Investigating the Effect of Interface Scaffolding and Example Design on Learning and Performance in a Code-Tracing Tutor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A foundational programming skill is code tracing.It involves simulating how a computer executes programs by tracking variable values and flow of program execution.Learning this skill is challenging and so research is needed to identify effective forms of assistance.This dissertation involves the design and evaluation of a computer tutor, called CT-Tutor.The tutor provided assistance for code tracing through interface scaffolding during code tracing as well as worked examples.The tutor was evaluated in three studies.Study 1 involved four versions of CT-Tutor to evaluate the effect of two levels of instructional scaffolding (high/reduced) and two types of instructional order (example-first/problemfirst).Contrary to my hypothesis, there was no evidence for a learning benefit from high scaffolding.However, the high-scaffolding version improved performance by reducing the number of attempts needed to get an answer correct.Instructional order also influenced performance.The example-first group spent more time per example, less time per problem, and required fewer attempts to produce correct answers.To shed light on student reasoning with CT-Tutor, Study 2 used a think-aloud protocol to analyze students' self-explanations and reading behaviors with the high-and reduced-scaffolding versions of the CT-Tutor; an exit interview was used to obtain data on the tutor's usability.Self-explanation was the main variable of interest, as prior research demonstrated it is beneficial for learning.There was no significant difference in the number of self-explanation between the two scaffolding versions.The exit interviews revealed that the CT-Tutor example design could be improved.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".