There have been numerous efforts documenting the effects of open science in existing papers; however, these efforts typically only consider the author's analyses and supplemental materials from the papers. While understanding the current rate of open science adoption is important, it is also vital that we explore the factors that may encourage such adoption. One such factor may be publishing organizations setting open science requirements for submitted articles: encouraging researchers to adopt more rigorous reporting and research practices. For example, within the education technology discipline, the ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S) has been promoting open science practices since 2018 through a Call For Papers statement. The purpose of this study was to replicate previous papers within the proceedings of L@S and compare the degree of open science adoption and robust reproducibility practices to other conferences in education technology without a statement on open science. Specifically, we examined 93 papers and documented the open science practices used. We then attempted to reproduce the results with invitation from authors to bolster the chance of success. Finally, we compared the overall adoption rates to those from other conferences in education technology. Although the overall responses to the survey were low, our cursory review suggests that researchers at L@S might be more familiar with open science practices compared to the researchers who published in the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) and the International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM): 13 of 28 AIED and EDM responses were unfamiliar with preregistrations and 7 unfamiliar with preprints, while only 2 of 7 L@S responses were unfamiliar with preregistrations and 0 with preprints. The overall adoption of open science practices at L@S was much lower with only 1% of papers providing open data, 5% providing open materials, and no papers had a preregistration. All openly accessible work can be found in an Open Science Framework project(1).

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. [This paper was published in: "LAK23: 13th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference Proceedings," March 13-17, 2023.]

Background: Teachers often rely on the use of open-ended questions to assess students' conceptual understanding of assigned content. Particularly in the context of mathematics; teachers use these types of questions to gain insight into the processes and strategies adopted by students in solving mathematical problems beyond what is possible through more close-ended problem types. While these types of problems are valuable to teachers, the variation in student responses to these questions makes it difficult, and time-consuming, to evaluate and provide directed feedback. It is a well-studied concept that feedback, both in terms of a numeric score but more importantly in the form of teacher-authored comments, can help guide students as to how to improve, leading to increased learning. It is for this reason that teachers need better support not only for assessing students' work but also in providing meaningful and directed feedback to students. Objectives: In this paper, we seek to develop, evaluate, and examine machine learning models that support automated open response assessment and feedback. Methods: We build upon the prior research in the automatic assessment of student responses to open-ended problems and introduce a novel approach that leverages student log data combined with machine learning and natural language processing methods. Utilizing sentence-level semantic representations of student responses to open-ended questions, we propose a collaborative filtering-based approach to both predict student scores as well as recommend appropriate feedback messages for teachers to send to their students. Results and Conclusion: We find that our method outperforms previously published benchmarks across three different metrics for the task of predicting student performance. Through an error analysis, we identify several areas where future works may be able to improve upon our approach. © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Immediate feedback has been considered a cornerstone of online language learning platforms. However, a closer reading of relevant research reveals that the definition of the term 'immediate feedback' is inconsistent. Furthermore, findings from the STEM literature have not been well supported by other fields. As a result, clarification is required to assess which type of immediate feedback improves students’ performance in a computer-assisted learning environment. Moreover, research on the effects of immediate feedback outside of STEM classes should provide an enhanced understanding of whether the findings can be generalized. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of immediate feedback timing in online language learning exercises. The following three conditions were examined: no feedback, end-of-question feedback, and end-of-assignment feedback. A planned contrast test revealed that with a pretest as the covariate, students in the end-of-question feedback condition received significantly higher grades in the posttest compared with those in the end-of-assignment feedback condition. Furthermore, students with lower pretest scores required more attempts, although their learning progress was not significantly superior to that of students with higher prior knowledge. This study's findings provide insights into the use of immediate feedback for improving learning as part of foreign language classroom instruction. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)

There is a growing need to empirically evaluate the quality of online instructional interventions at scale. In response, some online learning platforms have begun to implement rapid A/B testing of instructional interventions. In these scenarios, students participate in series of randomized experiments that evaluate problem-level interventions in quick succession, which makes it difficult to discern the effect of any particular intervention on their learning. Therefore, distal measures of learning such as posttests may not provide a clear understanding of which interventions are effective, which can lead to slow adoption of new instructional methods. To help discern the effectiveness of instructional interventions, this work uses data from 26,060 clickstream sequences of students across 31 different online educational experiments exploring 51 different research questions and the students' posttest scores to create and analyze different proximal surrogate measures of learning that can be used at the problem level. Through feature engineering and deep learning approaches, next-problem correctness was determined to be the best surrogate measure. As more data from online educational experiments are collected, model based surrogate measures can be improved, but for now, next-problem correctness is an empirically effective proximal surrogate measure of learning for analyzing rapid problem-level experiments. The data and code used in this work can be found at https://osf.io/uj48v/.

