The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

453 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article is a review of experiments comparing the effectiveness of human tutoring, computer tutoring, and no tutoring. "No tutoring" refers to instruction that teaches the same content without tutoring. The computer tutoring systems were divided by their granularity of the user interface interaction into answer-based, step-based, and substep-based tutoring systems. Most intelligent tutoring systems have step-based or substep-based granularities of interaction, whereas most other tutoring systems (often called CAI, CBT, or CAL systems) have answer-based user interfaces. It is widely believed as the granularity of tutoring decreases, the effectiveness increases. In particular, when compared to No tutoring, the effect sizes of answer-based tutoring systems, intelligent tutoring systems, and adult human tutors are believed to be d = 0.3, 1.0, and 2.0 respectively. This review did not confirm these beliefs. Instead, it found that the effect size of human tutoring was much lower: d = 0.79. Moreover, the effect size of intelligent tutoring systems was 0.76, so they are nearly as effective as human tutoring.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)197-221
Number of pages25
JournalEducational Psychologist
Volume46
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2011

Fingerprint

Computer Systems

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Developmental and Educational Psychology

Cite this

The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. / VanLehn, Kurt.

In: Educational Psychologist, Vol. 46, No. 4, 2011, p. 197-221.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3bf6355787f84793bc8625e05afaa455,
title = "The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems",
abstract = "This article is a review of experiments comparing the effectiveness of human tutoring, computer tutoring, and no tutoring. {"}No tutoring{"} refers to instruction that teaches the same content without tutoring. The computer tutoring systems were divided by their granularity of the user interface interaction into answer-based, step-based, and substep-based tutoring systems. Most intelligent tutoring systems have step-based or substep-based granularities of interaction, whereas most other tutoring systems (often called CAI, CBT, or CAL systems) have answer-based user interfaces. It is widely believed as the granularity of tutoring decreases, the effectiveness increases. In particular, when compared to No tutoring, the effect sizes of answer-based tutoring systems, intelligent tutoring systems, and adult human tutors are believed to be d = 0.3, 1.0, and 2.0 respectively. This review did not confirm these beliefs. Instead, it found that the effect size of human tutoring was much lower: d = 0.79. Moreover, the effect size of intelligent tutoring systems was 0.76, so they are nearly as effective as human tutoring.",
author = "Kurt VanLehn",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1080/00461520.2011.611369",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "46",
pages = "197--221",
journal = "Educational Psychologist",
issn = "0046-1520",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems

AU - VanLehn, Kurt

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - This article is a review of experiments comparing the effectiveness of human tutoring, computer tutoring, and no tutoring. "No tutoring" refers to instruction that teaches the same content without tutoring. The computer tutoring systems were divided by their granularity of the user interface interaction into answer-based, step-based, and substep-based tutoring systems. Most intelligent tutoring systems have step-based or substep-based granularities of interaction, whereas most other tutoring systems (often called CAI, CBT, or CAL systems) have answer-based user interfaces. It is widely believed as the granularity of tutoring decreases, the effectiveness increases. In particular, when compared to No tutoring, the effect sizes of answer-based tutoring systems, intelligent tutoring systems, and adult human tutors are believed to be d = 0.3, 1.0, and 2.0 respectively. This review did not confirm these beliefs. Instead, it found that the effect size of human tutoring was much lower: d = 0.79. Moreover, the effect size of intelligent tutoring systems was 0.76, so they are nearly as effective as human tutoring.

AB - This article is a review of experiments comparing the effectiveness of human tutoring, computer tutoring, and no tutoring. "No tutoring" refers to instruction that teaches the same content without tutoring. The computer tutoring systems were divided by their granularity of the user interface interaction into answer-based, step-based, and substep-based tutoring systems. Most intelligent tutoring systems have step-based or substep-based granularities of interaction, whereas most other tutoring systems (often called CAI, CBT, or CAL systems) have answer-based user interfaces. It is widely believed as the granularity of tutoring decreases, the effectiveness increases. In particular, when compared to No tutoring, the effect sizes of answer-based tutoring systems, intelligent tutoring systems, and adult human tutors are believed to be d = 0.3, 1.0, and 2.0 respectively. This review did not confirm these beliefs. Instead, it found that the effect size of human tutoring was much lower: d = 0.79. Moreover, the effect size of intelligent tutoring systems was 0.76, so they are nearly as effective as human tutoring.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=82755170505&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=82755170505&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/00461520.2011.611369

DO - 10.1080/00461520.2011.611369

M3 - Article

VL - 46

SP - 197

EP - 221

JO - Educational Psychologist

JF - Educational Psychologist

SN - 0046-1520

IS - 4

ER -