Proactive tutoring produced larger relative MAP growth than reactive tutoring on average (75% marginally significant in the IK bandwidth)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · 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.
q2 i? Within the IK bandwidth, proactive tutoring produced larger relative MAP growth than reactive tutoring (0.75, p = .065), with proactive students achieving 2.18x expected growth versus 1.70x for reactive students. → Ashish Gurung 2026
Evidence¶
Ashish Gurung 2026¶
Ashish Gurung, Ge Gao, Jordan Gutterman, Danielle R. Thomas, Shivang Gupta, Lee Branstetter, Emma Brunskill, Vincent Aleven, Kenneth R. Koedinger. (2026). Improving Hybrid Human-AI Tutoring by Differentiating Human Tutor Roles Based on Student Needs. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.11155 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.11155
q2 · i? · causal · r2
DiD comparison of proactive versus reactive tutoring on relative MAP growth (Table 4), using AI-only tutoring as baseline. The IK-bandwidth interaction coefficient was 0.75 (p = .065, marginally significant); a similar pattern in the full sample was 0.78 (p = .010).
"Within the IK bandwidth sub- sample, proactive tutoring produced larger relative growth than reactive tutoring (0.75, p = .065), with proactive stu- dents achieving 2.18×expected growth compared to 1.70× for reactive students in the spring."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- 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
- Introducing human-AI tutoring improves relative MAP academic growth by 61% over an AI-only baseline within the IK bandwidth — related
- Human-AI tutoring increases IXL time on task by 25% with no significant difference between proactive and reactive groups — related
- Human-AI tutoring is associated with a 36% rise in IXL skill proficiency, but the gap widened in favor of reactively tutored students (difference-in-differences preprint) — reports the opposite
- Proactive tutoring increases learners' use of metacognitive help tools compared with reactive tutoring — related
- Proactive tutoring increases learners' use of lexical help tools compared with reactive tutoring — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
proactive-tutoring-larger-relative-map-growth |
title |
Proactive tutoring produced larger relative MAP growth than reactive tutoring on average (75% marginally significant in the IK bandwidth) |
description |
Proactive tutoring produced larger relative MAP growth than reactive tutoring on average (75% marginally significant in the IK bandwidth) |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
mixed |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-11 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — ashish-gurung-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.