Research and Papers

My two main lines of research focus on instructional design for online learning and mixing face-to-face and online instructional experiences.

All of my papers that I am legally allowed to share can be found here.

I recently published a book chapter on feedback via educational technology in the book “Educational Technologies: Challenges, Applications, and Learning Outcomes.” Download a copy

To access my white papers about educational research and flipped courses, click here.


Mixed Instructional eXperiences (MIX) Taxonomy for Classifying Hybrid, Blended, Flipped, and Inverted Courses

MIX

While working on a guide to help faculty develop flipped classrooms (i.e., classes in which the students learning course content outside of class and practice applying that content during class) for the Center for 21st Century Universities (C21U), I realized that how people define flipped (and hybrid, blended, and inverted) classrooms was inconsistent. This inconsistency made it difficult to understand the state of the research in this field.

To address this inconsistency, I developed a taxonomy to define these terms. Then I used the taxonomy to reclassify studies in the current literature. After reclassifying the studies, I was able to identify trends in the results that align with learning theories and results from other fields (e.g., computer and human tutoring systems). These findings validated the taxonomy and identified the benefits of flipped, hybrid, and blended courses.

I’ve presented this taxonomy at the GVU Brown Bag series, HICE 2014, CSCL 2015, and the C21U Seminar Series (click here for recording).

Margulieux, L. E., McCracken, W. M., & Catrambone, R. (2016). Mixing face-to-face and online learning: Instructional methods that affect learning. Educational Research Review. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2016.07.001


 

Self-Explaining Worked Examples by Creating Subgoal Labels

Constructive Instruction Example

Students solve novel problems better when they understand the subgoals, i.e., functional pieces, of the problem solving procedure. The common method of teaching subgoals is to provide subgoal labels, which is a passive method of learning. This project explores active and constructive methods of learning subgoals to improve subgoal learning and, thus, problem solving performance.

I found that when learners self-explained the purpose of subgoals to themselves, i.e., constructive learning, they performed better than learners who passively or actively learned subgoals, sometimes. This effect occurred only when students received hints about the subgoals of the procedure OR received feedback on the explanations that they made. Learners who received both hints and feedback did not perform better than others.

Margulieux, L. E., & Catrambone, R. (2016). Using subgoal learning and self-explanation to improve programming education. In A. Papafragou, D. Grodner, D. Mirman, & J.C. Trueswell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2009-2014). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. Download a copy


Subgoal Labels iInstructional Text and Worked Examples in STEM Education

Text and Example Model_altThough subgoal labels have been effectively used in worked examples to improve problem solving in science, technology, and mathematics domains, the efficacy of subgoal labels in procedural text had not been explored.
I explored the effect of subgoal labels in these different instructional materials on problem solving performance in computer programming.  I found that subgoal labels in procedural text have a different beneficial effect than subgoal labels in worked examples. To follow-up this research, I applied the same manipulation to teaching statistics and  chemistry and have plans to do the same for chemical engineering.

Margulieux, L. E., & Catrambone, R. (2016). Improving problem solving with subgoal labels in procedural instructions and worked examples. Learning and Instruction, 42, 58-71. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.12.002


Subgoal Labeled Worked Examples in Computer Science Education

Music Maker AppWith funding from Georgia Tech’s GVU Center and IPaT, Richard Catrambone, Mark Guzdial, and I developed instructional materials to teach undergraduates to make apps for Android devices using Android App Inventor. After we found the subgoal label manipulation to be successful, we developed a 4-week program to teach the same to K-12 teachers who were interested in becoming certified to teach computer science.

Margulieux, L. E., Catrambone, R., & Guzdial, M. (2016). Employing subgoals in computer programming education. Computer Science Education, 26(1), 44-67. doi: 10.1080/08993408.2016.1144429

Margulieux, L. E., Guzdial, M., & Catrambone, R. (2012). Subgoal-labeled instructional material improves performance and transfer in learning to develop mobile applications. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 71-78). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.