Assistance Dilemma English Articles - Revision history

Ruth-Wylie at 19:08, 17 November 2009

2009-11-17T19:08:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:08, 17 November 2009
Line 14:		Line 14:
	\|-		\|-
	! Start date study 2		! Start date study 2
	\| January ~~2008~~		\| January 2009
	\|-		\|-
	! End date study 2		! End date study 2
	\| May ~~2008~~		\| May 2009
	\|-		\|-
	! Learnlab		! Learnlab

Koedinger: /* Results */

2009-05-19T16:02:50Z

Results

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:02, 19 May 2009
Line 57:		Line 57:

	==== Results ====		==== Results ====
	Students (n=63) in all conditions showed significant pre to posttest improvement~~; however~~, there was no significant ~~differences between conditions~~. ~~Analysis using~~ efficiency ~~scores (~~a measure that combines learning gains and time-on-task into a single construct) ~~revealed a significant~~ aptitude ~~by treatment~~ interaction (~~F(2~~, 60) ~~= 3~~.~~54, p = 0.036)~~		Students (n=63) in all conditions showed significant pre to posttest improvement. While there were no significant main effects of condition, there was a significant aptitude-treatment interaction (F(2, 60) = 3.54, p = 0.036) of theoretical interest. The dependent variable in this analysis was a learning efficiency score, which is a measure that combines learning gains and time-on-task into a single construct, and the article pre-test was the aptitude measure. As shown in the figure below, lower aptitude students benefited more (i.e., learned more in less time) from the self-explanation manipulations whereas higher aptitude students benefited more from the practice-only condition. This interaction is consistent with the theoretical notion that [[self-explanation]] is beneficial primarily during early construction and [[refinement]] of [[knowledge components]] whereas practice alone is better during knowledge [[strength\|strengthening]] and [[fluency]] development. It is also consistent with research on the [[worked example principle]] and particularly the "expertise reversal effect" (Kalyuga, Chandler, Tuovinen, & Sweller, 2001).



	[[Image:Efficiency.jpg]]<br>		[[Image:Efficiency.jpg]]<br>

Ruth-Wylie: /* Research Questions */

2009-05-18T05:21:57Z

Research Questions

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:21, 18 May 2009
Line 34:		Line 34:

	=== Self-Explanation Study 1 ===		=== Self-Explanation Study 1 ===
	~~==== Research Questions ====~~

	==== Hypothesis ====		==== Hypothesis ====
	Since the added process of self-explanation is generative, students in the self-explanation with menu condition will show greater learning gains on both normal and robust learning measures than those in the practice-only condition and free-form self-explanation condition. We hypothesize that the added difficulty of generating explanations in the free-form condition is extraneous and thus will result in less learning than the menu-based self-explanation conditions.		Since the added process of self-explanation is generative, students in the self-explanation with menu condition will show greater learning gains on both normal and robust learning measures than those in the practice-only condition and free-form self-explanation condition. We hypothesize that the added difficulty of generating explanations in the free-form condition is extraneous and thus will result in less learning than the menu-based self-explanation conditions.

Ruth-Wylie at 05:21, 18 May 2009

2009-05-18T05:21:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:21, 18 May 2009
Line 29:		Line 29:
	=== Background ===		=== Background ===

	This work sets out to test, for the first time, whether the ~~instructional principle~~ of ~~prompting for~~ self-explanation ~~extends~~ to second language grammar learning, particularly the English article system (teaching students the difference between when to say “a dog” vs “the dog”). Previous work has demonstrated the effectiveness of self-explanation to enhance robust learning across multiple math and science domains and a variety of learners. Our goal is to better understand how, why, and when self-explanation works by investigating the effects of self-explanation on second language acquisition.		This project focuses on integrated theory development with respect to the Assistance Dilemma (Koedinger and Aleven, 2007), specifically the instructional principle of self-explanation. We explore whether having students self-explain and thereby adding difficulty aids or harms eventual learning outcomes.

			This work sets out to test, for the first time, whether the success of self-explanation extend to second language grammar learning, particularly the English article system (teaching students the difference between when to say “a dog” vs “the dog”). Previous work has demonstrated the effectiveness of self-explanation to enhance robust learning across multiple math and science domains and a variety of learners. Our goal is to better understand how, why, and when self-explanation works by investigating the effects of self-explanation on second language acquisition.

