Question Asking During Tutoring
Abstract
Whereas it is well documented that student question asking is infrequent in classroom environments, there is little research on questioning processes during tutoring. The present study investigated the questions asked in tutoring sessions on research methods (college students) and algebra (7th graders). Student questions were approximately 240 times as frequent in tutoring settings as classroom settings, whereas tutor questions were only slightly more frequent than teacher questions. Questions were classified by (a) degree of specification, (b) content, and (c) question-generation mechanism to analyze their quality. Student achievement was positively correlated with the quality of student questions after students had some experience with tutoring, but the frequency of questions was not correlated with achievement. Students partially self-regulated their learning by identifying knowledge deficits and asking questions to repair them, but they need training to improve these skills. We identified some ways that tutors and teachers might improve their question-asking skills.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Question-depth research shows that questions vary not only in frequency but also in cognitive quality: some request surface clarification, whereas others require causal, functional, interpretive, or explanatory reasoning.
“Question-depth research shows that questions vary not only in frequency but also in cognitive quality: some request surface clarification, whereas others require causal, functional, interpretive, or explanatory reasoning (Graesser et al., 2014;Graesser & Person, 1994).”
From Beyond Human-Likeness: Mapping the Scientific Critique Profiles of LLMs and Human Reviewers (2026) · cites this paper as Graesser & Person, 1994
Various taxonomies for question categories have been proposed.
“When we consider the question categories, various taxonomies were proposed.”
From Automatic question generation: a review of methodologies, datasets, evaluation metrics, and applications (2023) · cites this paper as [19]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 85 · Cited by 900
- Authors
- