Help Tutor metacognitive instruction produced no domain-level geometry learning gains and no lasting help-seeking procedural knowledge¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2008 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Both conditions improved significantly pre- to post-test in geometry, but no differences between conditions were found; no lasting effect on help-seeking procedural knowledge was found either. → Koedinger 2008

Evidence¶

Koedinger 2008¶

Koedinger, K., Aleven, V., Roll, I., & Baker, R. (2008). In vivo experiments on whether supporting metacognition in intelligent tutoring systems yields robust learning. https://learnlab.org/

q3 · i? · review · r2

Null domain-learning result across both Help Tutor classroom experiments. Both conditions improved significantly from pre- to post-test, but "we did not find any differences between the conditions"; equivalence was not tested and no effect size is printed.

"Although students in both conditions improved significantly form pre- to post-test in both studies with respect to their geometry knowledge and skill, we did not find any differences between the conditions."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students' help-seeking error frequencies correlate strongly across different Cognitive Tutor units and cohorts (r = 0.89)
• Static self-explanation prompts in the Geometry Cognitive Tutor produced greater gains on Reason and Not Enough Info test items than problem-solving practice alone — related