	=== Self-Explanation Study 1 ===		=== Self-Explanation Study 1 ===
Line 54:		Line 56:

	==== Results ====		==== Results ====
	Students in all conditions showed significant pre to posttest improvement; however, there was no significant differences between conditions. Analysis using efficiency scores (a measure that combines learning gains and time-on-task into a single construct) revealed a significant aptitude by treatment interaction (F(2, 60) = 3.54, p = 0.036)		Students (n=63) in all conditions showed significant pre to posttest improvement; however, there was no significant differences between conditions. Analysis using efficiency scores (a measure that combines learning gains and time-on-task into a single construct) revealed a significant aptitude by treatment interaction (F(2, 60) = 3.54, p = 0.036)

	[[Image:Efficiency.jpg]]<br>		[[Image:Efficiency.jpg]]<br>
Line 73:		Line 75:

	====Results====		====Results====
	Results showed that students in both conditions showed significant learning gains (F(1, 99) = 40.28, p < 0.001) but there was no difference between conditions.		Results showed that students (n=101) in both conditions showed significant learning gains (F(1, 99) = 40.28, p < 0.001) but there was no difference between conditions.

	[[Image:Learning_gain.jpg]]		[[Image:Learning_gain.jpg]]

Ruth-Wylie: /* Contributions */

2009-05-18T05:04:25Z

Contributions

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:04, 18 May 2009
Line 78:		Line 78:

	=== Contributions ===		=== Contributions ===
	These studies are the		These studies are the first to experimentally test the effects of self-explanation in second language grammar learning, and the current results suggest that there are limitations to the benefits of self-explanation. This work highlights the need to continue investigating the self-explanation effect in new and different domains. It suggests there may be limitations to its applicability. Additionally, it is important to understand the source of difficulty within a domain and identify how self-explanations may or may not address it. More research is needed to further specify those boundary conditions and relate them to basic understanding of cognitive processes.

	=== References ===		=== References ===

Ruth-Wylie: /* Study 2: Self Explanation Study 2 */

2009-05-18T04:59:39Z

Study 2: Self Explanation Study 2

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:59, 18 May 2009
Line 58:		Line 58:
	[[Image:Efficiency.jpg]]<br>		[[Image:Efficiency.jpg]]<br>

	=== ~~Study 2:~~ Self Explanation Study 2 ===		=== Self Explanation Study 2 ===
	The second study, conducted in Spring 2009 in Levels 3, 4, and 5 of the English LearnLab compared a practice-only tutoring system to a worked examples with self-explanation system. The goal of this study was to further investigate the effects of self-explanation on second language grammar learning. In the self-explanation conditions in the previous study, students were required to select an article <i>and</i> select an explanation. In this study, we isolated the two tasks such that students were either selecting articles (practice-only) <i>or</i> selecting an exlanation (worked examples with self-explanation).		The second study, conducted in Spring 2009 in Levels 3, 4, and 5 of the English LearnLab compared a practice-only tutoring system to a worked examples with self-explanation system. The goal of this study was to further investigate the effects of self-explanation on second language grammar learning. In the self-explanation conditions in the previous study, students were required to select an article <i>and</i> select an explanation. In this study, we isolated the two tasks such that students were either selecting articles (practice-only) <i>or</i> selecting an exlanation (worked examples with self-explanation).

Ruth-Wylie: /* Study 1: Self-Explanation Study 1 */

2009-05-18T04:59:22Z

Study 1: Self-Explanation Study 1

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:59, 18 May 2009
Line 31:		Line 31:
	This work sets out to test, for the first time, whether the instructional principle of prompting for self-explanation extends to second language grammar learning, particularly the English article system (teaching students the difference between when to say “a dog” vs “the dog”). Previous work has demonstrated the effectiveness of self-explanation to enhance robust learning across multiple math and science domains and a variety of learners. Our goal is to better understand how, why, and when self-explanation works by investigating the effects of self-explanation on second language acquisition.		This work sets out to test, for the first time, whether the instructional principle of prompting for self-explanation extends to second language grammar learning, particularly the English article system (teaching students the difference between when to say “a dog” vs “the dog”). Previous work has demonstrated the effectiveness of self-explanation to enhance robust learning across multiple math and science domains and a variety of learners. Our goal is to better understand how, why, and when self-explanation works by investigating the effects of self-explanation on second language acquisition.

