The research behind guided dialogue
Every design decision in My Socrates traces back to work on how students come to understand difficult material: they explain, they recall, they revisit, they get feedback that tells them what to do next, and they check what they actually know.
Theoretical foundations
Questions before answers
Learners understand more when they are asked to explain their reasoning than when an explanation is handed to them. My Socrates asks a student to put their thinking into words first, then works on that thinking with them.
Chi & Wylie, 2014 · Graesser, VanLehn et al., 2001 · King, 1994
Recall, not re-reading
Bringing an idea back to mind strengthens memory far more than reviewing it again. Sessions repeatedly ask students to restate and use ideas rather than to skim the reading once more.
Roediger & Karpicke, 2006 · Dunlosky et al., 2013
Return visits, spaced out
The same idea revisited across several sessions lasts longer than the same time spent in one sitting. Course memory lets a later session pick up an idea a student half-formed weeks earlier.
Cepeda et al., 2006 · Rohrer & Taylor, 2007
Feedback that explains
Feedback works best when it says where the reasoning went astray and what to try next, rather than only marking it wrong. Responses acknowledge the insight, name the refinement, then hand the next step back to the student.
Hattie & Timperley, 2007 · Shute, 2008
Support that steps back
Help should be strongest when an idea is new and fade as the learner takes over. Guidance adjusts to what a student has already shown they can do unaided.
Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976 · Van de Pol et al., 2010
Noticing your own understanding
Students often feel they understand a reading they cannot yet explain. Each session ends with a short reflection so the gap between feeling and being able becomes visible.
Bjork, Dunlosky & Kornell, 2013 · Zimmerman, 2002
Pilot results
Early pilot, small sample. Two undergraduate reading-intensive courses used My Socrates alongside their normal seminars for one term. These are descriptive figures from that pilot, not a controlled trial: there was no randomised comparison group, participation was voluntary, and the numbers should be read as encouraging signals rather than measured effects.
- 2 courses
- Reading-intensive undergraduate seminars
- 78 students
- Opted in and completed at least one session
- 1 term
- Length of the pilot
What we observed
- Students returned to the same reading more than once far more often than the course had previously seen, usually prompted by a question they could not yet answer.
- Sessions rarely ended with a summary being read: most closed with the student restating an idea in their own words, which is the behaviour the design is aiming for.
- Instructors reported that the class-level view told them which passage the group had misread before the seminar, rather than after the assessment.
- In end-of-term reflections, students most often described the value as being made to explain themselves — and least often as getting answers quickly.
Limitations we take seriously
- Voluntary participation means the students who took part were probably already more engaged than average.
- Self-reported understanding is a poor proxy for learning, and we treat it as such.
- No comparison group, so nothing here should be read as evidence that My Socrates caused a change in grades.
A larger study with a comparison group is the next step, and we are glad to design one with an interested department.
Citations
- Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444.
- Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380.
- Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243.
- Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.
- Graesser, A. C., VanLehn, K., Rosé, C. P., Jordan, P. W., & Harter, D. (2001). Intelligent tutoring systems with conversational dialogue. AI Magazine, 22(4), 39–52.
- Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
- King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338–368.
- Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.
- Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. Instructional Science, 35, 481–498.
- Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.
- Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271–296.
- VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221.
- Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.
- Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.
Broader reviews of tutoring systems, including VanLehn (2011), inform how much guidance the dialogue offers before it steps back.
See it with your own materials
A temporary demo pass opens a sample course and a short guided dialogue.