Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31133910›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2019

Taking a Closer Look: An Exploratory Analysis of Successful and Unsuccessful Strategy Use in Complex Problems.

Matthias Stadler, Frank Fischer, Samuel Greiff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Matthias StadlerPsychologie und Pädagogik, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Frank FischerPsychologie und Pädagogik, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Samuel GreiffComputer Based Assessment, University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Influencing students' educational achievements first requires understanding the underlying processes that lead to variation in students' performance. Researchers are therefore increasingly interested in analyzing the differences in behavior displayed in educational assessments rather than merely assessing their outcomes. Such analyses provide valuable information on the differences between successful and unsuccessful students and help to design appropriate interventions. Complex problem-solving (CPS) tasks have proven to provide particularly rich process data as they allow for a multitude of behaviors several of which can lead to a successful performance. So far, this data has often been analyzed on a rather aggregated level looking at an average number of actions or predefined strategies with only a few articles investigating the specific actions performed. In this paper, we report the results of an exploratory analysis of CPS log-files that is aimed at distinguishing between students that applied the correct strategy to a problem but failed to solve it and those applying the strategy successfully. In that, the sequence of behavior displayed is reduced to interpretable parts (n-grams) that allow searching for meaningful differences between the two groups of students. This level of analysis allows finding previously undefined or unknown patterns within the data and increases our understanding of the processes underlying successful problem-solving behavior even further.

Indexed as

educational assessmentlog-filen-gramsproblem-solvingprocess data

Identifiers

PMID31133910
PMCPMC6514184

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.