When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading?

Cognitive Science

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 3-62

  VanLehn, Kurt ^a   Graesser, Arthur C ^b   Jackson, G Tanner ^b   Jordan, Pamela ^a   Olney, Andrew ^b   Rosé, Carolyn P ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

^c Carnegie Mellon University   (United States)

Author keywords

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

Indexed keywords

EID: 33947382706     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03640210709336984     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Aleven, V., Ogden, A., Popescu, O., Torrey, C., & Koedinger, K. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of a tutorial dialogue system for self-explanation. In J. Lester, R. M. Vicari, & F. Paraguaca (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Seventh International Conference, ITS 2004 (pp. 443-454). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
2. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3. Charney, D. H., Reder, L. M., & Wells, G. W. (1988). Studies of elaboration in instructional texts. In S. Doheny-Farina (Ed.), Effective documentation: What we have learned from research (pp. 47-72). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 15, 145-182.
5. Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471-533.
6. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.
7. Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237-248.
8. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
9. Core, M. G., Moore, J. D., & Zinn, C. (2003). The role of initiative in tutorial dialogue. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL) (pp. 67-74). Morristown, NJ: Association of Computation Linguistics.
10. Craig, S. D., Driscoll, D. M., & Gholson, B. (2004). Constructing knowledge from dialog in an intelligent tutoring system: Interactive learning, vicarious learning and pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13, 163-183.
11. Craig, S. D., Sullins, J., Witherspoon, A., & Gholson, B. (in press). The deep-level reasoning questions effect: The role of dialog and deep-level reasoning questions during vicarious learning. Cognition and Instruction.
12. Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington.
13. de Kleer, J. (1977). Multiple representations of knowledge in a mechanics problem-solver. In International joint conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 299-304). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. di Sessa, A. A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105-225.
15. Evens, M., & Michael, J. (2000). One-on-one tutoring by humans and machines. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
16. Foltz, P. W., Gilliam, S., & Kendall, S. (2000). Supporting content-based feedback in on-line writing evaluation with LSA. Interactive Learning Environments, 8, 111-127.
17. Freedman, R., Rosé, C. P., Ringenberg, M. A., & VanLehn, K. (2000). ITS Tools for natural language dialogue: A domain-independent parser and planner. In G. Gauthier, C. Frasson, & K. VanLehn (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems: 5th International Conference, ITS 2000 (pp. 433-442). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
18. Graesser, A. C., Lu, S., Jackson, G. T., Mitchell, H. H., Ventura, M., Olney, A., et al. (2004). AutoTutor: A tutor with dialogue in natural language. Behavioral Reseach Methods, Instruments and Computers, 36, 180-193.
19. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohension and language. Behavioral Reseach Methods, Instruments and Computers, 36, 193-202.
20. Graesser, A. C., Moreno, K., Marineau, J., Adcock, A., Olney, A., & Person, N. (2003). AutoTutor improves deep learning of computer literacy: Is it the dialog or the talking head? In U. Hoppe, F. Verdejo, & J. Kay (Eds.), Proceedings of Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 47-54). Amsterdam: IOS.
21. Graesser, A. C., & Olde, B. A. (2003). How does one know whether a person understands a device? The quality of questions the person asks when the device breaks down. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 524-536.
22. Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104-137.
23. Graesser, A. C., Person, N., Harter, D., & Tutoring Research Group. (2001). Teaching tactics and dialog in AutoTutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Education, 12, 257-279.
24. Graesser, A. C., Person, N., & Magliano, J. (1995). Collaborative dialog patterns in naturalistic one-on-one tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 359-387.
25. Graesser, A. C., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Wiemer-Hastings, P., & Kreuz, R. (1999). AutoTutor: A simulation of a human tutor. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, 1, 15-25.
26. Graesser, A. C., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Halter, D., Person, N., & Tutoring Research Group. (2000). Using latent semantic analysis to evaluate the contributions of students in AutoTutor. Interactive Learning Environments, 8(2), 129-147.
27. Heller, J. I., & Reif, F. (1984). Prescribing effective human problem-solving processes: Problem descriptions in physics. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 177-216.
28. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141-158.
29. Hewitt, P. G. (1987). Conceptual physics. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
30. Hu, X., Cai, Z., Louwerse, M. M., Olney, A., Penumatsa, R, Graesser, A. C., et al. (2003). A revised algorithm for latent semantic analysis. In G. Gottlob & T. Walsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1489-1491). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
31. Jordan, P., Makatchev, M., Pappuswamy, U., VanLehn, K., & Albacete, P. (2006), A natural language tutorial dialogue system for physics. In Proceedings of FLAIRS 2006. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
32. Jordan, P., Makatchev, M., & VanLehn, K. (2004). Combining competing language understanding approaches in an intelligent tutoring system. In J. C. Lester, R. M. Vicari, & F. Praguacu (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems: 7th International Conference, ITS 2004 (pp. 346-357). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
33. Jordan, P., Rosé, C. P., & VanLehn, K. (2001). Tools for authoring tutorial dialogue knowledge. In J. D. Moore, C. Redfield, & W. L. Johnson (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: AI-Ed in the wired and wireless future (pp. 222-233). Washington, DC: IOS.
34. Jordan, P., & VanLehn, K. (2002). Discourse processing for explanatory essyas in tutorial applications. In Proceedings of the third SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue (pp. 74-83). Philadelphia, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
35. Katz, S., Connelly, J., & Allbritton, D. (2003). Going beyond the problem given: How human tutors use post-solution discussions to support transfer. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 13, 79-116.
36. Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259-284.
37. Lane, H. C., & VanLehn, K. (2005). Teaching the tacit knowledge of programming to novices with natural language tutoring. Computer Science Education, 15(3), 183-201.
38. Leme, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
39. Litman, D., Rosé, C., Forbes-Riley, K., VanLehn, K., Bhembe, D., & Silliman, S. (2006). Spoken versus typed human and computer dialogue. International Journal of Artficial Intelligence and Education, 16, 145-170.
40. Makatchev, M., Hall, B. S., Jordan, P., Papuswamy, U., & VanLehn, K. (2005, August). Mixed language processing in the Why2-Atlas tutoring system. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Workshop on Mixed Language Explanations in Learning Environments, AIED2005, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
41. Makatchev, M., Jordan, P., & VanLehn, K. (2004). Abductive theorem proving for analyzing student explanations and guiding feedback in intelligent tutoring systems. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 32, 187-226.
42. McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51-62.
43. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from texts. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1-43.
44. Mean, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45. Michael, J., Rovick, A., Glass, M. S., Zhou, Y., & Evens, M. (2003). Learning from a computer tutor with natural language capabilities. Interactive Learning Environments, 11, 233-262.
46. Olde, B. A., Franceschetti, D., Karnavat, A., Graesser, A. C., & Tutoring Research Group. (2002). The right stuff: Do you need to sanitize your corpus when using latent semantic analysis? In W. D. Gray & C. D. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 708-713). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
47. Olney, A., Louwerse, M. M., Mathews, E. C., Marineau, J., Hite-Mitchell, H., & Graesser, A. C. (2003). Utterance classification in AutoTutor. In Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL03 Workshop on Building Educational Applications Using Natural Language Processing (pp. 1-8). Philadelphia, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
48. Otero, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2001). PREG: Elements of a model of question asking. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 143-175.
49. Person, N., Graesser, A. C., Bautista, L., Mathews, E. C., & Tutoring Research Group. (2001). Evaluating student learning gains in two version of AutoTutor. In J. D. Moore, C. Redfield, & W. L. Johnson (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: AI-ED in the wired and wireless future (pp. 268-293). Amsterdam: IOS.
50. Person, N., Graesser, A. C., Kreuz, R. J., Pomeroy, V., & Tutoring Research Group. (2001). Simulating human tutor dialog moves in AutoTutor. International Journal of Artficial Intelligence in Education, 12, 23-39.
51. Person, N., Graesser, A. C., & Tutoring Research Group. (2002). Human or computer?: AutoTutor in a bystander Turing test. In S. A. Cerri, G. Gouarderes, & F. Paraguaca (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems, ITS 2002 (pp. 821-830). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
52. Ploetzner, R., & VanLehn, K. (1997). The acquisition of informal physics knowledge during formal physics training. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 169-206.
53. Ranney, M., & Thagard, P. (1988). Explanatory coherence and belief revision in naive physics. In V. Patel & G. J. Groen (Eds.), The Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 426-432). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
54. Reif, F., & Scott, L. A. (1999). Teaching scientific thinking skills: Students and computers coaching each other. American Journal of Physics, 67, 819-831.
55. Reiner, M., Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Naive physics reasoning: A commitment to substance-based conceptions. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 1-34.
56. Renkl, A. (2002). Worked-out examples: Instructional explanations support learning by self-explanations. Learning and Instruction, 12, 529-556.
57. Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38, 15-22.
58. Rosé, C. P., Bhembe, D., Siler, S., Srivastava, R., & VanLehn, K. (2003). Exploring the effectiveness of knowledge construction dialogues. In U. Hoppe, F. Verdejo, & J. Kay (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Shaping the future of learning through intelligent technologies (pp. 497-499). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS Press.
59. Rosé, C. P., Jordan, P. W., Ringenberg, M., Siler, S., VanLehn, K., & Weinstein, A. (2001). Interactive conceptual tutoring in Atlas-Andes. In J. D. Moore, C. Redfield, & W. L. Johnson (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: AI-Ed in the wired and wireless future (pp. 256-266). Washington, DC: IOS.
60. Rosé, C. P., Moore, J. D., VanLehn, K., & Allbritton, D. (2001). A comparative evaluation of Socratic versus didactic tutoring. In J. D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 897-902). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
61. Rosé, C. P., Roque, A., Bhembe, D., & VanLehn, K. (2002). A hybrid language understanding approach for robust selection of tutoring goals. In S. A. Cerri, G. Gouarderes, & F. Paraguacu (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 2002: 6th International Conference (pp. 552-561). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
62. Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
63. Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 592-604.
64. Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H., & Joram, E. (1995). Assessing students' misclassifications of physics concepts: An ontological basis for conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 373-400.
65. Swanson, J. H. (1992, April). What does it take to adapt instruction to the individual? A case study of one-to-one tutoring. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
66. VanLehn, K. (in press). When is tutoring more effective than less interactive instruction? In M. T. H. Chi (Ed.), Festshrift for Lauren Resnick.
67. VanLehn, K., Jordan, P., Rosé, C. P., Bhembe, D., Bottner, M., Gaydos, A., et al. (2002). The architecture of Why2-Atlas: A coach for qualitative physics essay writing. In S. A. Cerri, G. Gouarderes, & F. Paraguacu (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 2002, 6th International Conference (pp. 158-167). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
68. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Pres.
69. Wood, D. J., & Middleton, D. (1975). A study of assisted problem-solving. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 181-191.
70. Wood, D. J., Wood, H., & Middleton, D. (1978). An experimental evaluation of four face-to-face teaching strategies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1, 131-147.