When Are Tutorial Dialogues More Effective than Reading?
Danielle E. Matthews, Kurt VanLehn, Arthur C. Graesser, G Tanner Jackson, Pamela Jordan, Andrew Olney, Andrew Carolyn P. Rosa
Cognitive Science Volume 31, Number 1, ISSN 0364-0213
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.
Matthews, D.E., VanLehn, K., Graesser, A.C., Jackson, G.T., Jordan, P., Olney, A. & Rosa, A.C.P. (2007). When Are Tutorial Dialogues More Effective than Reading?. Cognitive Science, 31(1), 3-62.
Cited ByView References & Citations Map
S. Selcen Guzey, University of Minnesota, STEM Education Center, United States; Gillian H. Roehrig, University of Minnesota, United States
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education Vol. 12, No. 2 (June 2012) pp. 162–183
Keith Millis, Northern Illinois University, United States; Zhiqiang Cai & Art Graesser, University of Memphis, United States; Diane Halpern, Claremont McKenna College, United States; Patty Wallace, Northern Illinois University, United States
E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2009 (Oct 26, 2009) pp. 2951–2956
Scotty Craig, Arthur Graesser, Joshua Brittingham, Joah Williams & Trey Martindale, University of Memphis, United States; Gloria Williams & Renita Gray, Snowden elementary - Memphis City Schools, United States; Arlisha Darby, White station high School - Memphis City Schools, United States; Barry Gholson, University of Memphis, United States
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (Mar 03, 2008) pp. 1060–1064
Arthur C. Graesser, Sidney K. D’Mello, Scotty D. Craig, Amy Witherspoon, Jeremiah Sullins, Bethany McDaniel & Barry Gholson, University of Memphis, United States
Journal of Interactive Learning Research Vol. 19, No. 2 (April 2008) pp. 293–312
These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact email@example.com.