Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nile20

Interactive Learning Environments

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nile20

Commognitive responsibility shift and itsvisualizing in computer-supported one-to-onetutoring

Jijian Lu , Yan Tao , Jinghao Xu & Max Stephens

To cite this article: Jijian Lu , Yan Tao , Jinghao Xu & Max Stephens (2020): Commognitiveresponsibility shift and its visualizing in computer-supported one-to-one tutoring, InteractiveLearning Environments, DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2020.1777167

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1777167

Published online: 12 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 35

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Commognitive responsibility shift and its visualizing in computer-supported one-to-one tutoringJijian Lu a, Yan Tao a, Jinghao Xua and Max Stephensb

aJing Hengyi Teacher Education Honors College, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, People’s Republic ofChina; bMelbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACTThis study is the extension of our previous visualizing study on thecommognition processes in computer-supported one-to-one tutoring.With the help of the scale of commognitive responsibility score, wefound that the main triggers of the commognition process shift are thepositive transfer of knowledge and cognitive conflict. On the basis ofFisher and Frey’s theory and our practical experience, we suggest theonline teachers to provide (1) prompts to invite; (2) robust questions toaccess; (3) cues to find mistakes; (4) discussion to develop and (5) spiralreview to connect.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 24 November 2019Accepted 29 May 2020

KEYWORDSCommognitive responsibility;visualizing; one-to-onetutoring; computer-supported; mathematics

1. Introduction

In recent years, the increasing desire to advance multifaceted competences and skills required for indi-vidual adaptation to the Information Age has promoted the rise of Web-based Instruction (Varier et al.,2017), which includes the computer-supported one-to-one tutoring. Computer-supported one-to-onetutoring is an extended form of online instruction based on the communication and cognition inter-action between the teacher and the student (Humphry & Hampden-Thompson, 2019). It is increasinglypopular due to its individualization and effectiveness (Weston & Bain, 2010), especially in China whenthe COVID-19 epidemic moves all the instruction and tutoring online. Considering that, similar to thecommon focus on the change of teaching in school from teacher-centered to learner-centered (Hersh-kovitz & Karni, 2018; McCombs, 2013; Reigeluth, 2017), the shift of communicative and cognitive workin one-to-one online tutoring out of school deserves further investigation since it plays a core role in theeffectiveness and efficiency of teaching and learning.

Based on Anna Sfard’s commognitive framework which suggests that individual cognition can bereflected by the discourse in communication (Sfard, 2008), our previous study (Lu et al., 2019) foundthat the commognition of the teacher and the student in a series of one-to-one online tutoringcourses can develop as the sequence of three processes: teacher-led commognition process, com-parison of commognitive process and student-led commognition process. In order to figure outwhat triggers the shift, we conducted a further and more detailed study to investigate the commog-nitive processes in computer-supported one-to-one tutoring.

1.1. Background

Along with the widespread of computer-supported one-to-one tutoring, much discussion and practicehave been conducted concerning its benefits. Evidenced by empirical researches, this form of privatetutoring is relevant to students’ increased engagement and interest level (Bebell & O’Dwyer, 2010; Mo

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Jijian Lu lujijian@foxmail.com

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTShttps://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1777167

et al., 2013). Some quantitative results also further revealed that it contributes to lecture reinforcement,motivation, and problem-solving (Kulik, 2002; Pinder, 2008). Moreover, if the online tutoring is synchro-nous, the teacher is more able to integrate student’s interests and learning styles (Hastie et al., 2007).

However, a number of studies also have emphasized the precedent or potential issues of one-to-one online tutoring, such as student discipline problems, absence of paralinguistic cues and over-dependency on information technology (Lei & Zhao, 2008; Price et al., 2007). Compared with face-to-face teaching, online tutoring is less targeted, focused and clearly identified (Jopling, 2012).Although the one-to-one formmight make up for the shortage, the fact that teachers are lack of prep-aration, field experience and a model or benchmark for teaching online still leaves doubts on theefficacy of one-to-one online tutoring (Kennedy & Archambault, 2012; Schmidt et al., 2016).

