Shall We Explain? Augmenting Learning from Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Peer Collaboration

Abstract

Abstract. Learning outcomes from intelligent tutoring systems (ITSs) tend to be quite strong, usually in the neighborhood of one standard deviation. However, most ITS designers use the learning outcomes from expert human tutoring as the gold standard (i.e., two standard deviations). What can be done, with the current state of the art, to increase learning from an ITS? One method is to modify the learning situation by asking students to use the ITS in pairs. To enhance performance, we drew upon the beneficial effects of structured peer collaboration. The results suggest that the intervention was successful. Pairs of students solved more problems and requested fewer bottom-out hints than individuals. To test the possibility that the effect was due to the best partner in the group directing the problem solving, a nominal groups analysis was conducted. A nominal group is a statistical pairing of the non-interacting individuals' performance. The results from the nominal groups replicated the same pattern of results, but with a reduced magnitude. This suggests that the best member may have contributed to some of the overall success of the pair, but does not completely explain their performance.

Active‐Constructive‐Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities

“…Although self‐explaining may be a powerful constructive activity, it may not be as powerful as jointly explaining with a partner, an interactive activity. There is suggestive evidence that jointly explaining either with an expert (Chi et al., 2008) or with a peer (Hausmann & VanLehn, 2007) is more beneficial to learning than self‐explaining alone. However, self‐explaining, a constructive activity, might be better for learning when compared to an active activity such as selecting an explanation from a menu (Corbett, Wagner, Lesgold, Ulrich, & Stevens, 2006) .…”

How Theory, Research and Instruction Come Together in Active Learning

“…The results consistently show better performance in comparison to active or passive modes alone. Then, Hausmann, van de Sande and VanLehn (2008) compared the constructive mode (self‐explaining individually) with the interactive mode (explaining done with a peer). They found that combining the modes produced better performance on a whole bunch of measures.…”

Collaboration facilitates abstract category learning

“…Some research on collaboration focuses on the benefits of pooling cognitive resources (Kirschner, Paas, & Kirschner, 2009, 2011, since two people have more cognitive resources between them than one person working alone and may also possess complementary knowledge (Johansson, Andersson, & Rönnberg, 2005). Other research suggests that collaboration changes learners' cognitive processes by increasing their use of explanation (Hausmann, Nokes, VanLehn, & van de Sande, 2009;Hausmann, van de Sande, & VanLehn, 2008;Okada & Simon, 1997) and generation of abstract representations (Schwartz, 1995;Shirouzu, Miyake, & Masukawa, 2002). Still other evidence shows that collaboration can improve metacognitive awareness (Larkin, 2006), increase metacognitive behaviors (Whitebread, Bingham, Grau, Pino Pasternak, & Sangster, 2007), and support error monitoring and correction (Brodbeck & Greitemeyer, 2000;Gadgil & Nokes-Malach, 2012;Hall, Dansereau, O'Donnell, & Skaggs, 1989).…”