Learning experience designers consistently balance the trade-off between open and close-ended activities. The growth and scalability of Computer Based Learning Platforms (CBLPs) have only magnified the importance of these design trade-offs. CBLPs often utilize close-ended activities (i.e. Multiple-Choice Questions [MCQs]) due to feasibility constraints associated with the use of open-ended activities. MCQs offer certain affordances, such as immediate grading and the use of distractors, setting them apart from open-ended activities. Our current study examines the effectiveness of Fill-In problems as an alternative to MCQs for middle school mathematics. We report on a randomized study conducted from 2017 to 2022, with a total of 6,768 students from middle schools across the US. We observe that, on average, Fill-In problems lead to better post-test performance than MCQs; albeit deeper explorations indicate differences between the two design paradigms to be more nuanced. We find evidence that students with higher math knowledge benefit more from Fill-In problems than those with lower math knowledge.

Prior work analyzing tutoring sessions provided evidence that highly effective tutors, through their interaction with students and their experience, can perceptively recognize incorrect processes or “bugs” when students incorrectly answer problems. Researchers have studied these tutoring interactions examining instructional approaches to address incorrect processes and observed that the format of the feedback can influence learning outcomes. In this work, we recognize the incorrect answers caused by these buggy processes as Common Wrong Answers (CWAs). We examine the ability of teachers and instructional designers to identify CWAs proactively. As teachers and instructional designers deeply understand the common approaches and mistakes students make when solving mathematical problems, we examine the feasibility of proactively identifying CWAs and generating Common Wrong Answer Feedback (CWAFs) as a formative feedback intervention for addressing student learning needs. As such, we analyze CWAFs in three sets of analyses. We first report on the accuracy of the CWAs predicted by the teachers and instructional designers on the problems across two activities. We then measure the effectiveness of the CWAFs using an intent-to-treat analysis. Finally, we explore the existence of personalization effects of the CWAFs for the students working on the two mathematics activities.

As evidence grows supporting the importance of non-cognitive factors in learning, computer-assisted learning platforms increasingly incorporate non-academic interventions to influence student learning and learning related-behaviors. Non-cognitive interventions often attempt to influence students’ mindset, motivation, or metacognitive reflection to impact learning behaviors and outcomes. In the current paper, we analyze data from five experiments, involving seven treatment conditions embedded in mastery-based learning activities hosted on a computer-assisted learning platform focused on middle school mathematics. Each treatment condition embodied a specific non-cognitive theoretical perspective. Over seven school years, 20,472 students participated in the experiments. We estimated the effects of each treatment condition on students’ response time, hint usage, likelihood of mastering knowledge components, learning efficiency, and post-tests performance. Our analyses reveal a mix of both positive and negative treatment effects on student learning behaviors and performance. Few interventions impacted learning as assessed by the post-tests. These findings highlight the difficulty in positively influencing student learning behaviors and outcomes using non-cognitive interventions.

Solving mathematical problems is cognitively complex, involving strategy formulation, solution development, and the application of learned concepts. However, gaps in students' knowledge or weakly grasped concepts can lead to errors. Teachers play a crucial role in predicting and addressing these difficulties, which directly influence learning outcomes. However, preemptively identifying misconceptions leading to errors can be challenging. This study leverages historical data to assist teachers in recognizing common errors and addressing gaps in knowledge through feedback. We present a longitudinal analysis of incorrect answers from the 2015-2020 academic years on two curricula, Illustrative Math and EngageNY, for grades 6, 7, and 8. We find consistent errors across 5 years despite varying student and teacher populations. Based on these Common Wrong Answers (CWAs), we designed a crowdsourcing platform for teachers to provide Common Wrong Answer Feedback (CWAF). This paper reports on an in vivo randomized study testing the effectiveness of CWAFs in two scenarios: next-problem-correctness within-skill and next-problem-correctness within-assignment, regardless of the skill. We find that receiving CWAF leads to a significant increase in correctness for consecutive problems within-skill. However, the effect was not significant for all consecutive problems within-assignment, irrespective of the associated skill. This paper investigates the potential of scalable approaches in identifying Common Wrong Answers (CWAs) and how the use of crowdsourced CWAFs can enhance student learning through remediation.

Advances in education technology are enabling tremendous advances in learning at scale. However, they typically assume resources taken for granted in developed countries, including reliable electricity, high-bandwidth Internet access, fast WiFi, powerful computers, sophisticated sensors, and expert technical support to keep it all working. This paper examines these assumptions in the context of a massive test of learning at scale in a developing country. We examine each assumption, how it was broken, and some workarounds used in a 15-month-long independent controlled evaluation of pre- to posttest learning and social-emotional gains by over 2,000 children in 168 villages in Tanzania. We analyze those gains to characterize who gained how much, using test score data, social-emotional measures, and detailed logs from RoboTutor. We quantify the relative impact of pretest scores, literate aspirations, treatment, and usage on learning gains.