Exploring the Design and Impact of Interactive Worked Examples for Learners with Varying Prior Knowledge

TL;DR

Behavior analysis showed that Buggy produced more exploration-revision cycles, while Guided led to more help-seeking and fewer errors, which contributes to the design of interventions in logic problem solving for varied levels of learner knowledge.

Abstract

Tutoring systems improve learning through tailored interventions, such as worked examples, but often suffer from the aptitude-treatment interaction effect where low prior knowledge learners benefit more. We applied the ICAP learning theory to design two new types of worked examples, Buggy (students fix bugs), and Guided (students complete missing rules), requiring varying levels of cognitive engagement, and investigated their impact on learning in a controlled experiment with 155 undergraduate students in a logic problem solving tutor. Students in the Buggy and Guided examples groups performed significantly better on the posttest than those receiving passive worked examples. Buggy problems helped high prior knowledge learners whereas Guided problems helped low prior knowledge learners. Behavior analysis showed that Buggy produced more exploration-revision cycles, while Guided led to more help-seeking and fewer errors. This research contributes to the design of interventions in logic problem solving for varied levels of learner knowledge and a novel application of behavior analysis to compare learner interactions with the tutor.

Figures (10)

• Figure 1: The tutor interfaces for four different problem types
• Figure 2: Comparisons of Problem Score Across Conditions during Posttest Problems in Level 7 [Note: Table \ref{['tab:posttest-problems']} in \ref{['app:rq1']} contains the same results for an alternative representation.]
• Figure 3: Comparisons of Mean Problem time for Each Problem Type during Training (Level 2 through Level 6)
• Figure 4: Buggy Example (Buggy)
• Figure 5: Guided Example (Guided)