Studies of diagnosis and remediation with high school algebra students

Abstract

Despite extensive discussion in the literature about the diagnosis and subsequent remediation of students' errors, few studies have compared the effects of different styles of error-based remediation. Swan (1983) found that a conflict approach (pointing out errors made by students and demonstrating their consequences) was more effective than simple reteaching, but Bunderson & Olsen (1983) found no difference between error-specific remediation and reteaching. More studies are needed in order to understand the factors which lead to successful remediation. The three studies discussed in this article compared error-specific or model-based remediation (MBR) with reteaching in algebra. MBR bases its remediation on the model inferred for an individual student before reteaching the correct procedure. Reteaching simply shows students the correct procedure without addressing specific errors. The results show that MBR and reteaching are both more effective than no tutoring; however, MBR is not clearly more effective than reteaching. The results are discussed in terms of stability of errors, their relevance to educational practice and to intelligent tutoring systems (ITS). Although the studies were carried out using human tutors, the results suggest that for the purpose of remediation in the algebra domain, when taught procedurally, “classical” computer-assisted instruction (CAI) would be as effective as an ITS.