Advertisement

When Is Tutorial Dialogue More Effective Than Step-Based Tutoring?

  • Min Chi
  • Pamela Jordan
  • Kurt VanLehn
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8474)

Abstract

It is often assumed that one-on-one dialogue with a tutor, which involves micro-steps, is more effective than conventional step-based tutoring. Although earlier research often has not supported this hypothesis, it may be because tutors often are not good at making micro-step decisions. In this paper, we compare a micro-step based NL-tutoring system that employs induced pedagogical policies, Cordillera, to a well-evaluated step-based ITS, Andes. Our overall conclusion is that the pairing of effective policies with a micro-step based system does significantly outperform a step-based system; however, there is no significant difference in the absence of effective policies. Moreover, while micro-step tutoring is more time-consuming, the findings still hold for five out of six learning performance measures when time on task is factored out.

Keywords

Natural Language tutoring systems Step-based tutoring systems Reinforcement Learning Pedagogical Strategy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, J.R., Corbett, A.T., Koedinger, K.R., Pelletier, R.: Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 4(2), 167–207 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chi, M., VanLehn, K., Litman, D.J., Jordan, P.W.: Empirically evaluating the application of reinforcement learning to the induction of effective and adaptive pedagogical strategies. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 21(1-2), 137–180 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chi, M.T.H., Siler, S., Jeong, H.: Can tutors monitor students’ understanding accurately? Cognition and Instruction 22(3), 363–387 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chi, M., Jordan, P.W., VanLehn, K., Litman, D.J.: To elicit or to tell: Does it matter? In: Dimitrova, V., Mizoguchi, R., du Boulay, B., Graesser, A.C. (eds.) AIED, pp. 197–204. IOS Press (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Evens, M., Michael, J.: One-on-one Tutoring By Humans and Machines. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Graesser, A.C., Person, N., Magliano, J.: Collaborative dialog patterns in naturalistic one-on-one tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology 9, 359–387 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Graesser, A.C., VanLehn, K., Rosé, C.P., Jordan, P.W., Harter, D.: Intelligent tutoring systems with conversational dialogue. AI Magazine 22(4), 39–52 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jordan, P.W., Hall, B., Ringenberg, M., Cui, Y., Rosé, C.: Tools for authoring a dialogue agent that participates in learning studies. In: Proceedings of AIED 2007, pp. 43–50 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leonard, W., Dufresne, R., Mestre, J.: Using qualitative problem-solving strategies to highlight the role of conceptual knowledge in solving problems. American Journal of Physics 64(12) (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Phobun, P., Vicheanpanya, J.: Adaptive intelligent tutoring systems for e-learning systems. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 2(2), 4064–4069 (2010), innovation and Creativity in Education Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Putnam, R.T.: Structuring and adjusting content for students: A study of live and simulated tutoring of addition. Amer. Edu. Res. Journal 24(1), 13–48 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    VanLehn, K., Graesser, A.C., Jackson, G.T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., Rosé, C.P.: When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading? Cog. Sci. 31(1), 3–62 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    VanLehn, K.: The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist 46(4), 197–221 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    VanLehn, K., Lynch, C., Schulze, K., Shapiro, J.A., Shelby, R., Taylor, L., Treacy, D., Weinstein, A., Wintersgill, M.: The andes physics tutoring system: Lessons learned. IJAIED 15(3), 147–204 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Min Chi
    • 1
  • Pamela Jordan
    • 2
  • Kurt VanLehn
    • 3
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Learning Research and Development CenterUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.School of Computing, Informatics and Decision Science EngineeringArizona State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations