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

1 / 34

# Tradeoffs Between Immediate and Future Learning: Feedback in a Fraction Addition Tutor - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

## PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Tradeoffs Between Immediate and Future Learning: Feedback in a Fraction Addition Tutor' - jonah

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

### 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

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

Research Question

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

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

Literature Review

Time: hours

Nathan 1998

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

Tutor Design

Why Grounded Feedback?

Equivalent fractions would line up

My fraction should be bigger

Tutor Design

Tutor Similarities

Same Problems

On-Demand Text Hints

Must Solve Each Problem Before Moving On

Tutor Design

Tutor Differences

Red When Wrong

Eliane Stampfer

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)

Results

Process Measures

Significant Differences in problems attempted and hints per problem (p<.01)

Test Design

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

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:

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)

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

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)

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)

Results

All Students

Exclude Correct at Pretest

Differences at 2-week delay: p=.02

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
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
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
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.

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

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