Tutoring, with a main focus on Chi, Roy & Hausmann, 2008
"In tutoring, both the tutors and the tutees gain in understanding" (Chi, Siler,Jeong, Yamauchi,& Hausmann, 2001)
"It is easier for a tutor to command than to teach" (John Locke)
Contents:
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Tutoring and Chi's concepts
1.3 Chi's Active/Constructive/Interactive Hypothesis
1.4 Chi's main points
1.5 Relating Chi to the big picture of tutoring in general
1.6 Conclusions
1.1 Introduction
The above definition taken from Chi et al, 2008 describes tutoring as being a reciprocal exchange between the tutor and the tutee, and the quote from John Locke provides a concise overview of tutoring which relates to the central themes of the Chi paper.
As exam time approaches students are constantly striving to find the best and most effective ways of learning and retaining knowledge, and there are many different methods which have been found to be effective. Articles which claim to provide advice of the best and most effective forms of tutoring to retain most knowledge often focus on the way in which information is delivered to students, and more specifically, have privided empirical evidence to suggest that one-to-one tutoring is the best and most effective method of delivery.The effectiveness of one-to-one tutoring is widely known and accepted. Research by Chi and others has built upon on the concept that personal tutoring leads to deeper and more effective learning. This is thought to be due to the reciprocal interaction between the tutee and the tutor, or their peers, which forces the learner to engage with the material, generate their own explanations and therefore think deeper about the topic. It is apparent that the ability to think independently and form an opinion on the learning material signals that the learner has a deep understanding of the topic (Chi et al, 2001; Chi ,Roy & Hausmann, 2008). This research relates to many topics which have been covered in the Concepts and Empirical Results in Education course, the main point centering around the importance of interaction to achieve effective kearning, and so this wiki focuses on and summarises the main points which I feel are interesting and relevant to the overall topic.
Chi, 2008 outlined that passive learning from observing is not as effective as active learning whilst being tutored, and learning effectiveness was thought to be dependent on the observers' degree of active and constructive behaviour and level of input during group discussions. Research has shown that performance improves and learning is enhanced when tutees actively participate in discussions and interact with the tutor compared to those who adopt a passive stance. Therefore, as outlined by Chi, it is apparent that perhaps the better performance with a tutor may be because with a tutor, the tutees were given more of an opportunity to interact, and therefore enhance their learning, than just observing, where they are not required to provide their input. Therefore, the question which is apparent is; if learning from observing is not as effective as being tutored, is this because tutees who learn through observation are not interacting with others and are therefore not learning. If this is the case, then learning through interacting with peers would provide the same results as learning through interacting with tutors, as it is possibly the interaction itself which is improving the learning and not whether the person who they are interacting with is a peer or a tutor.
Chi tested the Active/Constructive/Interactive Hypothesis by giving individuals the opportunity to interact with a peer. The hypothesis was supported by four different findings of Chi:
| Style of learning | Effectiveness | Outcome |
| Collaborative Learning | Achieved the same level of learning as those who had been tutored | Interacting with peers is as effective as being tutored directly |
| Observers who collaborated | Achieved a higher level of learning than those who had observed without collaborating with their peers | Provides evidence that collaborating with peers is a very effective way of learning |
| Interactive collaborative observers | Learned more effectively than the less interactive collaborative observers | Illustrates the importance of interaction in learning, and the relationship between interaction and effective learning. |
| Lone observers who were more active | Learned more than the lone observers who were more passive | Shows that being active and engaging with the material leads to more effective learning |
These four findings provide support for the Active/Constructive/Interactive Hypothesis, and all suggest that more interaction allows more effective learning, and suggests that this relationship between more collaboration and more effective learning exists regardless of whether the collaboration and interaction is with a peer or a tutor.
