Expert vs. Non-expert Tutoring: Dialogue Moves, Interaction Patterns and Multi-utterance Turns

  • Xin Lu
  • Barbara Di Eugenio
  • Trina C. Kershaw
  • Stellan Ohlsson
  • Andrew Corrigan-Halpern
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4394)


Studies of one-on-one tutoring have found that expert tutoring is more effective than non-expert tutoring, but the reasons for its effectiveness are relatively unexplored. Since tutoring involves deep natural language interactions between tutor and student, we explore the differences between an expert and non-expert tutors through the analysis of individual dialogue moves, tutorial interaction patterns and multi-utterance turns. Our results are a first step showing what behaviors constitute expertise and provide a basis for modeling effective tutorial language in intelligent tutoring systems.


Interaction Pattern Single Turn Student Move Instructional Feedback Letter Pattern 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Fox, B.: The human tutorial dialogue project. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chae, H.M., Kim, J.H., Glass, M.: Effective behaviors in a comparison between novice and expert algebra tutors. In: Proceedings of Sixteenth Midwest AI and Cognitive Science Conference, pp. 25–30 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Di Eugenio, B., Kershaw, T.C., Lu, X., Corrigan-Halpern, A., Ohlsson, S.: Toward a computational model of expert tutoring: a first report. In: 19th International conference of Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society, pp. 28–55 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Glass, M., Kim, J.H., Evens, M.W., Michael, J.A., Rovick, A.A.: Novice vs. expert tutors: a comparison of style. In: Proceedings of Tenth Midwest Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science Conference (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kotovsky, K., Simon, H.: Empirical tests of a theory of human acquisition of information-processing analysis. British Journal of Psychology 61, 243–257 (1973)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chi, M.T., Siler, S.A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., Hausmann, R.G.: Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science 25, 471–533 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Litman, D.J., Rose, C.P., Forbes-Riley, K., Vanlehn, K., Bhembe, D., Silliman, S.: Spoken versus typed human and computer dialogue tutoring. In: Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carletta, J.: Assessing agreement on classification tasks: The kappa statistic. Computational linguistics 22, 249–254 (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Di Eugenio, B., Glass, M.: The kappa statistic: a second look. Computational linguistics 30, 95–101 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Landsberger, J.: Feedback to improve Study Guides (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    MacWhinney, B.: The CHILDES project: Transcription Format and Programs, vol. 1, 3rd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xin Lu
    • 1
  • Barbara Di Eugenio
    • 1
  • Trina C. Kershaw
    • 2
  • Stellan Ohlsson
    • 1
  • Andrew Corrigan-Halpern
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago ILUSA
  2. 2.University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth MAUSA

Personalised recommendations