Beyond Repetition: The Role of Varied Questioning and Feedback in Knowledge Generalization
Authors: Gautam Yadav, 
Paulo F. Carvalho, Elizabeth A. McLaughlin, 
Kenneth R. KoedingerAuthors Info & Claims
Paulo F. Carvalho, Elizabeth A. McLaughlin, Kenneth R. KoedingerAuthors Info & ClaimsPages 451 - 455
Abstract
This study examines the effects of question type and feedback on learning outcomes in a hybrid graduate-level course. By analyzing data from 32 students over 30,198 interactions, we assess the efficacy of unique versus repeated questions and the impact of feedback on student learning. The findings reveal students demonstrate significantly better knowledge generalization when encountering unique questions compared to repeated ones, even though they perform better with repeated opportunities. Moreover, we find that the timing of explanatory feedback is a more robust predictor of learning outcomes than the practice opportunities themselves. These insights suggest that educational practices and technological platforms should prioritize a variety of questions to enhance the learning process. The study also highlights the critical role of feedback; opportunities preceding feedback are less effective in enhancing learning.
References
[1]
Olle Bälter, Dawn Zimmaro, and Candace Thille. 2018. Estimating the minimum number of opportunities needed for all students to achieve predicted mastery. Smart Learning Environments 5, 1 (2018), 15.
[2]
Emmanuel Bonney, Lemke Dorothee Jelsma, GillianDFerguson, and BouwienCM Smits-Engelsman. 2017. Learning better by repetition or variation? Is transfer at odds with task specific training? PLoS One 12, 3 (2017), e0174214.
[3]
Sandra L Clifton and Cheryl L Schriner. 2010. Assessing the quality of multiplechoice test items. Nurse educator 35, 1 (2010), 12--16.
[4]
DATASHOP TEAM. 2016. Learning Curve. https://pslcdatashop.web.cmu.edu/ help?page=learningCurve Accessed: April 15, 2024.
[5]
David DiBattista and Laura Kurzawa. 2011. Examination of the quality of multiplechoice items on classroom tests. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 2, 2 (2011), 4.
[6]
Tomá? Effenberger, Radek Pelánek, and Jaroslav ?echák. 2020. Exploration of the robustness and generalizability of the additive factors model. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge. 472--479.
[7]
Emily R Fyfe, Joshua R de Leeuw, Paulo F Carvalho, Robert L Goldstone, Janelle Sherman, David Admiraal, Laura K Alford, Alison Bonner, Chad E Brassil, Christopher A Brooks, et al. 2021. ManyClasses 1: Assessing the generalizable effect of immediate feedback versus delayed feedback across many college classes. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 4, 3 (2021), 25152459211027575.
[8]
Xinying Hou, Paulo F Carvalho, and Kenneth R Koedinger. 2021. Drinking our own champagne: Analyzing the impact of learning-by-doing resources in an e-learning course. In Companion Proceedings of the 11thInternational Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge LAK20.
[9]
Kenneth R Koedinger, Paulo F Carvalho, Ran Liu, and Elizabeth A McLaughlin. 2023. An astonishing regularity in student learning rate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, 13 (2023), e2221311120.
[10]
Kenneth R Koedinger, Jihee Kim, Julianna Zhuxin Jia, Elizabeth A McLaughlin, and Norman L Bier. 2015. Learning is not a spectator sport: Doing is better than watching for learning from a MOOC. In Proceedings of the second (2015) ACM conference on learning@ scale. 111--120.
[11]
Marsha Lovett, Oded Meyer, and Candace Thille. 2008. JIME-The open learning initiative: Measuring the effectiveness of the OLI statistics course in accelerating student learning. Journal of Interactive Media in Education 2008, 1 (2008), 13--13.
[12]
Robert C Mathews and Endel Tulving. 1973. Effects of three types of repetition on cued and noncued recall of words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12, 6 (1973), 707--721.
[13]
Neil W Mulligan and Daniel J Peterson. 2013. The negative repetition effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 39, 5 (2013), 1403.
[14]
Kelly Rivers, Erik Harpstead, and Kenneth R Koedinger. 2016. Learning curve analysis for programming: Which concepts do students struggle with?. In ICER, Vol. 16. ACM, 143--151.
[15]
Nicholas C Soderstrom and Robert A Bjork. 2015. Learning versus performance: An integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science 10, 2 (2015), 176--199.
[16]
John Stamper, Kenneth Koedinger, and Elizabeth Mclaughlin. 2013. A comparison of model selection metrics in datashop. In Educational Data Mining 2013.
[17]
Masahiro Takimoto. 2012. Assessing the effects of identical task repetition and task-type repetition on learners' recognition and production of second language request downgraders. Intercultural Pragmatics 9, 1 (2012), 71--96.
Index Terms
- Beyond Repetition: The Role of Varied Questioning and Feedback in Knowledge Generalization
Recommendations
Evaluation of four digital tools and their perceived impact on active learning, repetition and feedback in a large university class
AbstractLarge university classes often face challenges in enhancing active learning, repetition and feedback in the classroom which are essential for promoting student learning. In this study, we evaluated the implementation of digital tools (...
Highlights- Evaluation of digital tools' impact on active learning, feedback, and repetition.
Improving Learning Outcomes for Higher Education Through Smart Technology
The ever-decreasing time between the doubling of knowledge creates a problem for education concerning how to handle information overload. To address this issue, educators must learn to make learning more effective and more efficient. Currently, there is ...
Examining the Factors that Influence how Instructors Provide Feedback in Online Learning Environments
Feedback is considered to be the bridge between what has been learned and what the student should know. Feedback can correct misconceptions, motivate learners, stimulate deep thinking, and guide future behavior. However, in the online environment ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
July 2024
582 pages
ISBN:9798400706332
DOI:10.1145/3657604
- General Chair:
- David Joyner,
- Program Chairs:
- Min Kyu Kim,
- Xu Wang,
- Meng Xia
Copyright © 2024 Owner/Author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 15 July 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Short-paper
Conference
L@S '24
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 117 of 440 submissions, 27%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 59Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)59
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)30
Reflects downloads up to 16 Oct 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in