Advertisement

Scaffolding vs. Hints in the Assistment System

  • Leena Razzaq
  • Neil T. Heffernan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4053)

Abstract

Razzaq et al, 2005 reported that the Assistment system was causing students to learn at the computer but we were not sure if that was simply due to students getting practice or more due to the "intelligent tutoring" that we created and force students to do if they get an item wrong. Our survey indicated that some students found being forced to do scaffolding sometimes frustrating. We were not sure if all of the time we invested into these "fancy" scaffolding questions was worth it. We conducted a simple experiment to see if students learned on a set of 4 items, if they were given the scaffolds compared with just being given hints that tried to TELL them the same information that the scaffolding questions tried to ASK from them. Our results show that students that were given the scaffolds performed better although the results were not always statistically significant.

Keywords

Assistment System Intelligent Tutor System Scaffolding Condition Cognitive Science Society Cognitive Apprenticeship 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baker, R.S., Corbett, A.T., Koedinger, K.R.: Detecting student misuse of intelligent tutoring systems. In: Lester, J.C., Vicari, R.M., Paraguaçu, F. (eds.) ITS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3220, pp. 531–540. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bloom, B.S.: The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-one Tutoring. Educational Researcher 13, 4–16 (1984)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Collins, A., Brown, J.S., Holum, A.: Cognitive Apprenticeship: Making Thinking Visible. American Educator 6(11), 38–46 (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feng, M., Heffernan, N.T., Koedinger, K.R.: Predicting state test scores better with intelligent tutoring systems: Developing metrics to measure assistance required. In: Ikeda, M., Ashley, K.D., Chan, T.-W. (eds.) ITS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4053, pp. 31–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2006), http://nth.wpi.edu/pubs_and_grants/ITS2006/Submissons/Ming/feng.doc CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Graesser, A.C., Person, N., Magliano, J.: Collaborative Dialog Patterns in Naturalistic One-on-One Tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology 9, 359–387 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koedinger, K.R., Anderson, J.R., Hadley, W.H., Mark, M.A.: Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. In: Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp. 421–428. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, Charlottesville (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Merrill, D., Reiser, B., Ranney, M., Trafton, J.: Effective Tutoring Techniques: A Comparison of Human Tutors and Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2(3), 277–305 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nuzzo-Jones, G., Walonoski, J.A., Heffernan, N.T., Livak, T.: The eXtensible Tutor Architecture: A New Foundation for ITS. In: Looi, C.K., McCalla, G., Bredeweg, B., Breuker, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th Artificial Intelligence In Education, pp. 902–904. ISO Press, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Razzaq, L., Feng, M., Nuzzo-Jones, G., Heffernan, N.T., Koedinger, K.R., Junker, B., Ritter, S., Knight, A., Aniszczyk, C., Choksey, S., Livak, T., Mercado, E., Turner, T.E., Upalekar, R., Walonoski, J.A., Macasek, M.A., Rasmussen, K.P.: The Assistment Project: Blending Assessment and Assisting. In: Looi, C.K., McCalla, G., Bredeweg, B., Breuker, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th Artificial Intelligence In Education, pp. 555–562. ISO Press, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    VanLehn, K., Graesser, A.C., Jackson, G.T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., Rose, C.P.: When is reading just as effective as one-on-one interactive human tutoring? In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2259–2264. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Lehn, K., Siler, S., Murray, C.: What Makes a Tutorial Event Effective? In: Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leena Razzaq
    • 1
  • Neil T. Heffernan
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentWorcester Polytechnic InstituteWorcester

Personalised recommendations