An intelligent reading tutor used 20 minutes a day offered time efficiencies over conventional human tutoring of 30 or more minutes a day¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In a six-week comparison, the group with the intelligent reading tutor (20 minutes daily) showed time efficiencies over conventional human tutoring (30 or more minutes daily). → MAP Reading Fluency with Coach Evidence Base 2024

Evidence¶

MAP Reading Fluency with Coach Evidence Base 2024¶

MAP Reading Fluency with Coach Evidence Base. (2024). NWEA. https://www.nwea.org/research/publication/map-reading-fluency-with-coach-evidence-base/

q2 · i? · review · r1

The white paper reports, citing Reeder et al. (2015), a six-week study comparing an intelligent reading tutor used 20 minutes a day with human tutoring of "30 minutes or more a day," finding "time efficiencies over conventional human tutoring." No effect size is printed.

"results demonstrated that the group with the intelligent reading tutor offered time efficiencies over conventional human tutoring (Reeder et al., 2015)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Intelligent tutoring systems improve achievement over non-individualised instruction — related
• The survey reports, citing Lee and Brunskill, that individualized BKT in an intelligent tutoring system reduced by about half the questions required for 20% of students to achieve mastery. — related
• AI-tutored students spend less time on task than the 60-minute in-class lesson, with no correlation between time and scores — related