Learner Self-Correction in Solving Two-Step Algebraic Equations Brandy C. Judkins, School of Professional Studies in Education, Johns Hopkins University Baltimore City Teaching Residency, Baltimore City Public School System & Milan Sherman, School of Education, University of Pittsburgh

Research Project Summary Hypothesis: Self-correction of incorrectly solved problems (why they are wrong) combined with procedural practice can lead to robust learning through four processes: 1) Weaken low feature validity knowledge components (know that they are wrong and why they are wrong); 2) Facilitate construction of high-feature validity knowledge components; 3) Strengthen content-specific meta-cognitive awareness as a knowledge component; 4) Refine problem-solving skills in response to increased cognitive headroom (Booth, J., Siegler, R., Koedinger, K., & Rittle-Johnson, B. 2007). PSLC Goal Correlation: One of the goals of the PSLC is to identify gaps in current research and to attempt to fill these gaps with In Vivo experiments that are motivated by a theoretical framework. This body of research leads us to postulate that what leads to robust learning in two, while related, divergent fields of instruction may do so in mathematics, as well. Design in Brief: We propose to make two modifications to the Algebra I Cognitive Tutor in order integrate self-correction of incorrectly solved problems: 1.Addition of an error tracer to the problem solver interface 2.Addition of a scaled down feedback interface which informs student that a student has made an error, and asks the student to identify, explain, and correct the mistake

Researchers’ Thought Process: Day 1, Round 1 Milan Sherman: Masterful Math Teacher Brandy Judkins: Extraordinary English Teacher How Could We Combine Our Divergent Interests? Eureka! Algebra Could be Equivalent to an L2

Researchers’ Thought Process: Day 2, Round 1 Graduate: Assessment -Identification (“You do”) -Correction (“You do”) Problem: Feedback at Problem Level -Identification (“We do”) -Correction (“You do”) Step: Feedback at Step Level -Identification (“We do”) -Correction (“We do”) Instruction: Explicit Instruction -Identification (“I do”) -Correction (“I do”) Graduate: Assessment -Identification (‘You do”) -Correction (“You do”) Step: Feedback at Step Level -Identification (“We do”) -Correction (“We do”) Instruction: Explicit Instruction -Identification (“I do”) -Correction (“I do”) Control Condition Experimental Condition Experimental Design

The End