Under-engaged readers answered quickly but with lower accuracy, performing worst on word-level lessons¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Under-engaged readers (Cluster 3, 37% of sample) were almost as fast as higher performers but less accurate, and performed worse on word-level lessons than on other levels. → Fang 2021

Evidence¶

Fang 2021¶

Fang, Y., Lippert, A., Cai, Z., Chen, S., Frijters, J. C., Greenberg, D., & Graesser, A. C. (2021). Patterns of Adults with Low Literacy Skills Interacting with an Intelligent Tutoring System. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00266-y

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Mixed-effects model results for Cluster 3 (n = 93). Proportion correct differences between Cluster 1 and Cluster 3 ranged from 0.11 to 0.16 depending on theoretical level (Table 7 pairwise contrasts all significant).

"Theoretical level also affected under-engaged readers, in that they performed worse on the word level lessons compared to textbase, situational model and rhetorical structure level lessons."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Adults with low literacy using AutoTutor fall into four behavioral clusters: higher performers, conscientious readers, under-engaged readers, and struggling readers — a broader claim this one bears on
• Higher performers achieved the highest accuracy across all theoretical levels and the shortest response times on situation model questions — related
• Struggling readers were slow and inaccurate, with the lowest accuracy across all theoretical levels — related