What Makes Problem-Solving Practice Effective? Comparing Paper and AI Tutoring

Autor/inn/en	Borchers, Conrad; Carvalho, Paulo F.; Xia, Meng; Liu, Pinyang; Koedinger, Kenneth R.; Aleven, Vincent
Titel	What Makes Problem-Solving Practice Effective? Comparing Paper and AI Tutoring
Quelle	(2023), (17 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Borchers, Conrad) ORCID (Carvalho, Paulo F.) ORCID (Xia, Meng) ORCID (Liu, Pinyang) ORCID (Koedinger, Kenneth R.) ORCID (Aleven, Vincent) Weitere Informationen
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Problem Solving; Intelligent Tutoring Systems; Mathematics Education; Learning Processes; Middle School Students; Graphs; Mathematics Achievement; Error Patterns; Accuracy; Achievement Gains; Instructional Effectiveness + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Problemlösen; Intelligentes Tutorsystem; Mathematische Bildung; Learning process; Lernprozess; Middle school; Middle schools; Student; Students; Mittelschule; Mittelstufenschule; Schüler; Schülerin; Grafische Darstellung; Mathmatics sikills; Mathmatics achievement; Mathematical ability; Mathematische Kompetenz; Fehlertyp; Achievement gain; Leistungssteigerung; Unterrichtserfolg
Abstract	In numerous studies, intelligent tutoring systems (ITSs) have proven effective in helping students learn mathematics. Prior work posits that their effectiveness derives from efficiently providing eventually-correct practice opportunities. Yet, there is little empirical evidence on how learning processes with ITSs compare to other forms of instruction. The current study compares problem-solving with an ITS versus solving the same problems on paper. We analyze the learning process and pre-post gain data from N = 97 middle school students practicing linear graphs in three curricular units. We find that (i) working with the ITS, students had more than twice the number of eventually-correct practice opportunities than when working on paper and (ii) omission errors on paper were associated with lower learning gains. Yet, contrary to our hypothesis, tutor practice did not yield greater learning gains, with tutor and paper comparing differently across curricular units. These findings align with tutoring allowing students to grapple with challenging steps through tutor assistance but not with eventually-correct opportunities driving learning gains. Gaming-the-system, lack of transfer to an unfamiliar test format, potentially ineffective tutor design, and learning affordances of paper can help explain this gap. This study provides first-of-its-kind quantitative evidence that ITSs yield more learning "opportunities" than equivalent paper-and-pencil practice and reveals that the relation between opportunities and learning gains emerges only when the instruction is effective. (As Provided).
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01