Anderson, J. R. (1987). Skill acquisition: Compilation of weak-method problem situations. Psychological Review, 94(2), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.192
Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167–207.
Baroody, A. J., Feil, Y., & Johnson, A. R. (2007). Research commentary: An alternative reconceptualization of procedural and conceptual knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034952
Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Kinnebrew, J. S. (2017). Learner modeling for adaptive scaffolding in a computational thinking-based science learning environment. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 27(1), 5–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-017-9187-0
Bray, A., & Tangney, B. (2017). Technology usage in mathematics education research—A systematic review of recent trends. Computers & Education, 114, 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.004
Bunt, A., Conati, C., & Muldner, K. (2004). Scaffolding self-explanation to improve learning in exploratory learning environments. In International conference on intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 656–667). Springer.
Canobi, K. H., Reeve, R. A., & Pattison, P. E. (2003). Patterns of knowledge in children’s addition. Developmental Psychology, 39(3), 521–534. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-16184.108.40.2061
Charalambous, C. Y., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2007). Drawing on a theoretical model to study students’ understandings of fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64(3), 293–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9036-2
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
Corbett, A., MacLaren, B., Wagner, A., Kauffman, L., Mitchell, A., & Baker, R. S. J. d. (2013). Differential impact of learning activities designed to support robust learning in the genetics cognitive tutor. In H. C. Lane, K. Yacef, J. Mostow, & P. Pavlik (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education (Vol. 7926, pp. 319–328). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39112-5_33
de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3102_2
Diziol, D., Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (2010). Using intelligent tutor technology to implement adaptive support for student collaboration. Educational Psychology Review, 22(1), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9116-9
Doroudi, S., Aleven, V., & Brunskill, E. (2017). Robust evaluation matrix: Towards a more principled offline exploration of instructional policies. In C. Urrea, J. Reich, & C. Thille (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth (2017) ACM conference on learning @ scale -L@S ’17 (pp. 3–12). ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/3051457.3051463
Doroudi, S., Holstein, K., Aleven, V., & Brunskill, E. (2015). Towards understanding how to leverage sense-making, induction and refinement, and fluency to improve robust learning. In O. C. Santos, J. G. Boticario, C. Romero, M. Pecheniskiy, A. Merceron, P. Mitros, & M. Desmarais (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th international conference on educational data mining (pp. 376–379).
du Boulay, B. (2019). Escape from the Skinner Box: The case for contemporary intelligent learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12860
Grawemeyer, B., Holmes, W., Gutiérrez-Santos, S., Hansen, A., Loibl, K., & Mavrikis, M. (2015). Light-bulb moment? Towards adaptive presentation of feedback based on students' affective state. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on intelligent user interfaces (pp. 400–404). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2678025.2701377
Grawemeyer, B., Mavrikis, M., Holmes, W., Gutiérrez-Santos, S., Wiedmann, M., & Rummel, N. (2017). Affective learning: Improving engagement and enhancing learning with affect-aware feedback. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 27(1), 119–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-017-9188-z
Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y
Hansen, A., Mavrikis, M., & Geraniou, E. (2016). Supporting teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge of fractions through co-designing a virtual manipulative. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19(2–3), 205–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-016-9344-0
Hansen, A., Mavrikis, M., Holmes, W., & Geranious, E. (2015). Designing interactive representations for learning fraction equivalence. In Paper presented at the 12th international conference on technology in mathematics teaching (pp. 395-402). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alice-Hansen-4/publication/290324702_Designing_interactive_representations_for_learning_fraction_equivalence/links/569621d708ae425c6898b47e/Designinginteractive-representations-for-learning-fraction-equivalence.pdf
Hansen, A., Mavrikis, M., Holmes, W., Grawemeyer, B., Mazziotti, C., Mubeen, J., & Koshkarbayeva, A. (2014). Report on learning tasks and cognitive models (iTalk2Learn deliverable 1.2). Retrieved from http://www.italk2learn.com/deliverables-and-publications/deliverables/
Herold, B. (2017). The case(s) against personalized learning. Education Week, 37, 4–5.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Education Technology Research & Development, 55, 223–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
Hiebert, J. (Ed.). (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Conceptual-and-Procedural-Knowledge-The-Case-of-Mathematics/Hiebert/p/book/9780898595567
Holmes, W. (2013). Level up! A design-based investigation of a prototype digital game for children who are low-attaining in mathematics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oxford.
Holmes, W., Anastopoulou, S., Schaumburg, H., & Mavrikis, M. (2018). Technology-enhanced personalised learning: Untangling the evidence. Robert Bosch Stiftung GmbH. http://www.studie-personalisiertes-lernen.de/en/
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education. Promise and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Holmes, W., Mavrikis, M., Hansen, A., & Grawemeyer, B. (2015). Purpose and level of feedback in an exploratory learning environment for fractions. In C. Conati, N. Heffernan, A. Mitrovic, & M. F. Verdejo (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science. Artificial intelligence in education (Vol. 9112, pp. 620–623). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19773-9_76
Hoyles, C. (1993). Microworlds/schoolworlds: The transformation of an innovation. In C. Keitel, & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Learning from computers: Mathematics education and technology (pp. 1–17). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-78542-9_1
Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.) Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693–719). Association for Communications and Technology.
