comprehension did continue during these years, primarily
under the support of NIMH; it had become a major topic for research in cognitive psychol-
ogy. The McDonnell Foundation’s CSEP program also supported a number of projects that
addressed reading and writing for learning: Ann Brown, Scardemalia and Bereiter, Kathy
Spoehr, and Kintsch. The lack of attention to reading comprehension instruction during the
Reagan and Bush administrations did mean that no one was paying attention when useful
research results were emerging, results that might have application in instruction. No
one was actively promoting that application to new curricula for reading comprehension
instruction.
Despite this setback, today several promising approaches to reading comprehension
instruction have emerged. Under the Center for the Study of Reading, Palincsar and
Brown (1986) developed the reciprocal teaching approach, which has the major virtue
of being easy for teachers to understand and implement. I myself revisited the problem
of reading comprehension instruction when the Navy training establishment asked for
reading comprehension courseware suitable for use with Navy recruits reading at the
grade 5–8 level. I published a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) topic that
called for the development of reading comprehension courseware aimed at adult readers
and cited key publications about reading comprehension. One award emphasized the
teaching of inference making. A second emphasized the use of carefully graded reading
passages and automatically tutored summary writing, and a third attempted to approxi-
mate reciprocal teaching (without, however, natural language capability). Tom
Landauer’s company, Knowledge Acquisition Technologies, also developed a program
called Summary Street that provides interactive individual tutoring in shaping up a
quality summary. Evaluations have shown that its use can make significant improve-
ments in reading comprehension as well as in the quality of summaries that students
write (Caccamise, Franzka, Eckhoff, Kintsch, & Kintsch, 2007). Another major
effort has been the research program of McNamara, O’Reilly, Rowe, Boonthum, and
Levenstein (2007) that produced both a human implemented training approach called
Self Explanation Reading Training (SERT) and iSTART, a computerized version of
SERT. SERT and iSTART attempt to teach several different reading comprehension
strategies. Evaluation results are promising.
After 30 years of research on reading comprehension, there are promising new
approaches to comprehension instruction that school reformers could find and implement. A
significant investment in developing computerized instruction for reading comprehension
could combine all of these promising approaches into a program that would probably be
highly effective. The time may be ripe for the Department of Education to fund another
large experiment that actually focuses on teaching reading comprehension.
392 S. E. F. Chipman ⁄ Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (2010)

3.3. Mathematics learning

A project supported by the McDonnell Foundation CSEP program, to which I was an

advisor, realized one of the goals that I had hoped to achieve in the NIE program: effec-
tively teaching early number understanding at the time of school entry in a way that
closed the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged children (Case, Griffin, & Kelly,
1999). Case had defined what he considered to be the cognitive structure of early num-
ber understanding, and a preschool curriculum of game-like activities was shown to
result in much improved number understanding, closing the socioeconomic gap in readi-
ness for the normal elementary school math curriculum. Further, it was shown that
teachers could easily and effectively implement the curriculum. In my personal view,
there is sufficient research evidence to support the policy that every school serving
disadvantaged populations should be using it. Case and his associates did continue to
pursue this approach into the teaching of more advanced mathematical content, including
rational numbers and functions (Kalchman, Moss, & Case, 2001), with impressive
success for rational numbers, obtaining effect sizes of 2.5–3.5 standard deviations (Moss
& Case, 1999). Unfortunately, this line of research seems to have ended as a result of
Case’s untimely death.
During these years, research on mathematics learning shared the funding problems of all
educational research, but it was also hindered by the rising situated cognition movement.
Both the teaching of pure mathematics and the standard cognitive approach of analyzing
and researching the underlying cognitive structures in order to teach them relatively directly
came under attack. Although I believe that the situated cognition movement highlighted
some research issues worthy of more attention—issues of motivation and cultural influ-
ences—it also trashed the accomplishments of the standard cognitive approach just as they
were becoming ready for practical application.
Despite skirmishes on the right and the left (Lave, 1988), the standard cognitive approach
was well represented in these years by the artificially intelligent tutors of programming and
high school mathematics built by John Anderson and his associates. Anderson began his
work with intelligent tutors primarily because he wanted to study human learning on a real-
istic scale (numerous personal communications), but he was also interested in improving
mathematics education. The LISP Tutor, an ONR project, was in fact thoroughly exploited
as a laboratory in which to study processes of human learning and instructional strategies
(Anderson, Conrad, & Corbett, 1989). Anderson’s first Geometry Tutor, which taught
proof-making, was developed at about the same time under NSF support and was the first
tutor to be tested in an almost normal school environment. Schofield’s observational ethno-
graphic study of the introduction of the Geometry Tutor, an ONR project (Schofield, 1995),
revealed that students were very much engaged with the tutor, being reluctant to leave it,
despite the very plain, unadorned interface. Apparently there is considerable motivational
value in a tutor that meets the student exactly where he or she is, enabling mastery of a sub-
ject with a reputation for difficulty.
Eventually, tutors were developed for first-year algebra, for the proof-less version of
geometry then being taught in the Pittsburgh high schools, for second-year algebra, and for
 S. E. F. Chipman ⁄ Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (2010) 393

