AutoTutor yields average learning gains of 0.3 to 0.8 sigma compared to reading text for an equivalent amount of time¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Across multiple studies, AutoTutor produced average learning gains between 0.3 sigma and 0.8 sigma relative to reading text for an equivalent amount of time, with substantially higher effect sizes against pre-test and no-study controls. → Graesser 2016

Evidence¶

Graesser 2016¶

Graesser, A. C. (2016). Conversations with AutoTutor Help Students Learn. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0086-4

q3 · i? · review · r2

The article summarizes multiple AutoTutor studies comparing learning to reading text for equivalent time, reporting gains "between 0.3 sigma (Nye et al. 2014) and 0.8 (Graesser et al. 2008)". Effect sizes are described as substantially higher against pre-test and no-study controls.

"reports covering multiple studies have reported average learning gains that vary between 0.3 sigma (Nye et al. 2014) and 0.8 (Graesser et al. 2008) when compared to reading text for an equivalent amount of time"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The review reports that AutoTutor improves learning by nearly one letter grade compared with reading a textbook for an equivalent time or with a pretest — related
• AutoTutor's learning gains are virtually equivalent to those of 1-to-1 human tutoring in direct comparisons — related
• AutoTutor achieved learning gains comparable to human tutors in physics and computer literacy — related
• The talking head contributes little to AutoTutor's learning gains; the content of the conversation matters — related
• AutoTutor cannot handle most student questions, so student question frequency extinguishes quickly in tutoring sessions — related