TY - JOUR
T1 - Learning from human tutoring
AU - Chi, Michelene T.H.
AU - Siler, Stephanie A.
AU - Jeong, Heisawn
AU - Yamauchi, Takashi
AU - Hausmann, Robert G.
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding for this research is provided by the Spencer Foundation to the first author, and in part by the National Science Foundation, Grant Number NSF (LIS): 9720359, to the Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Constructive Learning Environment (CIRCLE, http://www.pitt.edu/∼circle). The authors appreciate the thoughtful comments from John Anderson, James Paul Gee, Art Graesser, Jim Greeno, and Kurt VanLehn. Copies for this paper may be requested from Micki Chi, or downloaded from the WEB: www.pitt.edu/∼Chi.
PY - 2001
Y1 - 2001
N2 - Human one-to-one tutoring has been shown to be a very effective form of instruction. Three contrasting hypotheses, a tutor-centered one, a student-centered one, and an interactive one could all potentially explain the effectiveness of tutoring. To test these hypotheses, analyses focused not only on the effectiveness of the tutors' moves, but also on the effectiveness of the students' construction on learning, as well as their interaction. The interaction hypothesis is further tested in the second study by manipulating the kind of tutoring tactics tutors were permitted to use. In order to promote a more interactive style of dialogue, rather than a didactic style, tutors were suppressed from giving explanations and feedback. Instead, tutors were encouraged to prompt the students. Surprisingly, students learned just as effectively even when tutors were suppressed from giving explanations and feedback. Their learning in the interactive style of tutoring is attributed to construction from deeper and a greater amount of scaffolding episodes, as well as their greater effort to take control of their own learning by reading more. What they learned from reading was limited, however, by their reading abilities.
AB - Human one-to-one tutoring has been shown to be a very effective form of instruction. Three contrasting hypotheses, a tutor-centered one, a student-centered one, and an interactive one could all potentially explain the effectiveness of tutoring. To test these hypotheses, analyses focused not only on the effectiveness of the tutors' moves, but also on the effectiveness of the students' construction on learning, as well as their interaction. The interaction hypothesis is further tested in the second study by manipulating the kind of tutoring tactics tutors were permitted to use. In order to promote a more interactive style of dialogue, rather than a didactic style, tutors were suppressed from giving explanations and feedback. Instead, tutors were encouraged to prompt the students. Surprisingly, students learned just as effectively even when tutors were suppressed from giving explanations and feedback. Their learning in the interactive style of tutoring is attributed to construction from deeper and a greater amount of scaffolding episodes, as well as their greater effort to take control of their own learning by reading more. What they learned from reading was limited, however, by their reading abilities.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035740268&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035740268&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S0364-0213(01)00044-1
DO - 10.1016/S0364-0213(01)00044-1
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:0035740268
VL - 25
SP - 471
EP - 533
JO - Cognitive Science
JF - Cognitive Science
SN - 0364-0213
IS - 4
ER -