Pascal programming in AP computer science. A general computer programming tutor,

which could tutor the same programming problem in multiple computer languages, was sup-
ported by the Army Research Institute and used by Anderson in teaching an introductory
programming course at Carnegie-Mellon University.
Conventional publishers were not interested in publishing and selling Anderson’s tutors;
thus, Carnegie Mellon University assisted the creation of a company for that purpose. To
date, the first-year algebra tutor has emerged as the one tutor with large-scale use in the
schools. There is considerable evidence that it substantially improves achievement in first-
year algebra (Anderson, Corbett, Koedinger, & Pelletier, 1995). It has undergone consider-
able refinement over the years. According to CarnegieLearning’s Web site, more than
500,000 students in 2,600 schools have used the various tutors, and they are also available
and supported for home schooling. Positive evaluations are typical (effect sizes of .3–1.3),
the more so when a 3-year sequence of Cognitive Tutor instruction (algebra, geometry, and
algebra II) is completed.

3.4. Science learning

The pioneering NIE-NSF study of physics misconceptions (McCloskey et al., 1980)

has been cited thousands of times, particularly in the science education literature. Oth-
ers in the science education community were also investigating misconceptions around
that time. In the intervening years there have been at least four significant efforts that
show promise of improving physics education, one at the high school level and several
at the college level. Jim Minstrell, an outstanding high school physics teacher who
became a researcher while still teaching, developed a classroom method for overcoming
physics misconceptions. Initially funded by NIE, Minstrell later partnered with Earl
Hunt and received grants from the McDonnell Foundation CSEP program (Hunt &
Minstrell, 1994). These showed, first, that Minstrell’s teaching was far more effective
than average, and secondly that other teachers could be taught to implement the method
and be equally effective. Unfortunately work under a more recent NSF grant (Minstrell
& Kraus, 2007) has shown that spreading this teaching approach more widely is not
going to be easy.
At the college level, a significant community of researchers—from a physics back-
ground—has developed, researchers who are doing cognitive research on the teaching
and learning of physics (Redish, 2003). Redish, a physicist, points out that cognitive
science is the foundational field for this kind of research. Reif (2008), a pioneer of
such research, continued to work throughout this period. A great many experimental
investigations, often with many iterations, have been done to develop more effective
ways of teaching particular topics in physics. A leader of this community is Lillian
McDermott of the University of Washington, who has received very substantial
support from NSF over many years and has produced two textbooks embodying
these new teaching approaches. This work in physics is the first substantial example
of the formalization of what Shulman (1986) has called pedagogical content
knowledge.
394 S. E. F. Chipman ⁄ Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (2010)

