The Role of Feedback in Preparation for Future Learning: A Case Study in Learning by Teaching Environments

  • Jason Tan
  • Gautam Biswas
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4053)

Abstract

Past research on the timing and content of feedback on student learning in computer-based learning environments has shown that directed or corrective feedback helps with immediate learning, whereas guided and metacognitive feedback help in gaining deep understanding of the domain and developing the ability to transfer this knowledge. Feedback becomes important in discovery learning environments, where novice students are often over-whelmed by the cognitive load associated with learning and organizing new knowledge while at the same time monitoring their own learning progress. We focus on feedback mechanisms in Betty’s Brain, a teachable agent system in the domain of river ecosystems. Our goal is to help improve students’ abilities to monitor their agent, Betty’s knowledge, and, in the process their own learning and understanding. Our studies demonstrate the effectiveness of guided metacognitive feedback in preparing students for future learning.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aleven, V., Koedinger, K.R.: Investigations into Help Seeking and Learning with a Cognitive Tutor. In: Working Notes AIED Workshop on Help Provision and Help Seeking In Interactive Learning Environments, San Antonio, Texas (May 2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aleven, V., McLaren, B.M., Roll, I., Koedinger, K.R.: Toward tutoring help seeking. In: Lester, J.C., Vicari, R.M., Paraguaçu, F. (eds.) ITS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3220, pp. 227–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Artzt, A.F., Armour-Thomas, E.: Cognitive Model for Examining Teachers’ Instructional Practice in Mathematics: A Guide for Facilitating Teacher Reflection. Educational Studies in Mathematics 40(3), 211–335 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bargh, J.A., Schul, Y.: On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology 72(5), 593–604 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biswas, G., Schwartz, D., Leelawong, K., Vye, N.: TAG-V, Learning by Teaching: A New Agent Paradigm for Educational Software. Applied Artificial Intelligence, special issue on Educational Agents 19(3), 363–392 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bransford, J.D., Schwartz, D.L.: Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In: Iran-Nejad, A., Pearson, P.D. (eds.) Review of Research in Education, vol. 24, pp. 61–101. American Educational Research Association, Washington (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chi, M.T.H., Siler, S.A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., Hausmann, R.G.: Learning from Human Tutoring. Cognitive Science 25(4), 471–533 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Corbett, A.T., Anderson, J.R.: Locus of Feedback Control in Computer-Based Tutoring: Impact on Learning Rate, Achievement and Attitudes. In: Proc. CHI Letters, vol. 3(1), pp. 245–352 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moreno, R.: Decreasing Cognitive Load for Novice Students: Effects of Explanatory versus Corrective Feedback in Discovery-Based Multimedia. Instructional Science 32, 99–113 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Novak, J.D.: Concept Mapping as a tool for improving science teaching and learning. In: Treagust, D.F., Duit, R., Fraser, B.J. (eds.) Improving Teaching and Learning in Science and Mathematics, pp. 32–43. Teachers College Press, London (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pintrich, P.R., DeGroot, E.V.: Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 82, 33–40 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwartz, D.L., Martin, T.: Inventing to prepare for learning: The hidden efficiency of original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition & Instruction 22, 129–184 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwartz, D.L., Pilner, K.B., Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., Davis, J.P.: Animation of Thought: Interactivity in the Teachable Agent Paradigm. In: Learning with Animation: Research and Implications for Design, Lowe. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (to appear)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Verplanken, B., Hofstee, G., Janssen, H.: Accessibility of affective versus cognitive components of attitudes. Eur. Journal of Social Psychology 28, 23–35 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zimmerman, B.J.: A Social Cognitive View of Self-Regulated Academic Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 81(3), 329–339 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jason Tan
    • 1
  • Gautam Biswas
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of EECS & ISISVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations