alt Hacker NewsFor anyone else interested in Bloom's 2-sigma, here's the original paper (1984): https://web.mit.edu/5.95/readings/bloom-two-sigma.pdf
Blows my mind that 1:1 tutoring dwarfs the impact of other factors such as socioeconomic status, reinforcement, assigned homework, classroom morale, etc (at least according to the researchers).
Does anyone know if this thesis has been replicated? Or if these results hold in modern times (original study was 40 years ago)?
Replies
In my experience with 1:1 before and during my Masters in Education, nothing could compare to the learning and growth my students had from that highly personalized (and personal) instruction.
It's super common for students to not understand material or express that they don't, but it's just not possible to drill into each specific student's particular knowledge or skill level in the classroom environment.
On the social and behavioral side, many students who struggle in a classroom environment transform into model students when taught with both the care and privacy of 1:1.
For me, I feel it's a combination of hyper-personalized instruction plus compassion in a relationship where it feels safer for the student to accept the value of improving at something without social pressure or embarrassment.
Would be nice ie to see this product with focus on elementary school age content.
The article states that Anaina and Burke separately conducted their tests, but social robots [1] have been shown to be effective in individual tutoring. Human tutoring is not always better than a well-designed computer program [2]. There have been issues with how studies interpret their effect on group size / scalability [3].
[1] https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954 [2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00461520.2011.61... [3] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X2091279...