What’s more, over the last two decades, there is a debate on the relationship between teacher andstudent in one-to-one online tutoring. It is articulated by some researchers that tutor-centered is thepreferred instructional type of one-to-one online tutoring oriented to examinations (Chung et al.,2006), and the teacher should hold the responsibility for the effective implementation of one-to-one initiatives (Bebell & Kay, 2010; Shapley et al., 2010). However, some other studies put forwarddifferent claims, advocating the teachers to minimize or even relinquish their control of the tutoring(Bennett & Marsh, 2002; Hastie et al., 2007; Stickler & Hampel, 2007). But the agreement they havereached is that there is an urgent need for further investigation and better training to help tutorsunderstand the distinctive qualities and characteristics of one-to-one online tutoring (Jopling, 2012).

1.2. Purpose of this study

The primary purpose of this study was to figure out the reasons behind the process shift in computer-supported one-to-one tutoring. The study mainly focused on the following questions:

1. How can we locate the time points when teaching and learning activities that trigger the com-mognition process shift happen?

2. What are those teaching and learning activities that trigger the process shift?

2. Methodology

2.1. Lesson samples

One-to-one online tutoring lessons in mathematics include three types: (1) the preview of knowledgebefore classes in school; (2) the review of knowledge with explanation for exercises after classes inschool and (3) extracurricular knowledge development. In this study, we still select the originalfour lessons given by the teacher to the student in July 2018 as samples. All of the four one-to-one online tutoring lessons (hereinafter referred to as OTO) are the preview type of online tutoringconcerning set theory, which is a basic branch of mathematics and occupies an important place inmathematics, penetrating various fields of mathematics.

There was one lesson of 60 min and three lessons of 90 min, for a total of 330 min. The specificlessons’ contents in the sequence are as follows: (1) the meaning and representation of the set;(2) the basic relationship between the sets, (3) the first part of the basic operation of the set and(4) the second part of the basic operation of the set, which are the beginning lessons of highschool in China.

2.2. Participants

The teacher in the lesson samples is a young teacher from Zhejiang Province, China, with a 6-yearonline math tutoring experience. The content of his tutoring mainly focuses on the college entrancemath examination.

2 J. LU ET AL.

The student involved is a 15-year-old boy from Fujian Province, China. According to our 20 mininterview with the teacher, this boy was a grade 10 student with medium performance in mathemat-ics during the lesson samples.

2.3. Online environment

The four-lesson samples are supported by computer-supported one-to-one tutoring platforms. Asshown in Figure 1, the platform is composed of three components: (1) the window of a student, inwhich the real-time image of the student is shown and the student can send a text message tothe teacher; (2) the window of teacher, in which the real-time image of the teacher is shown andthe teacher can send a text message to the student; (3) courseware – a PowerPoint window, inwhich the courseware can be shown, and both the teacher and the student are able to write ordraw on it. The whole process of the lesson can be recorded by the platform so that both theteacher and the student can review it after class.

2.4. Commognitive responsibility score

In our previous study (Lu et al., 2019), we coded the discourses between the teacher and student inthe sample lessons from 0 to 5 according to their commognitive level. After visualizing the codingresult, we analyzed the commognitive development of the teacher and student from a macroscopicperspective. However, in this study, since a more microscopic investigation is needed, the frameworkused to determine the commognitive level of discourse seems not robust enough. Therefore, wedrew lessons from the concept of cognitive responsibility in Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey’sGradual Release of Responsibility Instructional Framework (Fisher & Frey, 2013), and built a scale ofcommognitive responsibility score (Table 1) to describe the teacher’s and the student’s roles inthe communication and cognitive interaction during a computer-based one-to-one tutoring lesson.

We firstly divided each sample lesson into 5 min sub-processes as the units of investigation. Thenwe scored the teacher’s and the student’s commognitive responsibility in each sub-process with thehelp of our previous visualization result of commognitive processes. In each sub-process, if the visu-alization curve of teacher’s commognition scores shows a rapid growth while the curve of student’scommognition merely presents a gentle change, it is acceptable to regard that the teacher mainly

Figure 1. Online teaching demonstration platform. Note: The Chinese characters in the center of are the title of the lesson, whichmeans “Chapter 1 Concepts of Sets and Function”, “1.1 Sets”, “1.1.1 The meaning and representation of the set”.

