How Much Assistance Is Helpful to Students in Discovery Learning?

  • Alexander Borek
  • Bruce M. McLaren
  • Michael Karabinos
  • David Yaron
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5794)

Abstract

How much help helps in discovery learning? This question is one instance of the assistance dilemma, an important issue in the learning sciences and educational technology research. To explore this question, we conducted a study involving 87 college students solving problems in a virtual chemistry laboratory (VLab), testing three points along an assistance continuum: (1) a minimal assistance, inquiry-learning approach, in which students used the VLab with no hints and minimal feedback; (2) a mid-level assistance, tutored approach, in which students received intelligent tutoring hints and feedback while using the VLab (i.e., help given on request and feedback on incorrect steps); and (3) a high assistance, direct-instruction approach, in which students were coaxed to follow a specific set of steps in the VLab. Although there was no difference in learning results between conditions on near transfer posttest questions, students in the tutored condition did significantly better on conceptual posttest questions than students in the other two conditions. Furthermore, the more advanced students in the tutored condition, those who performed better on a pretest, did significantly better on the conceptual posttest than their counterparts in the other two conditions. Thus, it appears that students in the tutored condition had just the right amount of assistance, and that the better students in that condition used their superior metacognitive skills and/or motivation to decide when to use the available assistance to their best advantage.

Keywords

assistance dilemma  intelligent tutoring  inquiry learning  chemistry learning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Koedinger, K.R., Aleven, V.: Exploring the Assistance Dilemma in Experiments with Cognitive Tutors. Educational Psychology Review 19, 239–264 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klahr, D., Nigam, M.: The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction - Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning. Psychological Science, 661–667 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mayer, R.E.: Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning? - The Case for Guided Methods of Instruction. American Psychologist, 14–19 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., Clark, R.E.: 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, 75–86 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruner, J.S.: The Art of Discovery. Harvard Educational Review (31), 21–32 (1961)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barrows, H.S., Tamblyn, R.M.: Problem-based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education. Springer, New York (1980)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jonassen, D.: Objectivism vs. Constructivism. Educational Technology Research and Development 39(3), 5–14 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Steffe, L., Gale, J.: Constructivism in Education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Renkl, A., Atkinson, R.K., Große, C.S.: How Fading Worked Solution Steps Works - A Cognitive Load Perspective. Instructional Science 32, 59–82 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cronbach, L., Snow, R.: Aptitudes and Instructional Methods: A Handbook for Research on Interactions. Irvington Publishers, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koedinger, K.R., Pavlik Jr., P.I., McLaren, B.M., Aleven, V.: Is it Better to Give than to Receive? The Assistance Dilemma as a Fundamental Unsolved Problem in the Cognitive Science of Learning and Instruction. In: Love, B.C., McRae, K., Sloutsky, V.M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX, pp. 2155–2160. Cognitive Science Society (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McLaren, B.M., Lim, S., Koedinger, K.R.: When and How Often Should Worked Examples be Given to Students? New Results and a Summary of the Current State of Research. In: Love, B.C., McRae, K., Sloutsky, V.M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX, pp. 2176–2181. Cognitive Science Society (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yaron, D., Evans, K., Karabinos, M.: Scenes and Labs Supporting Online Chemistry. Paper presented at the 83rd Annual AERA National Conference (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aleven, V., McLaren, B.M., Sewall, J., Koedinger, K.R.: Example-Tracing Tutors: A New Paradigm for Intelligent Tutoring Systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), Special Issue on Authoring Systems for Intelligent Tutoring Systems (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yaron, D., Freeland, R., Lange, D., Milton, J.: Using Simulations to Transform the Nature of Chemistry Homework. In: CONFCHEM (CONFerences on CHEMistry): On-Line Teaching Methods. Online-Conference: American Chemical Society (2000), http://www.ched-ccce.org/confchem/
  16. 16.
    Lieberman, H. (ed.): Your Wish is My Command: Programming by Example. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    VanLehn, K.: The Behavior of Tutoring Systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED) 16, 227–265 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koedinger, K.R., Anderson, J.R., Hadley, W.H., Mark, M.A.: Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED) 8, 30–43 (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J.J.G., Paas, F.G.W.C.: Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design. Educational Psychology Review 10, 251–296 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., Cocking, R.R. (eds.): How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. National Academy Press, Washington (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schmidt, R.A., Bjork, R.A.: New Conceptualizations of Practice: Common Principles in Three Paradigms Suggest New Concepts for Training. Psychological Science 3(4), 207–217 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Borek
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bruce M. McLaren
    • 2
    • 3
  • Michael Karabinos
    • 2
  • David Yaron
    • 2
  1. 1.University of KarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Carnegie Mellon UniversityUSA
  3. 3.German Research Center for Artificial IntelligenceGermany

Personalised recommendations