The effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K‐12 students' reading comprehension: A meta‐analysis.
Saved in:
| Title: | The effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K‐12 students' reading comprehension: A meta‐analysis. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Xu, Zhihong, Wijekumar, Kausalai (Kay), Ramirez, Gilbert, Hu, Xueyan brittanyhxy@outlook.com, Irey, Robin |
| Source: | British Journal of Educational Technology. Nov2019, Vol. 50 Issue 6, p3119-3137. 19p. 1 Diagram, 5 Charts, 3 Graphs. |
| Subject Terms: | *Intelligent tutoring systems, *Classroom environment, *Computer assisted instruction, *Tutors & tutoring, *Reading comprehension, *Standardized tests |
| Abstract: | This meta‐analysis examined the effectiveness of improving reading comprehension for students in K‐12 classrooms using intelligent tutoring systems (ITSs), a computer‐based learning environment that provides customizable and immediate feedback to the learner. Nineteen studies from 13 publications incorporating approximately 10 000 students were included in the final analysis; using robust variance estimation to account for statistical dependencies, the 19 studies yielded 88 effect size estimates. The meta‐analysis indicated that the overall random effect size of ITSs on reading comprehension was 0.60 (using a mix of standardized and researcher‐designed measures) with a 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.85 (p < 0.001). This review confirms previous studies comparing ITSs to human tutoring: ITSs produced a small effect size when compared to human tutoring (0.20, 0.02–0.38, p = 0.036, n = 21). All comparisons to human tutoring used standardized measures. This review also found that ITSs produced a larger effect size on reading comprehension when compared to traditional instruction (0.86) for mixed measures and (0.26) for standardized measures. These findings may be of interest to practitioners and policy makers seeking to improve reading comprehension using consistent and accessible ITSs. Recommendations for researchers include conducting studies to understand the difference between traditional and updated versions of ITSs and employing valid and reliable standardized tests and researcher‐designed measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of British Journal of Educational Technology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | This meta‐analysis examined the effectiveness of improving reading comprehension for students in K‐12 classrooms using intelligent tutoring systems (ITSs), a computer‐based learning environment that provides customizable and immediate feedback to the learner. Nineteen studies from 13 publications incorporating approximately 10 000 students were included in the final analysis; using robust variance estimation to account for statistical dependencies, the 19 studies yielded 88 effect size estimates. The meta‐analysis indicated that the overall random effect size of ITSs on reading comprehension was 0.60 (using a mix of standardized and researcher‐designed measures) with a 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.85 (p < 0.001). This review confirms previous studies comparing ITSs to human tutoring: ITSs produced a small effect size when compared to human tutoring (0.20, 0.02–0.38, p = 0.036, n = 21). All comparisons to human tutoring used standardized measures. This review also found that ITSs produced a larger effect size on reading comprehension when compared to traditional instruction (0.86) for mixed measures and (0.26) for standardized measures. These findings may be of interest to practitioners and policy makers seeking to improve reading comprehension using consistent and accessible ITSs. Recommendations for researchers include conducting studies to understand the difference between traditional and updated versions of ITSs and employing valid and reliable standardized tests and researcher‐designed measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00071013 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/bjet.12758 |