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 3

Table 1. Scale of commognitive responsibility score.

Sub-process categoryRole

description Teacher scoreStudentscore Example

Teacher-held sub-process Teacher mainly holds the commognitive responsibility 5 1

OTO1Sharing sub-process Teacher and student share the commognitive responsibility 3 3

OTO3

4J.LU

ETAL.

Student-held sub-process Student mainly hold the commognitive responsibility 1 5

OTO2

INTERA

CTIV

ELEA

RNINGEN

VIRO

NMEN

TS5

takes the commognitive responsibility and leads the interaction with the student, so we assign 5points to the teacher and 1 point to the student. On the other hand, if the visualization curves of stu-dent’s commognition havemore noticeable growth than the curve of teacher’s commognition in turn,the commognitive responsibility transfers. In those kinds of sub-processes, it is the student who leadsthe commognitive interaction. Accordingly, we assign the student 5 points, while the teacher can onlygain 1 point. What’s more, there is also an intermediate condition when both the value of teacher’sand student’s commognition have roughly the same tendency of change. Under those kinds of cir-cumstance, the teacher and the student share the commognitive responsibility, leading the develop-ment of commognition corporately by active questioning, answering and discussing. In those kind ofsub-processes, we equally assign 3 points both to the teacher and the student.

There were two researchers participating in the scoring process and the coding κ coefficient of theresults was 0.908, which was appropriate. After we reached an agreement about the inconsistentcoding results by discussion, we plotted the sum commognitive responsibility score of the teacherand the student along the timeline. The plots obtained showcase the concrete procedures of com-moginitive responsibility development, helping us locate the time points when tutoring activitiesthat trigger the commognition process shift happened.

3. Results

3.1. Overview of commognitive responsibility

The percentage of each sub-process category in the four-lesson samples is shown in Figure 2. It isnoticeable that the percentage of teacher-held sub-process decreased in turn from OTO1 to OTO4,

Figure 3. The commognitive responsibility in teacher-led commognition process.

Figure 2. Percentage of each sub-process category.

6 J. LU ET AL.

which echoes the findings of our previous study, indicating that the commognitiveresponsibility of the teacher was gradually released in the series of computer-based one-to-onetutoring lessons. What’s more, it is noteworthy that not all the teacher-held sub-processesshifted to student-led time. As the lesson progressed, more and more units of time were distrib-uted to sharing sub-process while the percentage of student-held sub-process only changedmildly.

3.2. Commognitive responsibility in teacher-led commognition process

Our previous study has illustrated that OTO1 is a typical sample lesson of teacher-led commogni-tion process. The category of each sub-process in OTO1 is shown in Figure 3, with the curve of thesum of teacher’s and student’s commognitive responsibility score. Since the teacher mainlyadopted lecture as the teaching method, he firmly held the commognitive responsibility mostof the time while the student only asked questions and grasped the commognitive responsibilityonce in a while. Therefore, the sum of teacher’s commognitive responsibility score was higher thanthe student’s all the time.

Since OTO1 is the first lesson of the tutoring series, the lesson began with teacher-held sub-pro-cesses, in which the teacher introduced himself, established tutoring purposes and laid out the basicnotions of set theory, while the student merely listened with little commognitive reaction. During thewhole lesson, time is mainly taken up by teacher-held sub-process since the teacher mainly tooklecture as his teaching method. Student-held sub-process merely occurred three times followed by(or following) a sharing sub-process. For the first time, the student raised questions in mathematicalsymbol expression when the teacher associated the symbol of “not belong to” in set theory with thestudent’s previous knowledge: the sign of inequality. For the second time, the student expressed hisconfusion to the claim that all equilateral triangles can form a set, which conflicted his original under-standing of the triangle. Finally, the student brought out that he was obstructed by a set problemwith parameter. All the questions raised by the student were timely solved by the teacher with expla-nation, demonstration and think-alouds.