Large language models have recently been able to perform well in a wide variety of circumstances. In this work, we explore the possibility of large language models, specifically GPT-3, to write explanations for middle-school mathematics problems, with the goal of eventually using this process to rapidly generate explanations for the mathematics problems of new curricula as they emerge, shortening the time to integrate new curricula into online learning platforms. To generate explanations, two approaches were taken. The first approach attempted to summarize the salient advice in tutoring chat logs between students and live tutors. The second approach attempted to generate explanations using few-shot learning from explanations written by teachers for similar mathematics problems. After explanations were generated, a survey was used to compare their quality to that of explanations written by teachers. We test our methodology using the GPT-3 language model. Ultimately, the synthetic explanations were unable to outperform teacher written explanations. In the future more powerful large language models may be employed, and GPT-3 may still be effective as a tool to augment teachers’ process for writing explanations, rather than as a tool to replace them. The explanations, survey results, analysis code, and a dataset of tutoring chat logs are all available at https://osf.io/wh5n9/. © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

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.

Studies have shown that on-demand assistance, additional instruction given on a problem per student request, improves student learning in online learning environments. Students may have opinions on whether an assistance was effective at improving student learning. As students are the driving force behind the effectiveness of assistance, there could exist a correlation between students’ perceptions of effectiveness and the computed effectiveness of the assistance. This work conducts a survey asking secondary education students on whether a given assistance is effective in solving a problem in an online learning platform. It then provides a cursory glance at the data to view whether a correlation exists between student perception and the measured effectiveness of an assistance. Over a three year period, approximately twenty-two thousand responses were collected across nearly four thousand, four hundred students. Initial analyses of the survey suggest no significance in the relationship between student perception and computed effectiveness of an assistance, regardless of if the student participated in the survey. All data and analysis conducted can be found on the Open Science Foundation website1 © 2022 Copyright is held by the author(s).

The rapid growth and development of NLP techniques have resulted in Computer-Based Learning Platforms (CBLPs) leveraging innovative approaches toward automated grading and feedback generation of open-ended problems. Researchers have explored these techniques in driving a varying range of interventions that range from assessing the quality of the work and recommending changes to the answers that can enhance the quality of the responses for students to automated grading and feedback generation of responses for teachers. A crucial aspect of the automated assessment of student response is identifying and addressing fairness and equity issues in an educational context, as academic performance can impact the types of opportunities available to the students. While prior works have conducted posthoc analysis exploring aspects of algorithmic fairness of various models, the assessment of open-ended answers is often subjective. Teachers leverage contextual knowledge such as the perception of the student effort or students' prior knowledge. While such factors exist, it is not obvious how data from the teacher can introduce biases or introduce measurable risks to the fairness and equity of the NLP models. In this paper, we build on our prior analysis of the grading behavior of teachers on open-ended math problems for middle school students and explore possible next steps we can take to expand on our work. First, we propose a simulation study to explore the various risks associated with Human-AI interaction in the automated grading of open-ended problems. Second, we propose an extensive study expanding on our work to generate grades for open responses when a student is anonymized vs. not anonymized.

Personalized learning stems from the idea that students benefit from instructional material tailored to their needs. Many online learning platforms purport to implement some form of personalized learning, often through on-demand tutoring or self-paced instruction, but to our knowledge none have a way to automatically explore for specific opportunities to personalize students' education nor a transparent way to identify the effects of personalization on specific groups of students. In this work we present the Automatic Personalized Learning Service (APLS). The APLS uses multi-armed bandit algorithms to recommend the most effective support to each student that requests assistance when completing their online work, and is currently used by ASSISTments, an online learning platform. The first empirical study of the APLS found that Beta-Bernoulli Thompson Sampling, a popular and effective multi-armed bandit algorithm, was only slightly more capable of selecting helpful support than randomly selecting from the relevant support options. Therefore, we also present Decision Tree Thompson Sampling (DTTS), a novel contextual multi-armed bandit algorithm that integrates the transparency and interpretability of decision trees into Thomson sampling. In simulation, DTTS overcame the challenges of recommending support within an online learning platform and was able to increase students' learning by as much as 10% more than the current algorithm used by the APLS. We demonstrate that DTTS is able to identify qualitative interactions that not only help determine the most effective support for students, but that also generalize well to new students, problems, and support content. The APLS using DTTS is now being deployed at scale within ASSISTments and is a promising tool for all educational learning platforms. [This paper was published in: "Proceedings of the Ninth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S '22), June 1-3, 2022, New York City, NY, USA," ACM, 2022.]