Claims

Students trained with both backward worked examples and backward problem solving significantly outperformed control and BWE-only students on posttest problem scores

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Posttest problem scores were significantly associated with training treatment, with the BWE+BPS group consistently outperforming both other groups. → 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 · r2

Quasi-experimental assignment of 168 completers (59 C, 55 T1, 54 T2) in a discrete mathematics course to Deep Thought treatments; mixed-effect regression on posttest scores gave p=0.02 and “T2 consistently outperformed the other training groups in all problems” with significantly higher scores in 7.3–7.6.

"Subsequently, when we performed a similar mixed-effect regression analysis for the posttest problems, the p-value was 0.02 demonstrating a significant association between training treatment and posttest scores. In the posttest phase [notice the ‘Posttest’ segment in Fig.5], T2 consistently outperformed the other training groups in all problems."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-27
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.