A meta-review found intelligent tutoring systems approaching the effectiveness of ordinary human tutors, whose effectiveness is below that of expert tutoring¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · 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? VanLehn's meta-review found that not all hypothesized advantages of human tutoring applied in practice, that ITS were in some respects approaching the effectiveness of ordinary human tutors, and that ordinary tutors were less effective than expert individual tutoring. → Benedict du Boulay & Rosemary Luckin 2015
Evidence¶
Benedict du Boulay & Rosemary Luckin 2015¶
Benedict du Boulay & Rosemary Luckin. (2015). Modelling Human Teaching Tactics and Strategies for Tutoring Systems: 14 Years On. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0053-0
q3 · i? · review · r2
The review reports VanLehn's (2011) meta-review comparing human tutoring and ITS, which enumerated possible reasons for human tutoring superiority (diagnostic assessment, individualized task selection, motivation, feedback) and found ITS "in some respects approaching" ordinary human tutors.
"The paper found that not all of the reasons above applied in practice, that intelligent tutoring systems were now in some respects approaching the effectiveness of Bordinary^ human tutors and that the effectiveness of the latter were rather less than the gold-standard of individual expert tutoring (Bloom 1984)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- VanLehn (2011) found step-based intelligent tutoring systems nearly as effective as average human tutors, and both more effective than no tutoring but less effective than expert human tutors — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
- Meta-analytic evidence indicates intelligent tutoring systems yield positive learning outcomes compared with non-ITS conditions — related
- One-to-one human tutoring lifts an ordinary student well beyond the average classroom with an effect of about d = 0.79 (VanLehn, 2011, as reported) — related
- ITS substitution: meta-analyses find no significant cognitive learning differences between ITS and human tutoring or small-group instruction — related
- Ma et al. (2014) meta-analysis: step-based ITSs outperformed no tutoring and large-group teacher-led instruction, but showed no differences against small-group or one-to-one human tutoring — related
- AutoTutor's learning gains are virtually equivalent to those of 1-to-1 human tutoring in direct comparisons — related
- Non-expert human tutors follow a limited 5-step collaborative reasoning repertoire, with far more student question-asking than classroom instruction — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-27 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.