Abstract
Individual human tutoring is the most effective and most expensive form of instruction. Students working with individual human tutors reach achievement levels as much as two standard deviations higher than students in conventional instruction (that is, 50% of tutored students score higher than 98% of the comparison group). Two early 20th-century innovations attempted to offer benefits of individualized instruction on a broader basis: (1) mechanized individualized feedback (via teaching machines and computers) and (2) mastery learning (individualized pacing of instruction). On average each of these innovations yields about a half standard deviation achievement effect. More recently, cognitive computer tutors have implemented these innovations in the context of a cognitive model of problem solving. This paper examines the achievement effect size of these two types of student-adapted instruction in a cognitive programming tutor. Results suggest that cognitive tutors have closed the gap with and arguably surpass human tutors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bloom, B.S.: The 2_Sigma Problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher 13 (1984) 3–15
Cohen, P.A., Kulik, J.A., Kulik, C.C.: Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal 19 (1984) 237–248
Pressey, S.L.: A simple apparatus which gives tests and scores-and teaches. School and Society 23 (1926) 373–376
Kulik, J.A.: Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In E. Baker & H. O’Neil (Eds.) Technology assessment in education and training. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ (1994) 9–33
Kulik, J.A., Bangert, R.L., Williams, G.W.: Effects of computer-based teaching on secondary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology 75 (1983) 19–26
Kulik, C.C., Kulik, J.A.: Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior 7 (1991) 75–94
Liao, Y.: Effects of computer-assisted instruction on cognitive outcomes: A metaanalysis. Journ al of Research on Computing in Education 24 (1992) 367–380
Niemiec, R., Walberg, H.J.: Comparative effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction: A synthesis of reviews. Journal of Educational Computing Research 3 (1987) 19–37
Bloom, B.S.: Learning for mastery. In Evaluation Comment, 1. UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation of Instructional Programs, Los Angeles, CA (1968)
Keller, F.S.: “Good-bye teacher...”. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis 1 (1968) 79–89
Kulik, C.C, Kulik, J.A., Bangert-Drowns, R.L.: Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 60 (1990) 265–299
Anderson, J.R., Corbett, A.T., Koedinger, K.R., Pelletier, R.: Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences 4 (1995) 167–207
Corbett, A.T., Anderson, J.R.: Locus of feedback control in computer-based tutoring: Impact on learning rate, achievement and attitudes. Proceedings of ACTM CHI’2001 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (in press)
Corbett, A.T., Anderson, J.R.: Knowledge decomposition and subgoal reification in the ACT Programming Tutor. Artificial Intelligence and Education, 1995: The Proceedings of AI-ED 95. AACE., Charlottesville, VA (1995) 469–476
Corbett, A.T., Knapp, S.: Plan scaffolding: Impact on the process and product of learning. In C. Frasson, G. Gauthier, & A. Lesgold (Eds.) Intelligent tutoring systems: Third international conference, ITS’ 96. Springer, New York (1996) 120–129
Corbett, A.T., Bhatnagar, A.: Student modeling in the ACT Programming Tutor: Adjusting a procedural learning model with declarative knowledge. User Modeling: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference, UM97. Springer, New York, (1997) 243–254
Corbett, A.T., Trask, H.: Instructional interventions in computer-based tutoring: Differential impact on learning time and accuracy. Proceedings of ACTM CHI’2000 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Springer, New York (2000) 97–104
Anderson, J.R., Gluck, K.: What role do cognitive architectures play in intelligent tutoring systems. In D. Klahr & S. Carver (Eds.) Cognition and instruction: 25 years of progress. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ (in press)
Aleven, V., Koedinger, K.R.: Toward a tutorial dialog system that helps students to explain solution steps. Building Dialogue Systems for Tutorial Applications: AAAI Fall Symposium 2000, (2000)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Corbett, A. (2001). Cognitive Computer Tutors: Solving the Two-Sigma Problem. In: Bauer, M., Gmytrasiewicz, P.J., Vassileva, J. (eds) User Modeling 2001. UM 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2109. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44566-8_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44566-8_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-42325-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44566-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive