Next-Step hints outperform Waypoint hints during training on time, steps, accuracy, and score¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? During training, the NS group significantly outperformed the WP group with fewer steps, less time, better accuracy and overall score. → Christa Cody 2021

Evidence¶

Christa Cody 2021¶

Christa Cody, Mehak Maniktala, Nicholas Lytle, Min Chi, Tiffany Barnes. (2021). The Impact of Looking Further Ahead: A Comparison of Two Data-driven Unsolicited Hint Types on Performance in an Intelligent Data-driven Logic Tutor. https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.05741

q3 · i? · causal · r2

ANCOVA controlling for pretest across 114 students found significant training differences favoring Next-Step hints; "The WP group, on average, took 20 minutes longer, took 36 more steps, and had 5% lower accuracy on the training problems."

"During training, the NS group significantly outperformed the WP group with fewer steps, less time, better accuracy and overall score (Total Time F (2, 111) = 17 .33, p<0.01, Total Steps F (2, 111) = 3 .73, p = 0 .02, Accuracy F (2, 111) = 3 .93, p = 0 .01)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Next-Step hints outperform Waypoint hints on posttest total steps and accuracy — related
• Waypoint-High group struggled during training but no posttest differences between high-proficiency groups — related
• Waypoint hints show lower justification and adoption rates than Next-Step hints — related
• No aptitude-treatment interaction: prior proficiency did not interact with hint type — related
• Higher totals of successfully used Waypoints correlate with posttest efficiency and time improvements — related