Providing the Option to Skip Feedback in a Worked Example Tutor

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9684)

Abstract

Providing choice is known to intrinsically motivate learners and support self-regulated learning. In order to study the effect of providing the choice to skip feedback in an online tutor traditionally used in-natura, we conducted a controlled study in Fall 2015. Experimental group was given the choice to skip the worked example provided as feedback after the student had solved a problem incorrectly, whereas control group was not. We found that providing the choice did not lead to greater learning. Experimental group students needed marginally more problems to learn each concept, and their pre-post improvement was marginally less. When we analyzed skipping behavior, we found that neither the grade on a problem nor the grade on the prior problem on the same concept affected a student’s decision to read or skip feedback. Novelty of the concept on the other hand may prompt students not to skip feedback. Whether or not students skipped feedback on a problem did not affect their grade on the next problem on the same concept. Students were just as likely to skip as not skip feedback on the various problems. Some students tended to skip far more than others.

Keywords

Worked example Help-seeking Intrinsic motivation Programming tutor 

References

  1. 1.
    Patall, E.A., Cooper, H., Robinson, J.C.: The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: a meta-analysis of research findings. Psychol. Bull. 134(2), 270–300 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cordova, D.I., Lepper, M.R.: Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. J. Educ. Psychol. 88(4), 715–730 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ostrow, K.S., Heffernan, N.T.: The role of student choice within adaptive tutoring. In: Conati, C., Heffernan, N., Mitrovic, A., Verdejo, M.F. (eds.) AIED 2015. LNCS, vol. 9112, pp. 752–755. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gross, S., Pinkwart, N.: How do learners behave in help-seeking when given a choice? In: Conati, C., Heffernan, N., Mitrovic, A., Verdejo, M.F. (eds.) AIED 2015. LNCS, vol. 9112, pp. 600–603. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aleven, V., Koedinger, K.: Limitations of student control: do students know when they need help? Proc. ITS 2000, 292–303 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aleven, V., Mclaren, B., Roll, I., Koedinger, K.: Toward meta-cognitive tutoring: a model of help seeking with a cognitive tutor. IJAIED 16(2), 101–128 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Kumar, A.: A scalable solution for adaptive problem sequencing and its evaluation. In: Wade, V.P., Ashman, H., Smyth, B. (eds.) AH 2006. LNCS, vol. 4018, pp. 161–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kumar, A.N.: Explanation of step-by-step execution as feedback for problems on program analysis, and its generation in model-based problem-solving tutors. Technol. Instruct. Cognit. Learn. (TICL) J. Special Issue on Problem Solving Support in Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 4(1) (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kumar, A.N.: All that glitters (in the lab) may not be gold (in the field). In: AI-ED 2015 Workshop on “Les Contes du Mariage: Should AI Stay Married to Ed?”, Madrid, Spain, pp. 21–27, June 2015Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shute, V.J.: Focus on formative feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 78(1), 153–189 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ramapo College of New JerseyMahwahUSA

Personalised recommendations