ABSTRACT
It has been well documented that one-to-one tutoring is an effective method of instruction. Reported effect sizes have ranged from 0.4 to 2.3 standard deviation units when tutored students are compared to classroom instruction or other control groups (Anderson, Corbett, Koedinger, … Pelletier, 1995; Bloom, 1984; Cohen, Kulik, … Kulik, 1982; Mohan, 1972). These effect sizes are quite surprising considering that a normal tutor typically has minimal tutoring experience, lacks expert domain knowledge, and has received no training in sophisticated tutoring techniques (Fitz-Gibbon, 1977; Graesser … Person, 1994). Although the majority of studies that report the benefits of tutoring primarily focused on outcomes, some of the more contemporary research is aimed at understanding the tutoring process (Fox, 1991, 1993; Graesser, Bowers, Hacker, … Person, in press; Graesser … Person, 1994; Graesser, Person, … Magliano, 1995; Lepper, Aspinwall, Mumme, … Chabay, 1990; Merrill, Reiser, Ranney, … Trafton, 1992; Person, Graesser, Magliano, … Kreuz, 1994; Putnam, 1987). Many of these researchers have attempted to understand the effectiveness of normal, unskilled tutors by systematically analyzing the collaborative dialogue that occurs between tutors and students.
