Where it is used
Each entry identifies the volume, edition, chapter or appendix in which the work appears.
The evidence behind the series
Follow the research.
Explore every source.
Browse the scientific research and professional literature used across all seven volumes of The Science of Learning for Educators.
7book volumes
8author ranges
1searchable library
Search the collection
Find a paper, author or idea.
Choose an author range, search a title or concept, or narrow the collection by source type. Open any result to see where it appears in the books, read its evidence summary and follow available source links.
2 references
-
- Vol 7 RE: App B
- Vol 7 RE: Chapters 7, 11, App D
intelligent tutoring systemslearning outcomesadaptive instructionstep-based guidanceinstructional feedbackdomain modelsprocedural knowledgemeta-analysisJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
This meta-analysis evaluates intelligent tutoring systems (ITS)—programs that model learners and adapt instruction—against several alternative learning conditions. The authors synthesised 107 effect sizes from studies spanning school, university, and workplace settings and many subject areas.
Key ideas
Overall, students using an ITS achieved better learning outcomes than those receiving large-group instruction, textbook or workbook study, and other computer-based instruction. Effects were smaller when ITS were compared with individualised human tutoring or small-group instruction, showing that the relevant comparison matters. The analysis also examined system type, procedural versus declarative knowledge, assessment type, and design features as potential moderators. Results support the value of step-based guidance, feedback, and adaptation but reveal substantial variation among systems and studies.
Why it matters
For educators, the paper does not imply that any software labelled intelligent will work; benefits depend on sound domain models, close alignment between tutoring and assessment, and thoughtful integration with teaching.
-
- Vol 7 PE: App D
- Vol 7 RE: Chapters 1, 8, App B, App D
online learningblended learningface-to-face comparisonmeta-analysisinstructional timelearning interactionsinstructional supportmodality effectsJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
This meta-analysis synthesises 50 effects from 45 experimental or controlled quasi-experimental studies comparing fully online or blended instruction with face-to-face teaching. Learners ranged from secondary-school students to adults in higher education and professional training.
Key ideas
On average, online conditions produced a modest advantage, but the pattern depended on format: blended learning showed a statistically significant benefit over face-to-face instruction, whereas purely online instruction did not. The authors caution against attributing the blended advantage to delivery medium alone. Blended conditions frequently included extra learning time, additional resources, or more opportunities for interaction, so these design differences were confounded with modality. Effects also varied across studies, and the evidence base was too limited for strong conclusions about many specific practices or younger learners.
Why it matters
The educational implication is not that adding an online component automatically improves achievement. Effective blends should be analysed as packages of time, tasks, feedback, interaction, and instructional support, with those components tested more directly.
A transparent research trail
More than a bibliography.
What it contributes
Evidence summaries explain the central idea and why the source matters to educators.
How to access it
Entries link to lawful full text where available, or to a publisher, library or purchase page.
Edition abbreviations
- TE
- Teacher Edition
- PE
- Practice Edition
- RE
- Research Edition
Citation checks
References are checked against publisher records, scholarly indexes, DOI or ISBN metadata, repositories and author records where available. An entry marked [Citation not verified] preserves the wording found in the relevant volume without attributing findings to an unconfirmed work.
From sources to a coherent pathway