3.3. Commognitive responsibility in comparison commognition process

According to our previous study, OTO2 is a typical example of comparison commognition process. InOTO2, the three categories of sub-process appeared alternatively, indicating that the commognitionresponsibility commutatively shifted between the teacher and the student. As shown in Figure 4,OTO2 began with student-held sub-processes in which the student did several exercises to reviewthe knowledge of OTO1. And then the responsibility was shifted to the teacher when the teacherstarted to introduce the way of representing a set in a lecture way. Afterwards, when it’s time to

Figure 4. The commognitive responsibility in comparison commognition process.

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 7

solve some relevant problems as exercise, the teacher changed his tutoring strategies. At first, mod-eling and thinking aloud were still used by the teacher to demonstrate how to figure out the solution,so the commognitive responsibility was still teacher-held. Then, the teacher gradually changed toguide on the side and released the responsibility. He provided verbal and virtual cues as guidance,encouraging the student to apply what he has learned and solved the problems independently.At the end of exercising, the teacher set a robust question to trigger cognitive conflict about theconcept of void, to which the student respond with active feedback. After this question, thestudent became increasingly agile in the communication and cognitive interaction with quickly-increased commognitive responsibility score.

3.4. Commognitive responsibility in student-led commognition process

OTO3 and OTO4 exemplify the computer-based one-to-one tutoring in student-held sub-process. Inthe two lessons, sharing sub-process and student-held sub-process dominated the time, while muchless teacher-held sub-process occurred. In OTO3, the lesson begun by reviewing the homework of theprevious lesson, led by the student. Then the teacher and the student started to solve some mathproblems with high difficulty together. Usually, the teacher would wait for the student until hespoke out his own problem-solving ideas, then they would discuss with each other whether the sol-ution was right. It was not until the end of the lesson when the teacher had to summarize the wholelesson that the teacher-held sub-process emerged. Similarly, in OTO4, the lesson began by the pre-vious review which was led by the student. After that, since the new knowledge of complement is alittle abstract for the student, the teacher drew back the commognitive responsibility to explain thispoint more in-depth. Then, the teacher and the student shared the commognitive responsibility andsolved some math problems as the same way in OTO3. At the end of the lesson, there appeared ateacher-held sub-process when the teacher conducted a summary of the whole lesson, followedby a sharing sub-process and student-held sub-process when the student tried to do some exercisesindependently (Figure 5).

4. Discussion

By comparing the percentage of each sub-process category in the four-lesson samples, we found thatwhile the computer-based one-to-one tutoring gradually shifted from teacher-led process to student-led process, most of the original teacher-held sub-processes in a lesson shifted to sharing sub-processrather than student-held sub-process. It reflects that the teacher did not tend to relinquish his com-mognitive responsibility even in the student-led process, which offers a different empirical expla-nation of the relationship between teacher and student from the existing researches in onlineone-to-one tutoring (Bennett & Marsh, 2002; Chung et al., 2006; Hastie et al., 2007; Stickler &Hampel, 2007). Neither a dominator nor a “laisser-faire”, the teacher is supposed to be the compa-nion of the student to develop. This echoes Reigeluth’s theory of on-campus and offline instructionparadigm, which advocates that the role of the teacher should change from sage on the stage toguide on the side (Reigeluth, 2017).

Figure 5. The commognitive responsibility in student-led commognition process.

8 J. LU ET AL.

Through more detailed analysis and comparison of the commognitive responsibility developmentprocedure in each sample lesson, we get Table 2 to demonstrate what triggers the commognitiondevelopment from teacher-led process to student-led process.

