When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading?

Kurt VanLehn, Arthur C. Graesser, G. Tanner Jackson, Pamela Jordan, Andrew Olney, Carolyn P. Rosé

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

247 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

It is often assumed that engaging in a one-on-one dialogue with a tutor is more effective than listening to a lecture or reading a text. Although earlier experiments have not always supported this hypothesis, this may be due in part to allowing the tutors to cover different content than the noninteractive instruction. In 7 experiments, we tested the interaction hypothesis under the constraint that (a) all students covered the same content during instruction, (b) the task domain was qualitative physics, (c) the instruction was in natural language as opposed to mathematical or other formal languages, and (d) the instruction conformed with a widely observed pattern in human tutoring: Graesser, Person, and Magliano's 5-step frame. In the experiments, we compared 2 kinds of human tutoring (spoken and computer mediated) with 2 kinds of natural-language-based computer tutoring (Why2-Atlas and Why2-AutoTutor) and 3 control conditions that involved studying texts. The results depended on whether the students' preparation matched the content of the instruction. When novices (students who had not taken college physics) studied content that was written for intermediates (students who had taken college physics), then tutorial dialogue was reliably more beneficial than less interactive instruction, with large effect sizes. When novices studied material written for novices or intermediates studied material written for intermediates, then tutorial dialogue was not reliably more effective than the text-based control conditions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3-62
Number of pages60
JournalCognitive Science
Volume31
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Reading
Physics
dialogue
Students
instruction
Language
physics
tutor
Formal languages
Atlases
Experiments
experiment
student
language
Intermediate
Tutoring
Experiment
Novice
human being
interaction

Keywords

  • Conceptual physics
  • Latent semantic analysis
  • Learning
  • Natural language dialogue
  • Physics education research
  • Qualitative physics
  • Tutorial dialogue

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Cognitive Neuroscience
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Human Factors and Ergonomics
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

VanLehn, K., Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., & Rosé, C. P. (2007). When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading? Cognitive Science, 31(1), 3-62.

When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading? / VanLehn, Kurt; Graesser, Arthur C.; Jackson, G. Tanner; Jordan, Pamela; Olney, Andrew; Rosé, Carolyn P.

In: Cognitive Science, Vol. 31, No. 1, 01.2007, p. 3-62.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

VanLehn, K, Graesser, AC, Jackson, GT, Jordan, P, Olney, A & Rosé, CP 2007, 'When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading?', Cognitive Science, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 3-62.
VanLehn K, Graesser AC, Jackson GT, Jordan P, Olney A, Rosé CP. When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading? Cognitive Science. 2007 Jan;31(1):3-62.
VanLehn, Kurt ; Graesser, Arthur C. ; Jackson, G. Tanner ; Jordan, Pamela ; Olney, Andrew ; Rosé, Carolyn P. / When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading?. In: Cognitive Science. 2007 ; Vol. 31, No. 1. pp. 3-62.
@article{dab9a920bd984a5eaa071df618d312e9,
title = "When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading?",
abstract = "It is often assumed that engaging in a one-on-one dialogue with a tutor is more effective than listening to a lecture or reading a text. Although earlier experiments have not always supported this hypothesis, this may be due in part to allowing the tutors to cover different content than the noninteractive instruction. In 7 experiments, we tested the interaction hypothesis under the constraint that (a) all students covered the same content during instruction, (b) the task domain was qualitative physics, (c) the instruction was in natural language as opposed to mathematical or other formal languages, and (d) the instruction conformed with a widely observed pattern in human tutoring: Graesser, Person, and Magliano's 5-step frame. In the experiments, we compared 2 kinds of human tutoring (spoken and computer mediated) with 2 kinds of natural-language-based computer tutoring (Why2-Atlas and Why2-AutoTutor) and 3 control conditions that involved studying texts. The results depended on whether the students' preparation matched the content of the instruction. When novices (students who had not taken college physics) studied content that was written for intermediates (students who had taken college physics), then tutorial dialogue was reliably more beneficial than less interactive instruction, with large effect sizes. When novices studied material written for novices or intermediates studied material written for intermediates, then tutorial dialogue was not reliably more effective than the text-based control conditions.",
keywords = "Conceptual physics, Latent semantic analysis, Learning, Natural language dialogue, Physics education research, Qualitative physics, Tutorial dialogue",
author = "Kurt VanLehn and Graesser, {Arthur C.} and Jackson, {G. Tanner} and Pamela Jordan and Andrew Olney and Ros{\'e}, {Carolyn P.}",
year = "2007",
month = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "3--62",
journal = "Cognitive Science",
issn = "0364-0213",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading?

AU - VanLehn, Kurt

AU - Graesser, Arthur C.

AU - Jackson, G. Tanner

AU - Jordan, Pamela

AU - Olney, Andrew

AU - Rosé, Carolyn P.

PY - 2007/1

Y1 - 2007/1

N2 - It is often assumed that engaging in a one-on-one dialogue with a tutor is more effective than listening to a lecture or reading a text. Although earlier experiments have not always supported this hypothesis, this may be due in part to allowing the tutors to cover different content than the noninteractive instruction. In 7 experiments, we tested the interaction hypothesis under the constraint that (a) all students covered the same content during instruction, (b) the task domain was qualitative physics, (c) the instruction was in natural language as opposed to mathematical or other formal languages, and (d) the instruction conformed with a widely observed pattern in human tutoring: Graesser, Person, and Magliano's 5-step frame. In the experiments, we compared 2 kinds of human tutoring (spoken and computer mediated) with 2 kinds of natural-language-based computer tutoring (Why2-Atlas and Why2-AutoTutor) and 3 control conditions that involved studying texts. The results depended on whether the students' preparation matched the content of the instruction. When novices (students who had not taken college physics) studied content that was written for intermediates (students who had taken college physics), then tutorial dialogue was reliably more beneficial than less interactive instruction, with large effect sizes. When novices studied material written for novices or intermediates studied material written for intermediates, then tutorial dialogue was not reliably more effective than the text-based control conditions.

AB - It is often assumed that engaging in a one-on-one dialogue with a tutor is more effective than listening to a lecture or reading a text. Although earlier experiments have not always supported this hypothesis, this may be due in part to allowing the tutors to cover different content than the noninteractive instruction. In 7 experiments, we tested the interaction hypothesis under the constraint that (a) all students covered the same content during instruction, (b) the task domain was qualitative physics, (c) the instruction was in natural language as opposed to mathematical or other formal languages, and (d) the instruction conformed with a widely observed pattern in human tutoring: Graesser, Person, and Magliano's 5-step frame. In the experiments, we compared 2 kinds of human tutoring (spoken and computer mediated) with 2 kinds of natural-language-based computer tutoring (Why2-Atlas and Why2-AutoTutor) and 3 control conditions that involved studying texts. The results depended on whether the students' preparation matched the content of the instruction. When novices (students who had not taken college physics) studied content that was written for intermediates (students who had taken college physics), then tutorial dialogue was reliably more beneficial than less interactive instruction, with large effect sizes. When novices studied material written for novices or intermediates studied material written for intermediates, then tutorial dialogue was not reliably more effective than the text-based control conditions.

KW - Conceptual physics

KW - Latent semantic analysis

KW - Learning

KW - Natural language dialogue

KW - Physics education research

KW - Qualitative physics

KW - Tutorial dialogue

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33947382706&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33947382706&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 21635287

AN - SCOPUS:33947382706

VL - 31

SP - 3

EP - 62

JO - Cognitive Science

JF - Cognitive Science

SN - 0364-0213

IS - 1

ER -