Skip to main content
Log in

Example, nudge, or practice? Assessing metacognitive knowledge transfer of factual and procedural learners

  • Published:
User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Factual knowledge and procedural knowledge are knowing ‘That’ and ‘How,’ respectively, whereas conditional knowledge is the metacognitive knowledge of ‘When’ and ‘Why.’ As prior work has found that students with conditional knowledge spontaneously transferred such knowledge across intelligent tutoring systems, this work assesses the impact of metacognitive interventions on the knowledge transfer of factual and procedural students. Specifically, we used a between-subject, pre-/posttest design with factual and procedural students, each randomly assigned to either the example, nudge, practice, or control condition. The interventions taught how and when to use a backward-chaining (BC) strategy on a logic tutor that supports a default forward-chaining strategy. Meanwhile, conditional students received no interventions. Six weeks later, we trained all students on a probability tutor that only supports BC without interventions. Our results suggest that nudges for factual students and practice for their procedural peers are the key factors for catching up with conditional students on both tutors and for facilitating knowledge transfer from the logic to probability tutor. We discuss two potential complementary theories for our findings: a choice-based theory (from interventions to knowledge) and a metacognitive load-based theory (from knowledge to interventions). The choice-based theory maps the amount of choice in the interventions to knowledge types, while the metacognitive load-based theory associates knowledge types with the metacognitive load each intervention offers. Implications for practice are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability statement

Methods of sample selection, data exclusion, and outcome measures are detailed in our manuscript. Data and analysis code are found at https://osf.io/nk2d8/, where we used R version 4.2.2 for analysis. This study was not preregistered.

Notes

  1. Two problems are considered isomorphic if their solutions require the same set of rules or principles.

  2. In our analysis, we convert 0 and 1 into .0001 and .9999 as Beta regression needs a (0,1) range.

  3. {9C2 pairs of groups} X {Logic, Prob} X {Pre, Post} = 144 comparisons.

  4. Beta regression was used due to the (0,1) range of Pre and Post scores.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the NSF Grants: 1660878, 1726550, 2013502, and 1651909.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Abdelshiheed.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors report that there is no conflict of interest to declare.

Ethics approval

Our research ethics committee declared all studies exempt. This research qualifies for exemption due to being of minimal risk.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdelshiheed, M., Moulder, R., Hostetter, J.W. et al. Example, nudge, or practice? Assessing metacognitive knowledge transfer of factual and procedural learners. User Model User-Adap Inter (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-024-09404-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-024-09404-2

Keywords

Navigation