Learning, interactional, and motivational outcomes in one-to-one synchronous computer-mediated versus face-to-face tutoring

International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 73-102

  Siler, Stephanie Ann ^a   Vanlehn, Kurt ^b  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b University of Pittsburgh   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer mediated; Face to face; Motivation; Tutoring

Indexed keywords

EID: 73449143500     PISSN: 15604292     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Adrianson, L. (2001). Gender and computer-mediated communication: Group processes in problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 71-94.
2. Aist, G., Kort, B., Reilly, R., Mostow, J., & Picard, R. (2002). Experimentally augmenting an intelligent tutoring system with human-supplied capabilities: Adding human-provided emotional scaffolding to an automated reading tutor that listens. In Proceedings of the ITS 2002 Workshop on Empirical Methods for Tutorial Dialogue Systems (pp. 16-28), online. San Sebastian, Spain.
3. Anderson, D. (2002). Interfacing email tutoring: Shaping an emergent literate practice. Computers and Composition, 19, 71-87.
4. Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. (1999). Impacts of asynchronous learning networks on individual and group problem solving: A field experiment. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8, 409-426.
5. Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-toone tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4-16.
6. Bordia, P. (1997). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: A synthesis of the experimental literature. Journal of Business Communication, 34, 99-120.
7. Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2004). Evaluating the extent of ill-structured problem solving processes among pre-service teachers in an asynchronous online discussion and reflection log learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(3), 197-227.
8. Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S. A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471-533.
9. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. A. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.) Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (127-149). Washington, DC: APA.
11. Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 237-248.
12. Coleman, L. H., Paternite, C. E., & Sherman, R. C. (1999). A reexamination of deindividuation in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 51-65.
13. Condon, S. L., & Cech, C. G. (1996). Functional comparison of face-to-face and computer-mediated decisionmaking interactions. In Herring, S. (Ed.) Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and crosscultural perspectives (pp. 65-80). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
14. Condon, S. L., & Cech, C. G. (2001). Profiling turns in interaction: Discourse structure and function. Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Maui, Hawaii.
15. Conole, G., Hall, M., & Smith, S. (2002). An evaluation of an online course for medical practitioners. Educational Technology & Society, 5(3), 66-75.
16. Core, M. G., Moore, J. D., & Zinn, C. (2003). The Role of Initiative in Tutorial Dialogue. Presented at the 10th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Budapest, Hungary, April, 2003.
17. Cummings, A., Schlosser, A., & Arrow, H. (1996). Developing complex group products: Idea combination in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 4, 229-251.
18. Dennis, J. K. (2003). Problem-based learning in online vs. face-to-face environments. Education for Health, 16, 198-209.
19. Diakidoy, I., Stylianou, P., Karefillidou, C., & Papageorgiou, P. (2004). The relationship between listening and reading comprehension of different types of text at increasing grade levels. Reading Psychology an International Quarterly, 26(1), 55-80.
20. D'Mello, S. K., Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., Franklin, S., Picard, R. W., & Graesser, A. C. (2005). Integrating Affect Sensors in an Intelligent Tutoring System. Affective Interactions: The Computer in the Affective Loop Workshop at 2005 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, 7-13.
21. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273.
22. Fletcher, J., & Pumfrey, P. D. (1988). Differences in text comprehension amongst 7-8-year-old children. School Psychology International, 9(2), 133-145.
23. Forbes-Riley, K., Litman, D., Silliman, S., & Tetreault, J. (2006). Comparing Synthesized versus Pre-recorded Tutor Speech in an Intelligent Tutoring Spoken Dialogue System. Proceeding 19th International FLAIRS (Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society) Conference, Melbourne Beach, FL.
24. Gallupe, R. B., Dennis, A. R., Cooper, W. H., Valacich, J. S., Bastianutti, C. M., & Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. (1992). Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 350-369.
25. Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J. M., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competences for online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 65-72.
26. Grant, H., & Dweck, C.S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 541-553.
27. Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-152.
28. Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2005). A content analytic comparison of learning processes in online and face-toface case study discussions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), article 7.
29. Heylen, D., Nijholt, A., & op den Akker, R. (2005). Affect in tutorial dialogues. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19, 287-311.
30. Johnson, W. L., Rizzo, P., Bosma, W., Kole, S., Ghijsen, M., & van Welbergen, H. (2004). Generating socially appropriate tutorial dialog. In E. André et al. (Eds.) Proceedings of the ISCA Workshop on Affective Dialogue Systems (ADS) (pp. 254-264). Berlin:Springer-Verlag.
31. Jones, R. H., Garralda, A., Li, D. C. S., & Lock, G. (2006). Interactional Dynamics in On-Line and Face-to-Face Peer-Tutoring Sessions for Second Language Writers. Journal of Second Language Writing. 15(1), 1-23.
32. Karat, C.M., Halverson, C., Horn, D., & Karat, J. (1999). Patterns of entry and correction in large vocabulary continuous speech recognition systems, CHI 99 Conference Proceedings (pp. 568-575).
33. Lebie, L., Rhoades, J. A., & McGrath, J. E. (1995). Interaction process in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 4(2-3), 127-152.
34. Lepper, M. R., Woolverton, M., Mumme, D. L., & Gurtner, J.-L. (1993). Motivational techniques of expert human tutors: Lessons for the design of computer-based tutors. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.) Computers as Cognitive Tools (pp. 75-105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Litman, D. J., Rosé, C. P., Forbes-Riley, K., VanLehn, K., Bhembe, D., & Silliman, S. (2006). Spoken versus typed human and computer dialogue tutoring. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16(2), 145-170
36. Luppicini, R. (2007). Review of computer mediated communication research for education. Instructional Science, 35, 141-185.
37. Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2001). Learning of argumentation skills in networked and face-to-face environments. Instructional Science, 29, 127-153.
38. Moore, J. D., Porayska-Pomsta, K., Varges, S., & Zinn, C. (2004). Generating tutorial feedback with affect. Proceedings of the 17th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 923- 928). Miami Beach, Florida.
39. Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 177-213.
40. Neuhauser, C. (2002). Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. American Journal of Distance Education. 16(2), 99-113.
41. Neville, M. H., & Pugh, A. K. (1974). Context in reading and listening: A comparison of children's errors in cloze tests. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 44(3), 224-232.
42. Ocker, R. J., & Yaverbaum, G. J. (1999). Asynchronous computer-mediated communication versus face-to-face collaboration: Results of student learning, quality, and satisfaction. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8, 427-440.
43. Olaniran, B. A. (1996). A model of group satisfaction in computer-mediated communication and face-to-face meetings. Behavior and Information Technology, 15(1), 24-36
44. Pilkington, R. M., & Walker, S. A. (2003). Facilitating debate in networked learning: Reflecting on online synchronous discussion in higher education. Instructional Science, 31, 41-63.
45. Randhawa, B. S., Beamer, J. E., & Lundberg, I. (1993). Role of mathematics self-efficacy in the structural model of mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (1), 41-48
46. 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: Erlbaum.
47. Rubin, D. L., Hafer, T., & Arata, K. (2000). Reading and listening to oral-based versus literate-based discourse. Communication Education, 49(2), 121-133.
48. Schpilberg, B., & Hubschman, B. (2003). Face-to-face and computer mediated tutoring: A comparative exploration on high school students' math achievement. Presented at the American Educational Research Association conference, Chicago, IL.
49. Siler, S. A., & VanLehn, K. (2003). Accuracy of tutors' assessments of their students by tutoring context. In R. Alterman & D. Hirsch, (Eds.) Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
50. Summers, J. J., Waigandt, A., & Whittaker, T. A. (2005). A comparison of student achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics class. Innovative Higher Education, 29(3), 233-250.
51. Tu, H. (2000). On-line learning migration: from social learning theory to social presence theory in a CMC environment. Journal of Network and Computer Application, 23, 27-37.
52. Tutty, J. I., & Klein, J. D. (2008). Computer-mediated instruction: A comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 101-124.
53. van der Meijden, H., & Veenman, S. (2005). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in a primary school setting. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(5), 831-859.
54. Vollmeyer, R., & Rheinberg, F. (2000). Does motivation affect performance via persistence? Learning and Instruction, 10(4), 293-309.
55. Wald, M., & Bain, K. (2008). Universal access to communication and learning: The role of automatic speech recognition. Universal Access in the Information Society, 6(4), 435-447.
56. Warren, L. L., & Holloman, H. L. Jr. (2005). On-line Instruction: Are the outcomes the same? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(2), 148-151.
57. Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children's motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420-433.
58. Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663-676.