Learners heed proactive promptings more systematically when a human tutor is accessible than when it is not¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2006 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 For lexical help, the correlation between promptings and activations was significant with pro-active HT tutoring (r=0.489, p=0.001) but not with pro-active CT tutoring (r=0.012, NS 0.860). → 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

q2 · i3 · causal · r?

Correlational analysis within the pro-active conditions of the experiment comparing prompting–activation relationships. "Learners take notice of the pro-active promptings more systematically when HT tutors are accessible (r=0.489 VVS at 0.001) than when they are not ( r=0.012 NS at 0.860)."

"Learners take notice of the pro-active promptings more systematically when HT tutors are accessible (r=0.489 VVS at 0.001) than when they are not ( r=0.012 NS at 0.860)."

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
• Proactive tutoring increases learners' use of metacognitive help tools compared with reactive tutoring — related