Proactive tutoring increases learners' use of metacognitive help tools compared with reactive tutoring¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2006 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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.
q3 i? Learners in the pro-active tutoring condition activated the metacognitive help significantly more than learners in the reactive condition (F=92.33, p=0.000). → Bruno De Lièvre 2006
Evidence¶
Bruno De Lièvre 2006¶
Bruno De Lièvre, Christian Depover & Pierre Dillenbourg. (2006). The relationship between tutoring mode and learners' use of help tools in distance education. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-6076-4
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Analysis of variance in an experimental study of 120 distance learners in four tutoring conditions; the article does not report how learners were assigned to conditions or that assignment was random. Mean activations of metacognitive help were 3.05 (pro-active CT) and 3.42 (pro-active HT) versus 1.55 and 1.71 under reactive tutoring; the ANOVA showed "a significant VVS effect at 0.000 in favour of the pro-active mode."
"The analysis of the variance (Table 5) shows a significant VVS effect at 0.000 in favour of the pro-active mode."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Learners use navigational help less when a human tutor is accessible, contradicting the expected direction — related
- Neither tutoring mode nor human tutor access affects learners' use of conceptual help tools — related
- Proactive tutoring increases learners' use of lexical help tools compared with reactive tutoring — related
- Tutor promptings and information items explain only a limited share of variance in help tool use — related
- At the median cutoff, proactive and reactive tutoring show no significant difference in MAP growth, with proactive benefits increasing for students farther below the cutoff — related
- Learners heed proactive promptings more systematically when a human tutor is accessible than when it is not — related
- Human-AI tutoring increases IXL time on task by 25% with no significant difference between proactive and reactive groups — related
- Proactive tutoring produced larger relative MAP growth than reactive tutoring on average (75% marginally significant in the IK bandwidth) — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
proactive-tutoring-increases-metacognitive-help-use |
title |
Proactive tutoring increases learners' use of metacognitive help tools compared with reactive tutoring |
description |
Proactive tutoring increases learners' use of metacognitive help tools compared with reactive tutoring |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2006 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — bruno-de-lièvre-2006 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.