Kulik and Fletcher (2015) found similar-sized ITS improvements to other meta-analyses, with larger effect sizes when tests were tuned to the tutoring system than when standardised tests were used¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Meta-analytic ITS improvement sizes differed between standardised tests and system-tuned tests. → Benedict du Boulay 2015
Evidence¶
Benedict du Boulay 2015¶
Benedict du Boulay. (2015). Recent Meta-reviews and Meta-analyses of AIED Systems. Int J Artif Intell Educ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0060-1
q2 · i? · review · r1
The letter reports the Kulik and Fletcher (2015) meta-analytic review, which found "similar sized improvements" to other reviews and distinguished studies using standardised tests from those using tests "more specifically tuned to the system providing tuition". No effect sizes are printed in the letter.
"Likewise Kulik and Fletcher ( 2015) found similar sized improvements but distinguished between studies that used standardised tests and those where the tests were more specifically tuned to the system providing tuition"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- ITS evaluation results depend strongly on test type: effects are large on locally developed tests (ES = 0.73) and small on standardized tests (ES = 0.13) — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
- Intelligent tutoring raised test scores by a median of 0.66 standard deviations over conventional instruction across 50 controlled evaluations — related
- ITS groups outperformed conventional-instruction controls in 92% of the 50 evaluations, with gains above 0.25 SD in 78% — 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
- A meta-analysis found that Intelligent Tutoring Systems outperformed, in aggregate, the other modes of instruction they were compared against, though publication bias may partly explain this — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-27 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.