Fromtheperspectiveof teaching strategies, thefindingsof the study aregoodempirical experience incomputer-based one-to-one tutoring of the Gradual Release of Responsibility Instructional Framework(Fisher & Frey, 2013). Though Fisher and Frey’s instructional suggestions actually are served for offlineteaching in the classroom, our study has demonstrated that those teaching strategies such as providingprompts, cues, robust questions and spiral reviews are also conducive to the commognition process shiftin computer-based one-to-one tutoring. To bemore specific, at the very beginning of the tutoring whenthe student has not accustomed to hold the commognitive responsibility, prompts may function as aneffective catalyst since it can remind the student about prior knowledge and open awindow for him/hertoparticipate in thecommognitive interaction. Also, robustquestions can serveas stairs for the student tolearn new concepts and skills, or think previous knowledge more deeply. Then, emphasis cues likestressed vocal pitch or underlying keywords in questions may help the student find his/her flawswhen he/she tries to apply the knowledge to solve some problems. Since the mistakes were figuredout by themselves rather than pointed out directly by the teacher, the student may regard this as anencouraging process and become more confident to continue interact with the teacher. What’s more,after the student accumulate some interaction experience, spiral review exercises would also be anefficient way for the student to lead a learning sub-process and speak out his/her own opinion.

However, in computer-supported one-to-one tutoring, Fisher and Frey’s suggestion to organizecollaborative learning is not suitable since there is no classmate. Fortunately, according to the experi-ence of our study, the discussion between the teacher and the student also can prompt the

Table 2. The main trigger of the commognition process shift.

Lesson Trigger TSa Example

OTO1 Positive transfer of knowledge(teacher-led)

prompts Teacher: a is not an element of set A, we could regard it as a kind of“not equal to” relationship. So do you remember what we add on anequals sign to represent “not equal”?Student: A directory string

Cognition conflicts at lowerlevel (conceptual,descriptive conflicts)

/ Student: I think all the equilateral triangles have the same inner angles.Why they are different and can be in one set as different elements?Teacher: Yes, all the inner angles of equilateral triangles are 60°, butthe side length can be different

OTO2 Positive transfer of knowledge(student-led)

Spiral review Exercise: Please judge whether the following objections can form a setcues Example: Express the set composed of the integer whose remainder

divided by 3 is 1Student: I think it should be… {4, 7, 10, · · ·}.Teacher: (underlying “integer”) The concept of integer includes… ?Student: Positive integer and negative integer.Teacher: Yes, so is it possible that some elements of the set arenegative?Student: Oh, yes! So I need to add −2,−5…

Cognition conflicts at higherlevel (conflicts concerningproblem-solving strategy)

Robustquestions

Example: If there are 3 elements in set A, then set A has 7 true subsets.Student: I think it’s wrong. It should be six, six true subsets.Teacher: Actually it’s right. Besides those true subsets you havementioned, there is another one: Void.Student: Ah? What is “Void”?

OTO3 andOTO4

Positive transfer of knowledge(student-led)

Spiral review Exercise: It is known that the setA = {(x, y)|y = ax + 1}, B = {(x, y)|y = x + b}, andA> B = {(2, 5)}, then a = ____,b = ____.

Cognition conflicts at higherlevel which are difficult toremove

discussion Example: It is known that the setA = {x|2a− 2 , x , a}, B = {x|1 , x , 2}and if A is a true subsetof ›RB, find the range of values of a。The teacher and the student discussed the solution for more than 6min. They particularly had a debate on the value range of 2a− 2and a.

aTS means Teaching strategies. “/” in this column means the activity happened unintentionally.

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 9

construction of student-centered tutoring, working as a robust substitute for group work. Both OTO3and OTO4 are good examples in which the student mainly led the communication and cognitiveinteraction by discussing the difficult math problems actively with the teacher. The teacher also com-bined all the teaching strategies mentioned above during the discussion to promote the commogni-tion development. As a result, the student showed a higher level both in commognition andcommognitive responsibility (obtained higher scores).

If we try to figure out why those teaching strategies can trigger the commognition process shift, bothpositive transfer of knowledge and cognitive conflicts may stand out as the answer. In the four samplelessons, the student was compelled to get involved in a more complex and effective commognitiveactivity when he was encouraged by the prompts, cues and spiral reviews to recall the prior knowledgeand construct scaffold to reach thenewcontent. It echoes the classical transport theory that indicates thepositive effects of knowledge transfer (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999; Gray & Orasanu, 1987; Simons, 1999;van de Pol et al., 2010). Meanwhile, conceptual cognition conflict also stimulated the shift of commog-nitive responsibility in theprocess,whichhas been supportedbyprevious studies that cognition conflictshave theopportunity to contribute to student’s conceptual change andunderstanding (Kanget al., 2004;Lee & Yi, 2013; Limón, 2001). In the sample lessons, it is by creating cognitive conflicts that the teachersuccessfully stimulated the student’s enthusiasmandactivity. Additionally, someunintentional cognitiveconflicts also greatly improved the student’s level of commognitive responsibility.

5. Conclusion

In this study, we built a scale of commognitive responsibility score to describe the commognitiverelationship between the teacher and the student in computer-based one-to-one tutoring. Withthe help of the scale, we located the time points when teaching and learning activities that triggerthe commognition process shift happen. By reviewing the lesson videos, we found that the main trig-gers are a positive transfer of knowledge and cognitive conflict. On the basis of Fisher and Frey’stheory and our practical experience, we came up with the following suggestions for the teachersworking on computer-supported one-to-one tutoring to realize those triggers:

(1) provide prompts to invite: design questions of prompts to remind the student about what he/shehas learned before in order to invite he/she join in the interaction with you.

(2) provide robust questions to access: put forward robust questions that inspire the student torecognize his/her flaws of academic understanding, so that he/she will be compelled to accessto new knowledge with strong curiosity and activity.

(3) provide cues to find mistakes: when doing exercises, offering cues to help the student find his/her mistakes on their own, which can encourage them to think more deeply and ask more high-quality questions.

(4) provide discussion to develop: combine all the suggestions above and discuss with your studentwhen you are facing some tough, or complicated problems.

(5) provide spiral review to connect: set spiral review at the beginning of each lesson, then thestudent may get better prepared and braver to express.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the student, parents, teacher and platform staff for their invaluable support of this project.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

10 J. LU ET AL.

Funding

This research was conducted with the National key R & D plan of China (2018YFB1004903) provided by the Ministry ofscience and technology of China, and Diligent and careful research and Start up Project of scientific research(RWSK20191008) provided by Hangzhou Normal University.

Notes on contributors

Jijian Lu is a college lecturer in the Jing Hengyi Honors College, Hangzhou Normal University. He has been supported byNational Construction of High-Level University Postgraduate Project from China Scholarship Council to be a joint trainingPhD student at The University of Melbourne for 1 year. His current research interests include commognition during one-to-one tutoring and artificial intelligence assistant in classroom.

Yan Tao is an undergraduate student in the Jing Hengyi Honors College, Hangzhou Normal University. She mainlyresearches the following current area: commognitive responsibility and computer-supported one-to-one tutoring

Jinghao Xu is an undergraduate student in the Jing Hengyi Honors College, Hangzhou Normal University. He mainlyresearches the following current area: artificial intelligence application in Education

Max Stephens is a senior research fellow in the Melbourne Graduate School of Education, at The University of Melbourne.His current areas of research include identifying the emergence of students’ algebraic thinking in the primary andmiddleyears of school, and developing and using constructs of Teacher Capacity to support curriculum reform in mathematics.He has continuing interests in mathematics education and curriculum development internationally, most notably inJapan and in China.

ORCID

Jijian Lu http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0208-9486Yan Tao http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3550-5781

References

Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire WirelessLearning Initiative. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(2). http://www.jtla.org.

Bebell, D., & O’Dwyer, L. (2010). Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing settings. Journal of Technology,Learning, and Assessment, 9(1). https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/jtla/article/view/1606.

Bennett, S., & Marsh, D. (2002). Are we expecting online tutors to run before they can walk? Innovations in Education andTeaching International, 39(1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13558000110097055

Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review ofResearch in Education, 24, 61–100. https://doi.org/10.2307/1167267

Chung, Y.-M., Young, S. S. C., & Lien, T.-N. (2006). ICT integrated into one-to-one tutoring: From face to face to online [Paperpresentation]. Sixth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’06). (pp. 568–570). IEEE.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2013). Gradual release of responsibility instructional framework (pp. 1–8). https://doi.org/10.1598/e-ssentials.8037

Gray, W. D., & Orasanu, J. M. (1987). Chapter 7 – Transfer of cognitive skills. In S. M. Cormier & J. D. Hagman (Eds), Transferof learning (pp. 183–215). Academic Press.

