Tutor promptings and information items explain only a limited share of variance in help tool use¶

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

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Regression showed promptings and information items accounted for only 5% (R2=0.053) of metacognitive help use but 21% (R2=0.219) of lexical help use. → 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 · i? · causal · r?

Regression analysis for the pro-active HT condition. For metacognitive help the two variables "accounts for only 5% of the global explanation ( R2 of 0.053)"; for lexical help R2=0.219, described as high, with promptings weighted more (Beta=0.413) than information items (Beta=0.164).

"the combination of these two variables accounts for only 5% of the global explanation ( R2 of 0.053) of the use of the metacognitive help."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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
• Proactive tutoring increases learners' use of metacognitive help tools compared with reactive tutoring — related
• Learners heed proactive promptings more systematically when a human tutor is accessible than when it is not — related