There is also a well-known line of research on the learning of physics that is in the
mainstream of the cognitive science community—the work of Chi, VanLehn, and Forbus,
among others. Chi’s work on expert and novice classification of physics problems and her
painstaking think-aloud study of physics learning are well known and heavily cited (e.g.,
Chi, Bassok, Lewis, Reimann, & Glaser, 1989). VanLehn simulated the learning of Chi’s
students and also produced programs that assessed student performance against a computa-
tional model of problem-solving performance. All of this work was primarily supported by
the basic research program at ONR. Having already modeled physics problem solving,
VanLehn was in a good position to develop an artificially intelligent tutor for physics
when some internal Navy politics led to the idea of developing intelligent tutors for the
Naval Academy as applied research projects. Kurt VanLehn and several academy profes-
sors collaborated in producing and testing the Andes physics tutor, a coach aiding the solu-
tion of physics homework problems (VanLehn et al., 2005). Although Andes did not
implement mastery learning because of severe constraints on Academy students’ time, it
was shown to be somewhat effective in improving student achievement, and in the final
years the content was extended from heavily researched mechanics learning to electricity
and magnetism. The Andes Tutor is available to the wider community through the Open
Learning Initiative.
A second project at the Academy involved the most thoroughgoing implementation of
Ken Forbus’ CyclePad (Forbus et al., 1999). Chi Wu, a thermodynamics professor at the
Academy totally restructured the thermodynamics curriculum at the Academy and wrote
several textbooks for use in teaching thermodynamics with CyclePad. CyclePad also
became the platform for Carolyn Rosé’s research on natural language for tutoring, also
involving collaboration with an Academy professor.

4. In summary: Accomplishments of cognitive science research in education

In all of the areas reviewed, reading comprehension, mathematics learning, and physics
education, significant progress has been made. Defining and pursuing cognitive objectives
for instruction (Greeno, 1976) has proved fruitful. The cognitive science research approach
has yielded instructional methods, sometimes embodied in artificially intelligent tutoring
systems, sometimes in more traditional human-implemented teaching, that have been shown
to produce significant improvements in student achievement.
Education was not among the disciplines, or even the hyphenated disciplines, of the origi-
nal 1978 Sloan Foundation report on the state of the art in Cognitive Science (Keyser,
Miller, & Walker, 1978). Now it appears in the logo on the cover of the journal Cognitive
Science. The birth date of cognitive science itself has been variously identified as September
11, 1956 at a Symposium on Information Theory at MIT or in 1960 when Bruner and Miller
founded the Center for Cognitive Studies at Harvard. The involvement with education and
educational research came very quickly (Bruner, 1960; Miller, 1973). Education proved to
be an important focus of and motivator for research in cognitive science. Much has been
accomplished, but much is yet to be done.
 S. E. F. Chipman ⁄ Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (2010) 395

5. Future directions

Given current enthusiasms, it is certain that for the next few years, much of the
investment in research intended to inform education will involve neuroimaging of cog-
nitive processes. The demands of neuroimaging result in an emphasis on very simple
experimental tasks, contrary to cognitive science’s characteristic emphasis on dealing
with complexity in human learning and performance. Realistically, improved instruction
requires a behavioral research approach, and computational modeling with AI tech-
niques aids in dealing with the complexity of both school learning and military training.
Fortunately, the more traditional cognitive science approach to research on learning and
instruction continues in the NSF-supported research center at Pittsburgh and elsewhere.
One can hope that discipline-based communities of cognitive science research, such as
that now flourishing in physics, will emerge with foci on additional subject matter:
biology, chemistry, and medicine. In mathematics education, there is still a serious need
to integrate the efforts of psychologists, cognitive scientists, and more traditional mathe-
matics educators in order to speed up progress. Dissolving the barriers between disci-
plines is a challenge for research managers. Emerging cognitive science departments
may benefit from providing a welcoming academic home for such researchers,
who always occupy uncertain positions in the subject matter departments (physics,
mathematics, chemistry, and biology).

References

Anderson, J. R., Boyle, D. F., Corbett, A. T., & Lewis, M. T. (1990). Cognitive modeling and intelligent
tutoring. Artificial Intelligence, 42, 7–49.
Anderson, J. R., Conrad, F. G., & Corbett, A. T. (1989). Skill acquisition and the LISP tutor. Cognitive Science,
13, 467–505.
Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 167–207.
Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The
report of the Commission on Reading. Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Caccamise, D., Franzka, M., Eckhoff, A., Kintsch, E., & Kintsch, W. (2007). Guided practice in technology
based summary writing. In D. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions
and technologies (pp. 375–396). New York: Psychology Press.
Case, R., Griffin, S., & Kelly, W. M. (1999). Socioeconomic gradients in mathematical ability and their respon-
siveness to intervention during early childhood. In D. P. Keating & C. Hertzman (Eds.), Developmental
health and the wealth of nations: Social, biological, and educational dynamics (pp. 125–149). New York:
Guilford Press.
Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: how students study
and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.
Chi, M., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chipman, S. F. (2004). Overview: The U.S. Office of Naval Research training technology R&D. In Advanced
technology for military training. Report number RTO-MP-HFM-101, paper 25. Neuilly-sur-Seine, France:
NATO Research and Technology Organisation. Available at http://www.rto.nato.int
396 S. E. F. Chipman ⁄ Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (2010)

