A question before the hint

One question investigated

When a learner gets the answer wrong, what evidence does a tutor need before choosing its next move? The counterfactual benchmark isolates one part of this problem: the structure of the reasoning the learner demonstrates.

One research artifact

The interactive schematic on the project page holds the task, prompt, code, and observed error constant. Selecting a reasoning condition changes the illustrative explanation. It does not generate a tutor response; that distinction is the point of the design.

One paper worth reading

Chi and Wylie’s ICAP framework is background reading for the distinction between merely encountering information and engaging with it. Its account of overt activities gives this research a useful neighboring vocabulary without substituting for a tutor evaluation.

One idea to reconsider

Avoiding a solution is not enough. A tutor can withhold the repair and remain insensitive to the learner’s explanation. The solution-leakage note is where that distinction is being developed.

What comes next

Make the reasoning contrasts explicit, separate structure from correctness, and define what response differences would count as meaningful. This is an illustrative issue for the site foundation; it has not been sent as an email newsletter.

References & reading

1. Chi & Wylie (2014). The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes. Educational Psychologist. ↗