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.

Tutoring is among the most impactful educational influences on student achievement, with perhaps the greatest promise of combating student learning loss. Due to its high impact, organizations are rapidly developing tutoring programs and discovering a common problem- a shortage of qualified, experienced tutors. This mixed methods investigation focuses on the impact of short (∼15 min.), online lessons in which tutors participate in situational judgment tests based on everyday tutoring scenarios. We developed three lessons on strategies for supporting student self-efficacy and motivation and tested them with 80 tutors from a national, online tutoring organization. Using a mixed-effects logistic regression model, we found a statistically significant learning effect indicating tutors performed about 20% higher post-instruction than pre-instruction (β = 0.811, p < 0.01). Tutors scored ∼30% better on selected compared to constructed responses at posttest with evidence that tutors are learning from selected-response questions alone. Learning analytics and qualitative feedback suggest future design modifications for larger scale deployment, such as creating more authentically challenging selected-response options, capturing common misconceptions using learnersourced data, and varying modalities of scenario delivery with the aim of maintaining learning gains while reducing time and effort for tutor participants and trainers.

Gaming the system, a behavior in which learners exploit a system's properties to make progress while avoiding learning, has frequently been shown to be associated with lower learning. However, when we applied a previously validated gaming detector across conditions in experiments with an algebra tutor, the detected gaming was not associated with reduced learning, challenging its validity in our study context. Our exploratory data analysis suggested that varying contextual factors across and within conditions contributed to this lack of association. We present a new approach, latent variable-based gaming detection (LV-GD), that controls for contextual factors and more robustly estimates student-level latent gaming tendencies. In LV-GD, a student is estimated as having a high gaming tendency if the student is detected to game more than the expected level of the population given the context. LV-GD applies a statistical model on top of an existing action-level gaming detector developed based on a typical human labeling process, without additional labeling effort. Across three datasets, we find that LV-GD consistently outperformed the original detector in validity measured by association between gaming and learning as well as reliability. LV-GD also afforded high practical utility: it more accurately revealed intervention effects on gaming, revealed a correlation between gaming and perceived competence in math and helped understand productive detected gaming behaviors. Our approach is not only useful for others wanting a cost-effective way to adapt a gaming detector to their context but is also generally applicable in creating robust behavioral measures.

Analytics of student learning data are increasingly important for continuous redesign and improvement of tutoring systems and courses. There is still a lack of general guidance on converting analytics into better system design, and on combining multiple methods to maximally improve a tutor. We present a multi-method approach to data-driven redesign of tutoring systems and its empirical evaluation. Our approach systematically combines existing and new learning analytics and instructional design methods. In particular, our methods involve identifying difficult skills and creating focused tasks for learning these difficult skills effectively following content redesign strategies derived from analytics. In our past work, we applied this approach to redesigning an algebraic modeling unit and found initial evidence of its effectiveness. In the current work, we extended this approach and applied it to redesigning two other tutor units in addition to a second iteration of redesigning the previously redesigned unit. We conducted a one-month classroom experiment with 129 high school students. Compared to the original tutor, the redesigned tutor led to significantly higher learning outcomes, with time mainly allocated to focused tasks rather than original full tasks. Moreover, it reduced over- and under-practice, yielded a more effective practice experience, and selected skills progressing from easier to harder to a greater degree. Our work provides empirical evidence of the effectiveness and generality of a multi-method approach to data-driven instructional redesign.

The "doer effect" is an association between the number of online interactive practice activities students' do and their learning outcomes that is not only statistically reliable but has much higher positive effects than other learning resources, such as watching videos or reading text. Such an association suggests a causal interpretation--more doing yields better learning--which requires randomized experimentation to most rigorously confirm. But such experiments are expensive, and any single experiment in a particular course context does not provide rigorous evidence that the causal link will generalize to other course content. We suggest that analytics of increasingly available online learning data sets can complement experimental efforts by facilitating more widespread evaluation of the generalizability of claims about what learning methods produce better student learning outcomes. We illustrate with analytics that narrow in on a causal interpretation of the doer effect by showing that doing within a course unit predicts learning of that unit content more than doing in units before or after. We also provide generalizability evidence across four different courses involving over 12,500 students that the learning effect of doing is about six times greater than that of reading.

The printing press long ago and the computer today have made widespread access to information possible. Learning theorists have suggested, however, that mere information is a poor way to learn. Instead, more effective learning comes through doing. While the most popularized element of today's MOOCs are the video lectures, many MOOCs also include interactive activities that can afford learning by doing. This paper explores the learning benefits of the use of informational assets (e.g., videos and text) in MOOCs, versus the learning by doing opportunities that interactive activities provide. We find that students doing more activities learn more than students watching more videos or reading more pages. We estimate the learning benefit from extra doing (1 SD increase) to be more than six times that of extra watching or reading. Our data, from a psychology MOOC, is correlational in character, however we employ causal inference mechanisms to lend support for the claim that the associations we find are causal.