Affiliations: Human-Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon
University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. E-mail: matteasterday@cmu.edu
Abstract: Policy problems like "What should we do about global
warming?" are ill-defined in large part because we do not agree
on a system to represent them the way we agree Algebra problems should be
represented by equations. As a first step toward building a policy deliberation
tutor, we investigated: (a) whether causal diagrams help students learn to
evaluate policy options, (b) whether constructing diagrams promotes learning
and (c) what difficulties students have constructing and interpreting causal
diagrams. The first experiment tested whether providing information as text,
text plus a correct diagram, or text plus a diagramming tool helped
undergraduates predict the effects of policy options. A second, think-aloud
study identified expert and novice errors on the same task. Results showed that
constructing and receiving diagrams had different effects on performance and
transfer. Students given a correct diagram on a posttest made more correct
policy inferences than those given text or a diagramming tool. On a transfer
test presented as text only, students who had practiced constructing diagrams
made the most correct inferences, even though they did not construct diagrams
during the transfer test. Qualitative results showed that background knowledge
sometimes interfered with diagram interpretation but was also used normatively
to augment inferences from the diagram. Taken together, the results suggest
that: causal diagrams are a good representation system for a deliberation
tutor, tutoring should include diagram construction, and a deliberation tutor
must monitor the student's initial beliefs and how they change in
response to evidence, perhaps by representing both the evidence provided and
the student's synthesized causal model.