Non-expert human tutors follow a limited 5-step collaborative reasoning repertoire, with far more student question-asking than classroom instruction¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Analyses of approximately 100 hours of non-expert tutoring found tutors mainly followed a curriculum script and a 5-step collaborative reasoning frame rather than advanced strategies. → Nye 2014 q2 i? Compared to classroom instruction, tutoring students asked many more questions (~26/h vs. 0.1/h) and were asked more questions (104/h vs. 69/h). → Nye 2014 (2)

Evidence¶

Nye 2014¶

Nye, B. D., Graesser, A. C., & Hu, X. (2014). AutoTutor and Family: A Review of 17 Years of Natural Language Tutoring. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-014-0029-5

q2 · i? · review · r2

Review reports corpus analyses of roughly 100 hours of non-expert tutoring (research methods/statistics and algebra) that produced this frame; tutors showed little active student learning, targeted error remediation, or affective adaptation. No effect size printed.

"Collaborative reasoning progressed in a 5-step tutoring frame: (1) Tutor poses a question/problem, (2) Student attempts to answer, (3) Tutor provides brief evaluation as feedback, (4) Collaborative interaction to improve the answer, and (5) Tutor checks if student understands"

Nye 2014 (2)¶

Nye, B. D., Graesser, A. C., & Hu, X. (2014). AutoTutor and Family: A Review of 17 Years of Natural Language Tutoring. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-014-0029-5

q2 · i? · review · r2

Review reports question-rate comparisons from the human tutoring corpus analyses; rates are descriptive per-hour counts with no effect size printed.

"Compared to classroom instruction, students asked many more questions (~26/h vs. 0.1/h) and were asked more questions (104/h vs. 69/h; Graesser and Person 1994)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A meta-review found intelligent tutoring systems approaching the effectiveness of ordinary human tutors, whose effectiveness is below that of expert tutoring — related
• VanLehn (2011) found step-based intelligent tutoring systems nearly as effective as average human tutors, and both more effective than no tutoring but less effective than expert human tutors — related
• Ma et al. (2014) meta-analysis: step-based ITSs outperformed no tutoring and large-group teacher-led instruction, but showed no differences against small-group or one-to-one human tutoring — related
• GURU, a tutor embodying expert-teacher behaviour, produced learning gains similar to small-group human teaching and better than classroom teaching alone — related