A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K–12 students’ mathematical learning.

Abstract

In this study, we meta-analyzed empirical research of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) on K-12 students' mathematical leaming. A total of 26 reports containing 34 independent samples met study inclusion criteria. The reports appeared between 1997 and 2010. The majority of included studies compared the effectiveness of ITS with that of regular classroom instmction. A few studies compared ITS with human tutoring or homework practices. Among the major findings are (a) overall, ITS had no negative and perhaps a small positive effect on K-12 students' mathematical leaming, as indicated by the average effect sizes ranging from g = 0.0\ to g = 0.09, and (b) on the basis of the few studies that compared ITS with homework or human tutoring, the effectiveness of ITS appeared to be small to modest. Moderator analyses revealed 2 findings of practical importance. First, the effects of ITS appeared to be greater when the interventions lasted for less than a school year than when they lasted for 1 school year or longer. Second, the effectiveness of ITS for helping students drawn from the general population was greater than for helping low achievers. This finding draws attentions to the issue of whether computerized learning might contribute to the achievement gap between students with different achievement levels and aptitudes.

Effectiveness of Computer-Based Scaffolding in the Context of Problem-Based Learning for Stem Education: Bayesian Meta-analysis

“…In addition, in the case of conventional instruction, as opposed to problem-centered instructional models, meta-analysis indicated that computer-based scaffolding including intelligent tutoring systems positively impacted students' learning (g = 0.66) regardless of instructor's effects, study types, and region (Kulik and Fletcher 2016). Other meta-analyses on the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems showed a wide range of effect sizes: g = 0.41 among college students (Steenbergen-Hu and Cooper 2014), g = 0.09 for K-12 students' mathematical learning (Steenbergen-Hu and Cooper 2013), d = 0.76 when compared the effectiveness with humantutors (VanLehn 2011), and d = 1.00 for scaffolding within an early model of intelligent tutoring systems (Anderson et al 1995). However, no meta-analyses have investigated the effectiveness of computer-based scaffolding in the context of problem-based learning.…”

Effectiveness of Intelligent Tutoring Systems

“…Three recent reviews reported no real improvement in school performance due to the use of ITSs (Slavin, Lake, & Groff, 2009;Steenbergen-Hu & Cooper, 2013;U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse, 2009).…”

Treinamento da Habilidade Metacognitiva de Monitoramento do Conhecimento em Sistemas Tutores

“…O trabalho de meta-análise de Ma e colegas [65] não encontrou diferenças significativas no desempenho dos alunos na aprendizagem com STIs e a aprendizagem através de tutoria humana, quando o sistema realiza uma seleção individualizada de problemas, prompts e feedbacks que são entregues ao aprendiz. Por fim, os estudos de meta-análise descritos em [58,59] também encontraram que os STIs podem ser tão efetivos quanto um professor particular.…”