Hastie, M., Chen, N.-S., & Kuo, Y.-h. (2007). Instructional design for best practice in the synchronous cyber classroom.Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 281–294. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/jeductechsoci.10.4.281.

Hershkovitz, A., & Karni, O. (2018). Borders of change: A holistic exploration of teaching in one-to-one computing pro-grams. Computers & Education, 125, 429–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.026

Humphry, D., & Hampden-Thompson, G. (2019). Primary school pupils’ emotional experiences of synchronous audio-ledonline communication during online one-to-one tuition. Computers & Education, 135, 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.003

Jopling, M. J. (2012). 1:1 online tuition: A review of the literature from a pedagogical perspective. Journal of ComputerAssisted Learning, 28(4), 310–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00441.x

Kang, S., Scharmann, L., & Noh, T. (2004). Reexamining the role of cognitive conflict in science concept learning. Researchin Science Education, 34(1), 71–96. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000021001.77568.b3

Kennedy, K., & Archambault, L. (2012). Offering preservice teachers field experiences in K-12 online learning a nationalsurvey of teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(3), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111433651

INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 11

Kulik, J. A. (2002). School mathematics and science programs benefit from instructional technology. InfoBrief (pp. 3–7).National Science Foundation, Div. of Science Resources Statistics.

Lee, G., & Yi, J. (2013). Where cognitive conflict arises from?: The structure of creating cognitive conflict. InternationalJournal of Science Mathematics Education, 11(3), 601–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9356-x

Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2008). One-to-one computing: What does it bring to schools? Journal of Educational ComputingResearch, 39(2), 97–122. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.39.2.a

Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal.Learning and Instruction, 11(4), 357–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00037-2

Lu, J., Zhang, X., & Stephens, M. (2019). Visualizing the commognitive processes in computer-supported one-to-one tutor-ing. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(5–6), 645–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1610452

McCombs, B. (2013). The learner-centered model: From the vision to the future. In Interdisciplinary applications of theperson-centered approach (pp. 83–113). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7144-8_9.

Mo, D., Swinnen, J., Zhang, L., Yi, H., Qu, Q., Boswell, M., & Rozelle, S. (2013). Can one-to-one computing narrow the digitaldivide and the educational gap in China? The case of Beijing Migrant schools. World Development, 46, 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.12.019

Pinder, P. J. (2008, February 20–23). Exploring and understanding the benefits of tutoring software on urban students’science achievement: What are Baltimore City practitioners’ perspectives? [Paper presentation]. 31st Regional EasternEducational Research Association Conference, Hilton Head Island, SC. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/70989

Price, L., Richardson, J. T. E., & Jelfs, A. (2007). Face-to-face versus online tutoring support in distance education. Studies inHigher Education, 32(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070601004366

Reigeluth, C. (2017). The learner-centered paradigm of instruction. In Issues in technology, learning, and instructionaldesign: Classic and contemporary debates (pp. 133–140). Routledge.

Schmidt, S., Tschida, C., & Hodge, E. (2016). How faculty learn to teach online: What administrators need to know. OnlineJournal of Distance Learning Administration, 19(1), 1–10.

Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010). Evaluating the implementation fidelity of technologyimmersion and its relationship with student achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(24).https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/jtla/article/view/1609.

Simons, P. R. J. (1999). Transfer of learning: Paradoxes for learners. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(7),577–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00025-7

Stickler, U., & Hampel, R. (2007). Designing online tutor training for language courses: A case study. Open Learning, 22(1),75–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680510601100176

van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research.Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6

Varier, D., Dumke, E. K., Abrams, L. M., Conklin, S. B., Barnes, J. S., Hoover, N. R., & Educational Technology Research andDevelopment. (2017). Potential of one-to-one technologies in the classroom: Teachers and students weigh in.Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4), 967–992. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9509-2

Weston, P. D., & Bain, E. D. (2010). The end of techno-critique: The naked truth about 1:1 laptop initiatives and educationalchange. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(6), 605–619. http://www.jtla.org.

12 J. LU ET AL.