Guided Skill Practice as an Adaptive Scaffolding Strategy in Open-Ended Learning Environments

  • James R. Segedy
  • Gautam Biswas
  • Emily Feitl Blackstock
  • Akailah Jenkins
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7926)


While open-ended learning environments (OELEs) offer powerful learning opportunities, many students struggle to learn in them. Without proper support, these learners use system tools incorrectly and adopt suboptimal learning strategies. Typically, OELEs support students by providing hints: suggestions for how to proceed combined with information relevant to the learner’s situation. However, students often ignore or fail to understand such hints. To address this problem, we present an alternative approach to supporting students in OELEs that combines suggestions and assertions with guided skill practice. We demonstrate the feasibility of our approach through an experimental study that compares students who receive suggestions, assertions, and guided skill practice to students who receive no such support. Findings indicate that learners who received the scaffolds approached their tasks more systematically.


Open-ended learning environment scaffolds guided practice 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Clarebout, G., Elen, J.: Advice on tool use in open learning environments. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 17, 81–97 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Land, S.M.: Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development 48, 61–78 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Azevedo, R., et al.: The effectiveness of pedagogical agents’ prompting and feedback in facilitating co-adapted learning with metatutor. In: Cerri, S.A., Clancey, W.J., Papadourakis, G., Panourgia, K. (eds.) ITS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7315, pp. 212–221. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jackson, S.L., Krajcik, J., Soloway, E.: The design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments. In: Karat, C., Lund, A., Coutaz, J., Karat, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 1998), pp. 187–194. ACM Press, New York (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mayer, R.E.: Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist 59, 14–19 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Azevedo, R., Hadwin, A.: Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition – Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science 33, 367–379 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kinnebrew, J.S., Biswas, G.: Identifying learning behaviors by contextualizing differential sequence mining with action features and performance evolution. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Puntambekar, S., Hübscher, R.: Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist 40, 1–12 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Muir, M., Conati, C.: An analysis of attention to student – adaptive hints in an educational game. In: Cerri, S.A., Clancey, W.J., Papadourakis, G., Panourgia, K. (eds.) ITS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7315, pp. 112–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Segedy, J.R., Kinnebrew, J.S., Biswas, G.: Supporting student learning using conversational agents in a teachable agent environment. In: van Aalst, J., Thompson, K., Jacobson, M.J., Reimann, P. (eds.) The Future of Learning: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2012): Short Papers, Symposia, and Abstracts, vol. 2, pp. 251–255. ISLS (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    VanLehn, K.: The behavior of tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 16, 227–265 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luckin, R., Hammerton, L.: Getting to know me: Helping learners understand their own learning needs through metacognitive scaffolding. In: Cerri, S.A., Gouardéres, G., Paraguaçu, F. (eds.) ITS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2363, pp. 759–771. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roll, I., Aleven, V., McLaren, B.M., Koedinger, K.R.: Improving students’ help-seeking skills using metacognitive feedback in an intelligent tutoring system. Learning and Instruction 21, 267–280 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Graesser, A.C., McNamara, D.: Self-regulated learning in learning environments with pedagogical agents that interact in natural language. Educational Psychologist 45, 234–244 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leelawong, K., Biswas, G.: Designing learning by teaching agents: The Betty’s Brain system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 18, 181–208 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • James R. Segedy
    • 1
  • Gautam Biswas
    • 1
  • Emily Feitl Blackstock
    • 1
  • Akailah Jenkins
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Software Integrated Systems, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations