The BWE+BPS group constructed significantly shorter solutions than the other groups in only two posttest problems¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? T2 had significantly fewer steps than C and T1 in posttest problems 7.3 and 7.5, with no differences in most other problems. → Preya Shabrina 2024

Evidence¶

Preya Shabrina 2024¶

Preya Shabrina, Behrooz Mostafavi, Mark Abdelshiheed, Min Chi, Tiffany Barnes. (2024). Investigating the Impact of Backward Strategy Learning in a Logic Tutor: Aiding Subgoal Learning Towards Improved Problem Solving. Int J Artif Intell Educ 34:825–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-023-00338-1

q2 · i? · causal · r?

Step-count analysis across training and posttest problems found “no significant differences” across the three groups in most problems; the shorter-solution pattern appeared only in two posttest problems, which the article notes is problem-dependent.

"However, we observed, in problems 7.3, and 7.5,T2 had significantly fewer steps than C and T1."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Backward worked examples alone did not change student behavior or performance: the BWE-only group behaved like the control group — related
• Students trained with both BWE and BPS derived subgoals during proof construction with significantly higher efficiency than the other groups — related
• Students trained with both backward worked examples and backward problem solving significantly outperformed control and BWE-only students on posttest problem scores — related
• Training-level test problem scores were only marginally associated with training treatment (p=0.0563), with the BWE+BPS group scoring lower early in training — related