Supporting skill integration in an intelligent tutoring system for code tracing
Abstract
Background: Skill integration is vital in students' mastery development and is especially prominent in developing code tracing skills which are foundational to programming, an increasingly important area in the current STEM education. However, instructional design to support skill integration in learning technologies has been limited. Objectives: The current work presents the development and empirical evaluation of instructional design targeting students' difficulties in code tracing particularly in integrating component skills in the Trace Table Tutor (T3), an intelligent tutoring system. Methods: Beyond the instructional features of active learning, step‐level support, and individualized problem selection of intelligent tutoring systems (ITS), the instructional design of T3 (e.g., hints, problem types, problem selection) was optimized to target skill integration based on a domain model where integrative skills were represented as combinations of component skills. We conducted an experimental study in a university‐level introductory Python programming course and obtained three findings. Results and Conclusions: First, the instructional features of the ITS technology support effective learning of code tracing, as evidenced by significant learning gains (medium‐to‐large effect sizes). Second, performance data supports the existence of integrative skills beyond component skills. Third, an instructional design focused on integrative skills yields learning benefits beyond a design without such focus, such as improving performance efficiency (medium‐to‐large effect sizes). Major Takeaways: Our work demonstrates the value of designing for skill integration in learning technologies and the effectiveness of the ITS technology for computing education, as well as provides general implications for designing learning technologies to foster robust learning.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Ericsson, K. A. (2006) · The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816796.038 · Cited by 1,629 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…acquisition where training is focused on specifically designed tasks with feedback and repetition for improving critical aspects of performance (Ericsson, 2006; Schnackenberg et al., 1998); ITSs can deliver deliberate practice in an optimized form by providing as-needed repetition for each…”
BackgroundResultKoedinger, K. R., Corbett, A. T., & Perfetti, C. (2012) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01245.x · Cited by 772 · see citing works
Self-citationRelationships between reading, tracing and writing skills in introductory programming
Lopez, M., Whalley, J., Robbins, P., & Lister, R. (2008) · Proceedings of the Fourth international Workshop on Computing Education Research · doi:10.1145/1404520.1404531 · Cited by 363 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Huang, Y., Brusilovsky, P., Guerra, J., Koedinger, K., & Schunn, C.
- Venue
- Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2022-11-28
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 477-500
- ISSN
- 0266-4909
- 1365-2729
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 3
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review