Cognitive Computer Tutors: Solving the Two-Sigma Problem

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.

[1]  F. Keller "Good-bye, teacher...". , 1968, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[2]  Chen-Lin C. Kulik,et al.  Educational Outcomes of Tutoring: A Meta-analysis of Findings , 1982 .

[3]  J. Kulik,et al.  Effects of Computer-Based Teaching on Secondary School Students. , 1983 .

[4]  B. Bloom The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring , 1984 .

[5]  S. Messick Assessment in Context: Appraising Student Performance in Relation to Instructional Quality , 1984 .

[6]  Herbert J. Walberg,et al.  Comparative Effects of Computer-Assisted Instruction: A Synthesis of Reviews , 1987 .

[7]  Chen-Lin C. Kulik,et al.  Effectiveness of Mastery Learning Programs: A Meta-Analysis , 1990 .

[8]  Chen-Lin C. Kulik,et al.  Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. , 1991 .

[9]  Yuen-Kuang Liao,et al.  Effects of Computer-Assisted Instruction on Cognitive Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis , 1992 .

[10]  Harold F. O'Neil,et al.  Technology assessment in education and training , 1994 .

[11]  Harold F. O'Neil,et al.  Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. , 1994 .

[12]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Cognitive Tutors: Lessons Learned , 1995 .

[13]  Albert T. Corbett,et al.  Plan Scaffolding: Impact on the Process and Product of Learning , 1996, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[14]  Albert T. Corbett,et al.  Student Modeling in the ACT Programming Tutor: Adjusting a Procedural Learning Model With Declarative Knowledge , 1997 .

[15]  Albert T. Corbett,et al.  Instructional interventions in computer-based tutoring: differential impact on learning time and accuracy , 2000, CHI.

[16]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Locus of feedback control in computer-based tutoring: impact on learning rate, achievement and attitudes , 2001, CHI.

[17]  John R. Anderson,et al.  What role do cognitive architectures play in intelligent tutoring systems , 2001 .