Classroom use of Betty's Brain showed a performance dichotomy: one study found 18 of 40 students made very little progress teaching Betty, while 16 taught a correct or nearly correct map.¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? A study of 40 students found 18 made very little progress, 16 taught Betty a correct (or nearly correct) map, and 6 made meaningful progress. → Gautam Biswas 2016 q2 i? Struggling students were unsure how to identify causal relations in text, translate them into the causal modeling language, and use quiz results to monitor map quality. → Gautam Biswas 2016

Evidence¶

Gautam Biswas 2016¶

Gautam Biswas, James R. Segedy, Kritya Bunchongchit. (2016). From Design to Implementation to Practice: a Learning by Teaching System: Betty's Brain. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0057-9

q2 · i? · review · r1

This paper reports, from the study in Kinnebrew et al. 2013, that "18 of the students made very little progress in teaching Betty"; of the remaining 22, 16 taught a correct or nearly correct map and 6 made meaningful progress.

"one study of 40 students (reported in Kinnebrew et al. 2013) found that 18 of the students made very little progress in teaching Betty the correct material."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• More successful Betty's Brain students showed significantly higher science learning gains, more accurate causal map edits, and more contextually focused, less random activities. — related