1.4 Chi's main points
Chi et al, 2008 investigated why human tutoring is so effective by measuring several different methods of learning. Firstly, the effectiveness of new styles of learning were compared, where students were required to watch a video tape of other students being tutored on how to solve physics problems. The learning methods which were investigated included;
- one-to-one tutoring
- observing tutoring without peers
- collaborating with peers but not observing
- studying alone
Vicarious Learning
Chi, 2008 refers to learning by observing and "vicarious learning" which are described as learning styles which are used to describe a form of learning where the learner observes an interaction between another learner and an instructor. This can include overhearing the interaction between the tutor and the tutee, or observing a tutor providing a worked example to the tutee. This observational learning style described by Chi is dervied from social learning theory, where learners were found to learn and imitate the behaviour of others through observation of their behaviour.
Peer Interaction
The importance of peer interaction in promoting effective learning is a central focus in the paper, as discussions force learners to think independently about the learning outcomes, and to form their own opinions and question others' opinions. This leads to deeper and more effective learning as the learners are being active and constructive with the information, as opposed to remaining unengaged and passively inattentive to the learning outcomes.
Self-Explanation
Another main point raised by Chi which is an important factor in achieving effective learning is self-explanation. It is apparent that if a learner is able to summarise the learning outcomes in their own words, or relay the information to others, they have fully processed the information and understand it. Through the process of generalising and explaining the lerning outcomes to others, the students are actively thinking about the information, which leads to better learning outcomes.
Discussion
According to Chi, peer discussion seems to be the most important factor in determining the effectiveness of learning. For the students who learned from a tutor and those who leanred from a videotape, the main differences focused on the degree of peer discussion, and how active and constructive the students were in the peer discussion, which were more important than whether they had learned the information from a tutor or a video tape
Although the Chi paper covers a lot of the tutoring topic in depth, the points which are promoted throughout by Chi and therefore seem to be the most important to take from the paper are that participating in dialogue, which includes being interactive and forming constructive arguments, combines the benefits of tutoring with the benefits of collaborating with peers, and is a very effective form of learning as it forces the learner to think about the topic and fully understand the points in depth.
1.5 Relating Chi to the big picture of tutoring in general
The findings of Chi relate to the topic of tutoring in general. In a study which investigated the effectiveness of tutoring in the context of the Open University’s style of tutoring, 457 students and 602 tutors were asked to describe what constituted a good tutor. The study highlighted some interesting similarities and differences between students and tutor’s concepts of tutoring. Interestingly, the tutors in the study chose active learning as being one of the most important factors contributing to effective tutoring, which provides further evidence for Chi's active/ constructive hypothesis. In this study, the responses varied across faculties, which suggested that tutors from different disciplines have different beliefs about effective tutoring (Jelfs, Richardson and Price, 2009) and as the Chi study was concerned with the use of problem solving for physics problems, it is debateable how generalisable these findings were, however, the findings of Chi are empirically supported and reflect the findings of other studies which have investigated tutoring effectiveness. Therefore, perhaps new styes of delivering educational programs can be implemented based on the findings of the Chi paper. If higher education courses focused more on collaborative learning between peers, this may potentially cut down on tutoring costs.
1.6 Conclusions
The main findings of Chi were;
- Learning gains from tutoring lead to deeper and more effective learning than watching others being tutored with peers and simply only collaborating with peers
- watching others being tutored with peers, and collaborating with peers were significantly more effective than studying alone
- collaboratively observing tutoring while solving problems was also found to be an effective learning style
The overall findings showed that tutoring was more effective when the tutees were forced to think independently and form opinions about the content, and less effective when the tutor shared knowledge without active and constructive input from the tutees.
Main Paper
Chi, M.T.H., Siler,S., Jeong, H., Yamauchi,T., & Hausmann,R.G.M. (2001) Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471-533
Draper,S.W. (2009a). Catalytic assessment: understanding how MCQs and EVS can foster deep learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 285-293
Hake R.R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. The American Journal of Physiology, 66, 1, 64–74
Jelfs, A., Richardson, J. T.E., & Price, L. (2009). Student and tutor perceptions of effective tutoring in distance education. Distance Education, 30, 419–441
Wood, D., Bruner,J. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychiatry, 17, 89-100