In a head-to-head comparison, xPST and CTAT both let non-programmers create high-caliber tutors, with no significant time differences by the third problem¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causalr1·q2
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.
q2 i? No quality differences were observed between tutors by programmers and non-programmers; all but 2 tutors (one per tool, both by non-programmers) were judged highest caliber. → Stephen B. Gilbert 2015
q2 i? CTAT authors were faster initially, but by the third problem there were no significant time differences, with nearly all participants at no more than 25 min per problem regardless of tool. → Stephen B. Gilbert 2015 (2)
Evidence¶
Stephen B. Gilbert 2015¶
Stephen B. Gilbert, Stephen B. Blessing, Enruo Guo. (2015). Authoring Effective Embedded Tutors: An Overview of the Extensible Problem Specific Tutor (xPST) System. Int J Artif Intell Educ 25:428–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0045-0
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Comparison study with sixteen participants classified as programmers or non-programmers, each building three tutors in statistics and geometry with either xPST or CTAT. The quote reports no quality differences by programming background.
"no differences were observed between the tutors produced by the programmer and non-programmers, with all but 2 tutors (one xPST tutor and one CTA T tutor, both done by non-programmers) being judged at the highest caliber."
Stephen B. Gilbert 2015 (2)¶
Stephen B. Gilbert, Stephen B. Blessing, Enruo Guo. (2015). Authoring Effective Embedded Tutors: An Overview of the Extensible Problem Specific Tutor (xPST) System. Int J Artif Intell Educ 25:428–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0045-0
q2 · i? · design · r2
Timing data from the same sixteen-author comparison. The quote reports CTAT's early time advantage disappearing by the third problem.
"the CTA T authors spent less time constructing their tutors in the beginning, but by the third tutor problem there were no significant time differences, with all but one participant spending no more than 25 min per problem, regardless of tool."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Five non-programmers authoring with final Web xPST produced 74 effective statistics tutors in a month, with coding a small share of total authoring time — related
- Ten non-programmer graduate students quickly learned early Web xPST and produced mostly high-quality tutors, with authoring time dropping across successive tasks — related
- Students tutored by an xPST-created web statistics tutor (xSTAT) scored higher on exam transfer problems than untutored students — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
xpst-ctat-comparable-authoring-outcomes |
title |
In a head-to-head comparison, xPST and CTAT both let non-programmers create high-caliber tutors, with no significant time differences by the third problem |
description |
In a head-to-head comparison, xPST and CTAT both let non-programmers create high-caliber tutors, with no significant time differences by the third problem |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2015 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-27 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — stephen-b-gilbert-2015, stephen-b-gilbert-2015-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.