CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 280Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningTeaching and Learning ProgrammingInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Locus of feedback control in computer-based tutoring: impact on learning rate, achievement and attitudes

Corbett, Albert T., Anderson, John R.·2001·Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/365024.365111
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The advent of second-generation intelligent computer tutors raises an important instructional design question: when should tutorial advice be presented in problem solving? This paper examines four feedback conditions in the ACT Programming Tutor. Three versions offer the student different levels of control over error feedback and correction: (a) immediate feedback and immediate error correction; (b) immediate error flagging and student control of error correction; (c) feedback on demand and student control of error correction. A fourth, No-tutor condition offers no stepby-step problem solving support. The immediate feedback group with greatest tutor control of problem solving yielded the most efficient learning. These students completed the tutor problems fastest, and the three tutor-supported groups performed equivalently on tests. Questionnaires revealed little student preference among the four conditions. These results suggest that students will need explicit guidance to benefit from learning opportunities that arise when they have greater control over tutorial assistance.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/365024.365111

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 24 references

2 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Pressey , S.L. ( 1926 ). A simple apparatus which gives tests and scores - and teaches . School and Society , 23 ( 586 ), 373 - 376 . Pressey, S.L. (1926). A simple apparatus which gives tests and scores - and teaches. School and Society, 23 (586), 373-376.
  2. Schooler , L.J. and Anderson , J.R . ( 1990 ). The disruptive potential of immediate feedback . The Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , Cambridge, MA. Schooler, L.J. and Anderson, J.R. (1990). The disruptive potential of immediate feedback. The Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Cambridge, MA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–280 of 280

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
ORCID
Anderson, John R.
Venue
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2001-03
Pages
245-252
DOI
10.1145/365024.365111
OpenAlex
W2105543722
Cited by
280
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 17
FWCI
2.67
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
computer-based tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, feedback control, error feedback, error correction, programming education, student control, immediate feedback, learning efficiency, student preferences

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