Tradeoffs Between Immediate and Future Learning: Feedback in

a Fraction Addition TutorEliane Stampfer

stampfer@cs.cmu.edu

EARLI SIG 6&7September 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

Correctness Grounded

Faster procedural learning

Better conceptual understanding

Overview

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?

Literature Review

Nathan 1998

Time: hours

Literature Review

Nathan 1998

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

Literature Review

Tutor Design

Input what students are learning

Feedback

shows nature of error in a form students understand

Works by

Feed Forward

reminding students of what they already know

may point to the next step

Why Grounded Feedback?

Equivalent fractions

would line up

My fraction should be

bigger

Tutor Design

Study Condition 1 - GroundedTutor Design

Study Condition 1 - GroundedTutor Design

Study Condition 1 - GroundedTutor Design

Study Condition 2 - CorrectnessTutor Design

Tutor Similarities

Same Problems

On-Demand Text Hints

Must Solve Each Problem Before Moving On

Tutor Design

Tutor DifferencesGrounded Feedback Correctness Feedback

Shows Tells

Students can re-write any input

Students cannot change correct inputs

Permits student to try incorrect paths

Prevents inefficient paths

Red When Wrong

Eliane Stampfer

Tutor 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)

Study Design

InstructionTutor

Process Measures

Grounded Feedback

Correctness Feedback

Problems Attempted (max 20)

9.2 17.7

Hints per problem 7.7 2.5

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

Results

Pre-Test, Post-Test, and 2-week Delayed Post Test

3 Test Forms, Matched and Counterbalanced

Pre-Requisite Knowledge, Transfer, Target, and Metacognitive

Test Design

MetacognitiveYour friend solved 2/7 + 1/9. Look at the work your friend did and check the correct statements at the bottom:

Test Design

0123456789

10111213

Pre Post 2-Week Delayed

Pre to Post: Both groups learned (p < .01)Post to Delayed: Significant difference in learning (p = .035)

Correctness Grounded

Results: Full Test

Eliane Stampfer

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

Test Design

0

1

2

3

4

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)

Pre Post 2-Week Delayed

Correctness Grounded

Results: Target Items

Metacognitive Design

Did Metacognitive Skills Improve?Excluding Ceiling at Pretest

Differences in learning from Pre to Delayed-Post are significant (p=.03)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4 Pre Immediate Post 2-Week Delay

Correctness Grounded

Grounded Feedback: Not IntuitiveResults

Condition Pre Immediate Post

2-week Delay

Correctness (47) .66 .48 .58Grounded (90) .47 .57 .74

Condition Pre Immediate Post

2-week Delay

Correctness (16) 0 .38 .40Grounded (48) 0 .54 .73

All StudentsExclude Correct at PretestResults

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.

Tradeoffs Between Immediate and Future Learning: Feedback in

a Fraction Addition TutorEliane Stampfer

stampfer@cs.cmu.edu

EARLI SIG 6&7September 12, 2012

Thank You!

Guided InstructionTutor

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

Results