Jones, I., Bisson, M., Gilmore, C., & Inglis, M. (2019). Measuring conceptual understanding in randomised controlled trials: Can comparative judgement help? British Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 662–680. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3519
Karam, R., Pane, J. F., Griffin, B. A., Robyn, A., Phillips, A., & Daugherty, L. (2016). Examining the implementation of technology-based blended algebra I curriculum at scale. Education Technology, Research & Development, 65(2), 399–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9498-6
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
Koedinger, K. R. (2002). Toward evidence for instructional design principles: Examples from cognitive tutor math 6. In D. S. Mewborn, P. Sztajn, D. Y. White, H. G. Wiegel, R. L. Bryant, & K. Nooney (Eds.), Proceedings of the annual meeting [of the] North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (24th, Athens, Georgia, October 26–29, 2002) (Vol. 1–4, pp. 21–29). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED471749.pdf
Koedinger, K. R., Anderson, J. R., Hadley, W. H., & Mark, M. A. (1997). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), 8, 30–42.
Kort, B., Reilly, R., & Picard, R. W. (2001). An affective model of interplay between emotions and learning: Reengineering educational pedagogy-building a learning companion. In Proceedings IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (pp.43–46). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2001.943850
Kulik, C.-L.C., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60(2), 265–299. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060002265
LeFevre, J.-A., Smith-Chant, B. L., Fast, L., Skwarchuk, S.-L., Sargla, E., Arnup, J. S., Penner-Wilger, M., Bisanz, J., & Kamawar, D. (2006). What counts as knowing? The development of conceptual and procedural knowledge of counting from kindergarten through Grade 2. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93(4), 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.11.002
Mathan, S. A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An empirical assessment of comprehension fostering features in an intelligent tutoring system. In S. A. Cerri, G. Gouardères, & F. Paraguaçu (Eds.), Vol. 2363. Lecture notes in computer science, intelligent tutoring systems. 6th international conference, ITS 2002, Biarritz, France and San Sebastián, Spain, June 2–7, 2002: proceedings (Vol. 2363, pp. 330–343). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47987-2_37
Mavrikis, M., Gutierrez-Santos, S., Geraniou, E., & Noss, R. (2013). Design requirements, student perception indicators and validation metrics for intelligent exploratory learning environments. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17(8), 1605–1620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-012-0524-3
Mazziotti, C., Holmes, W., Wiedmann, M., Loibl, K., Rummel, N., Mavrikis, M., Hansen, A., & Grawemeyer, B. (2015). Robust student knowledge: Adapting to individual student needs as they explore the concepts and practice the procedures of fractions. In M. Mavrikis, et al. (Eds), Proceedings of the workshops at the 17th international conference on artificial intelligence in education (Vol. 2, S. 32–40). Springer International Publishing.
McCulloch, A. W., Hollebrands, K., Lee, H., Harrison, T., & Mutlu, A. (2018). Factors that influence secondary mathematics teachers’ integration of technology in mathematics lessons. Computers & Education, 123, 26–40.
Mousavinasab, E., Zarifsanaiey, N., Kalhori, S. R. N., Rakhshan, M., Keikha, L., & Saeedi, M. G. (2018). Intelligent tutoring systems: A systematic review of characteristics, applications, and evaluation methods. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1558257
Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings: Learning cultures and computers (Vol. 17). Springer Science & Business Media.
Noss, R., Poulovassilis, A., Geraniou, E., Gutiérrez-Santos, S., Hoyles, C., Kahn, K., Magoulas, G. D., & Mavrikis, M. (2012). The design of a system to support exploratory learning of algebraic generalisation. Computers & Education, 59(1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.021
Phillips, A., Pane, J. F., Reumann-Moore, R., & Shenbanjo, O. (2020). Implementing an adaptive intelligent tutoring system as an instructional supplement. Education Technology, Research & Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09745-w
Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton University Press.
Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2013). Interleaved practice in multi-dimensional learning tasks: Which dimension should we interleave? Learning and Instruction, 23, 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.07.003
Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., Rummel, N., & Rohrbach, S. (2012). Sense making alone doesn’t do it: Fluency matters too! ITS support for robust learning with multiple representations. In S. A. Cerri, W. J. Clancey, G. Papadourakis, & K. Panourgia (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (Vol. 7315, pp. 174–184). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30950-2_23
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: Does one lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-06220.127.116.11
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Koedinger, K. (2009). Iterating between lessons on concepts and procedures can improve mathematics knowledge. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 483–500.
Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. R. (2015). Not a one-way street: Bidirectional relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 587–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9302-x
Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 346–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0618.104.22.1686
Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009
Schneider, M., & Stern, E. (2010). The developmental relations between conceptual and procedural knowledge: A multimethod approach. Developmental Psychology, 46(1), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016701
Siegler, R. S., Duncan, G. J., Davis-Kean, P. E., Duckworth, K., Claessens, A., Engel, M., Susperreguy, M. I., & Chen, M. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement. Psychological Science, 23(7), 691–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612440101
Sinha, T., & Kapur, M. (2021). When problem solving followed by instruction works: Evidence for productive failure. Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211019105
Star, J. R. (2005). Reconceptualizing procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36, 404–411.
Star, J. R., & Stylianides, G. J. (2013). Procedural and conceptual knowledge: Exploring the gap between knowledge type and knowledge quality. Canadian Journal Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13, 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2013.784828
Thompson, P. W. (1987). Mathematical microworlds and intelligent computer-assisted instruction. In G. P. Kearsley (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and instruction: Applications and methods (pp. 83–109). Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing.
VanLehn, K. (2006). The behavior of tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16(3), 227–265.
VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.611369
Wang, M., Wu, B., Kinshuk, Chen, N.-S., & Spector, J. M. (2013). Connecting problem-solving and knowledge-construction processes in a visualization-based learning environment. Computers & Education, 68, 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.004
Williamson, B. (2019). Policy networks, performance metrics and platform markets: Charting the expanding data infrastructure of higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12849