Clancey, W. (1986). From Guidon to Neomycin and Heracles in twenty short lessons: ONR final report, 1979–
1985. AI Magazine, 7(3), 40–60.
Evens, M., & Michael, J. (2005). One-on-one tutoring by humans and computers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Forbus, K. D., Whalley, P. B., Evrett, J. O., Ureel, L., Brokowski, M., Baher, J., & Kuehne, S. E. (1999).
CyclePad: An articulate virtual laboratory for engineering thermodynamics. Artificial Intelligence, 114(1 ⁄ 2),
297–347.
Frederiksen, N., Glaser, R., Lesgold, A., & Shafto, M. G. (1990). Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge
acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ginsburg, H. P., & Russell, R. L. (1981). Social class and racial influences on early mathematical thinking.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 46(6), 69.
Graesser, A. C., VanLehn, K., Rosé, C., Jordan, P., & Harter, D. (2001). Intelligent tutoring systems with
conversational dialogue. AI Magazine, 22(4), 39–51.
Gramse, B. C., Jacob, R. T., Horst, M., Boulay, B., & Unlu, F. (2008). Reading first impact study. Final Report
(NCEE 2009-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Greeno, J. G. (1976). Cognitive objectives for instruction: Theory of knowledge for solving problems and
answering questions. In D. Klahr (Ed.), Cognition and instruction (pp. 123–159). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Hunt, E., & Minstrell, J. (1994). A cognitive approach to the teaching of physics. In: K. McGilly (Ed.),
Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 51–74). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Kalchman, M., Moss, J., & Case, R. (2001). Psychological models for the development of mathematical under-
standing: Rational numbers and functions. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction:
Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 1–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Keyser, S. J., Miller, G. A., & Walker, E. (1978). Cognitive Science, 1978: Report of the state of the art commit-
tee to the advisors of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1989). Understanding charts and graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3, 185–225.
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive
Science, 11, 65–100.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
McCloskey, M., Caramazza, A., & Green, B. (1980). Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces: Naı̈ve
beliefs about the motion of objects. Science, 210, 1139–1141.
McNamara, D. S., O’Reilly, T., Rowe, M., Boonthum, C., & Levenstein, I. (2007). iSTART: A web-based tutor
that teaches self-explanation and metacognitive reading strategies. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading
comprehension strategies: Theory, interventions, and technologies (pp. 397–420). New York: Psychology
Press.
Miller, G. A. (Ed..), 1973). Linguistic communication: Perspectives for research. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Minstrell, J., & Kraus, P. A. (2007). Applied research on implementing diagnostic instructional tools (Final
Report for ESI 0435727): National Science Foundation.
Moss, J., & Case, R. (1999). Developing children’s understanding of rational numbers: A new model and
instructional curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 122–147.
Nichols, P., Chipman, S., & Brennan, R. (Eds.) (1995). Cognitively diagnostic assessment. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum Associates.
Nickerson, R. S., Perkins, D. N., & Smith, E. E. (1985). The teaching of thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
 S. E. F. Chipman ⁄ Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (2010) 397

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote independent learning from text. Read-
ing Teacher, 39, 771–777.
Redish, E. L. (2003). Teaching physics with the physics suite. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Reif, F. (2008). Applying cognitive science to education: Thinking and learning in scientific and other complex
domains. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Schofield, J. W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(4),
4–14.
Towne, D. M. (2007). Enhancing human performance via simulation-based training and aiding. Rotterdam,
England: Sense Publishers.
VanLehn, K., Lynch, C., Schulze, K., Shapiro, J. A., Shelby, R., Taylor, L., Treacy, D., Weinstein, A., &
Wintersgill, M. (2005). The Andes physics tutoring system: Lessons learned. International Journal of
Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15, 147–204.
Wenger, E. (1987). Artificial intelligence and tutoring systems: Computational and cognitive approaches to the
communication of knowledge. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.