1 / 34

Tradeoffs Between Immediate and Future Learning: Feedback in a Fraction Addition Tutor

Tradeoffs Between Immediate and Future Learning: Feedback in a Fraction Addition Tutor. Eliane Stampfer stampfer@cs.cmu.edu EARLI SIG 6&7 September 13, 2012.

jonah
Download Presentation

Tradeoffs Between Immediate and Future Learning: Feedback in a Fraction Addition Tutor

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tradeoffs Between Immediate and Future Learning: Feedback in a Fraction Addition Tutor Eliane Stampfer stampfer@cs.cmu.edu EARLI SIG 6&7 September 13, 2012

  2. Giving Feedback:When should we tell students something directly, and when should we show them something they have to interpret for themselves? Research Question

  3. Overview

  4. Literature Review Prior Work: Interpretation is Best • Algebra expressions drive an animation, showing meaning in terms of story Nathan 1998 • Seeing the consequences of incorrect Excel formulas Mathan & Koedinger 2005 • Invention of formulas for variance prepare students to learn from a lecture Schwartz & Martin 2004

  5. Literature Review ANIMATE Sample Problem A helicopter rushes from Central City trying to catch up with a train. The train had left two hours before the helicopter, and the train was going 75 miles per hour. The helicopter flies at 300 miles per hour. The train is 60 miles from a broken bridge – can the helicopter reach it in time? Nathan 1998

  6. Literature Review Time: hours Nathan 1998

  7. Literature Review Prior Work – Difficulties with Representations • Relating representations is difficult Ainsworth, Bibby, & Wood 2002 • Students don’t always notice or encode relevant features of the learning environment Siegler 1976, Blair 2009

  8. Tutor Design

  9. Tutor Design Why Grounded Feedback? Equivalent fractions would line up My fraction should be bigger

  10. Tutor Design Study Condition 1 - Grounded

  11. Tutor Design Study Condition 1 - Grounded

  12. Tutor Design Study Condition 1 - Grounded

  13. Tutor Design Study Condition 2 - Correctness

  14. Tutor Design Tutor Similarities Same Problems On-Demand Text Hints Must Solve Each Problem Before Moving On

  15. Tutor Design Tutor Differences Red When Wrong Eliane Stampfer

  16. Study Design Study Method and Participants • Pretest • Instruction • Assigned Tutor • Immediate Post Test • Delayed Post-Test 2 weeks later • Participants: all of the 5th graders at a local school, about 140 (129 completed all parts)

  17. Tutor Instruction

  18. Results Process Measures Significant Differences in problems attempted and hints per problem (p<.01)

  19. Test Design Pre-Test, Post-Test, and 2-week Delayed Post Test3 Test Forms, Matched and CounterbalancedPre-Requisite Knowledge, Transfer, Target, and Metacognitive

  20. Test Design Metacognitive Your friend solved 2/7 + 1/9. Look at the work your friend did and check the correct statements at the bottom:

  21. Results: Full Test Pre Post 2-Week Delayed Correctness Grounded Pre to Post: Both groups learned (p < .01) Post to Delayed: Significant difference in learning (p = .035)

  22. Test Design Target Knowledge Same Denominator 3/9 + 5/9 One Denominator is a Multiple of the Other 2/12 + 3/4 Unrelated Denominators 1/4 + 3/10 1/3 + 4/11 Eliane Stampfer

  23. Results: Target Items Pre Post 2-Week Delayed Correctness Grounded Pre to Post: Both groups learned (p < .01) Difference in Learning (p = .036) Post to Delayed: Only Grounded improved (p < .01) Difference in Learning (p = .057)

  24. Metacognitive Design

  25. Did Metacognitive Skills Improve? Excluding Ceiling at Pretest Pre Immediate Post 2-Week Delay Correctness Grounded Differences in learning from Pre to Delayed-Post are significant (p=.03)

  26. Results Grounded Feedback: Not Intuitive

  27. Results All Students Exclude Correct at Pretest Differences at 2-week delay: p=.02

  28. Discussion • Tradeoffs between immediate and future learning • Grounded Feedback helped even though student didn’t understand it perfectly • Grounded Feedback may improve conceptual understanding and evaluation skills

  29. Relating Back to the Literature • Ainsworth et al: relating representations is hard • Blair and Siegler: students don’t always pay attention to the important parts of the feedback • Schwartz: struggling at first may prepare students for future learning

  30. Next Steps • Grounded Feedback may work better when it is more grounded in students’ prior knowledge • Difficulty Factor Assessment to see why students don’t understand the current fraction bars • Compare Grounded Feedback to robust worked examples

  31. Acknowledgements Thanks to my advisor Ken Koedinger, my participants and their teachers, and the Pittsburgh Sciences of Learning Center This research was supported in part by the Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center through NSF award SBE-0836012, and the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305B090023 to Carnegie Mellon University.

  32. Thank You! Tradeoffs Between Immediate and Future Learning: Feedback in a Fraction Addition Tutor Eliane Stampfer stampfer@cs.cmu.edu EARLI SIG 6&7 September 12, 2012

  33. Tutor Guided Instruction

  34. Results Guided vs. Discovery: No Difference • Same amount of time per problem • Same number of hints requested per problem • Further analysis will treat them as one group: Grounded Feedback

More Related