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.
more »
« less
How Common are Common Wrong Answers? Crowdsourcing Remediation at Scale.
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 misconcep-
tions 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 aca-
demic 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 ef-
fectiveness of CWAFs in two scenarios: next-problem-correctness
within-skill and next-problem-correctness within-assignment, re-
gardless of the skill. We find that receiving CWAF leads to a signifi-
cant 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 Com-
mon Wrong Answers (CWAs) and how the use of crowdsourced
CWAFs can enhance student learning through remediation.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10417271
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Learning@Scale 2023
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
The process of synthesizing solutions for mathematical problems is cognitively complex. Students formulate and implement strate- gies to solve mathematical problems, develop solutions, and make connections between their learned concepts as they apply their reasoning skills to solve such problems. The gaps in student knowl- edge or shallowly-learned concepts may cause students to guess at answers or otherwise apply the wrong approach, resulting in errors in their solutions. Despite the complexity of the synthesis process in mathematics learning, teachers’ knowledge and ability to anticipate areas of potential difficulty is essential and correlated with student learning outcomes. Preemptively identifying the common miscon- ceptions in students that result in subsequent incorrect attempts can be arduous and unreliable, even for experienced teachers. This pa- per aims to help teachers identify the subsequent incorrect attempts that commonly occur when students are working on math problems such that they can address the underlying gaps in knowledge and common misconceptions through feedback. We report on a longi- tudinal analysis of historical data, from a computer-based learning platform, exploring the incorrect answers in the prior school years (’15-’20) that establish the commonality of wrong answers on two Open Educational Resources (OER) curricula–Illustrative Math (IM) and EngageNY (ENY) for grades 6, 7, and 8. We observe that incor- rect answers are pervasive across 5 academic years despite changes in underlying student and teacher population. Building on our find- ings regarding the Common Wrong Answers (CWAs), we report on goals and task analysis that we leveraged in designing and develop- ing a crowdsourcing platform for teachers to write Common Wrong Answer Feedback (CWAF) aimed are remediating the underlying cause of the CWAs. Finally, we report on an in vivo study by analyz- ing the effectiveness of CWAFs using two approaches; first, we use next-problem-correctness as a dependent measure after receiving CWAF in an intent-to-treat second, using next-attempt correctness as a dependent measure after receiving CWAF in a treated analysis. With the rise in popularity and usage of computer-based learning platforms, this paper explores the potential benefits of scalability in identifying CWAs and the subsequent usage of crowd-sourced CWAFs in enhancing the student learning experience through re- mediation.more » « less
-
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.more » « less
-
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.more » « less
-
Errors in AI grading and feedback are by their nature non-deterministic and difficult to completely avoid. Since inaccurate feedback potentially harms learning, there is a need for designs and workflows that mitigate these harms. To better understand the mechanisms by which erroneous AI feedback impacts students’ learning, we conducted surveys and interviews that recorded students’ interactions with a short-answer AI autograder for ``Explain in Plain English'' code reading problems. Using causal modeling, we inferred the learning impacts of wrong answers marked as right (false positives, FPs) and right answers marked as wrong (false negatives, FNs). We further explored explanations for the learning impacts, including errors influencing participants’ engagement with feedback and assessments of their answers’ correctness, and participants’ prior performance in the class. FPs harmed learning in large part due to participants’ failures to detect the errors. This was due to participants not paying attention to the feedback after being marked as right, and an apparent bias against admitting one’s answer was wrong once marked right. On the other hand, FNs harmed learning only for survey participants, suggesting that interviewees’ greater behavioral and cognitive engagement protected them from learning harms. Based on these findings, we propose ways to help learners detect FPs and encourage deeper reflection on FNs to mitigate learning harms of AI errors.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