	=== ~~Study 1:~~ Self-Explanation Study 1 ===		=== Self-Explanation Study 1 ===
	==== Research Questions ====		==== Research Questions ====
	==== Hypothesis ====		==== Hypothesis ====

Ruth-Wylie: /* Abstract */

2009-05-18T04:59:00Z

Abstract

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:59, 18 May 2009
Line 27:		Line 27:
	Ruth Wylie, Teruko Mitamura, Ken Koedinger, and Jim Rankin		Ruth Wylie, Teruko Mitamura, Ken Koedinger, and Jim Rankin

	=== ~~Abstract~~ ===		=== Background ===

	This work sets out to test, for the first time, whether the instructional principle of prompting for self-explanation extends to second language grammar learning, particularly the English article system (teaching students the difference between when to say “a dog” vs “the dog”). Previous work has demonstrated the effectiveness of self-explanation to enhance robust learning across multiple math and science domains and a variety of learners. Our goal is to better understand how, why, and when self-explanation works by investigating the effects of self-explanation on second language acquisition.		This work sets out to test, for the first time, whether the instructional principle of prompting for self-explanation extends to second language grammar learning, particularly the English article system (teaching students the difference between when to say “a dog” vs “the dog”). Previous work has demonstrated the effectiveness of self-explanation to enhance robust learning across multiple math and science domains and a variety of learners. Our goal is to better understand how, why, and when self-explanation works by investigating the effects of self-explanation on second language acquisition.

Ruth-Wylie: /* Abstract */

2009-05-18T04:58:37Z

Abstract

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:58, 18 May 2009
Line 29:		Line 29:
	=== Abstract ===		=== Abstract ===

	This ~~project focuses on integrated theory development with respect~~ to the ~~Assistance Dilemma (Koedinger and Aleven~~, ~~2007). A key goal is to have a theory that is sufficient to make a priori predictions about what~~ instructional ~~treatments yield the most robust learning.~~		This work sets out to test, for the first time, whether the instructional principle of prompting for self-explanation extends to second language grammar learning, particularly the English article system (teaching students the difference between when to say “a dog” vs “the dog”). Previous work has demonstrated the effectiveness of self-explanation to enhance robust learning across multiple math and science domains and a variety of learners. Our goal is to better understand how, why, and when self-explanation works by investigating the effects of self-explanation on second language acquisition.

	~~The project focuses on exploring general principles~~ of ~~learning along two different dimensions of assistance: 1) task type: a) edit vs. b) selection; and 2)~~ self-explanation~~: a) problems only vs. b) problems with prompts~~ to ~~self-explain. We instantiate these principles within the domain of~~ the English article system ~~and within the English as a Second Language LearnLab. In this domain, standard practice often uses the~~ (~~a) values on~~ the ~~dimensions above (edit of multiple knowledge components with no self-explanation~~) ~~whereas emerging PSLC theory and analysis predict that the (b) values on~~ the ~~dimensions (selection on a subset~~ of ~~knowledge components with~~ self-explanation~~) will lead~~ to ~~greater~~ robust learning ~~outcomes~~. ~~These dimensions are interesting for exploring a priori predictions as~~ to ~~whether adding difficulties (removing assistance) during instruction aids or harms eventual learning outcomes. For the task type dimension~~, ~~our standing theoretical prediction is that the added demand of editing ahurt learning~~, ~~while~~ the ~~added demand~~ of self-explanation ~~(dimension 2b) helps learning~~.


	=== Study 1: Self-Explanation Study 1 ===		=== Study 1: Self-Explanation Study 1 ===

Ruth-Wylie: /* Learning Measures */

2009-05-18T04:58:04Z

Learning Measures

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:58, 18 May 2009
Line 80:		Line 80:
	[[Image:Learning_gain.jpg]]		[[Image:Learning_gain.jpg]]

	=== ~~Learning Measures~~ ===		=== Contributions ===
	~~Both~~ studies ~~will incorporate normal and robust learning measures. Examples of normal learning include: immediate pre and post-test learning gains on tutor-like tasks (e.g. editing tests for students using~~ the edit interface; selection tests for students using the selection interface). Transfer tasks include pre/posttest learning gains on non-tutor tasks (e.g. editing tests for students using the selection tutor; selection tests for students using the edit tutor) as well as leveraging existing data collection efforts by the English LearnLab. For example, error analyses of student writing and recorded speech activities (RSAs) could be done to see how student article use changes. Furthermore, additional writing samples and RSAs can be analyzed in order to address questions surrounding long-term retention.		These studies are the

	In addition to the measures described above, based on feedback from the project presentation, we also plan to include a battery of behavioral surveys to measure how important students view correct grammar and article usage and general motivation.


	=== References ===		=== References ===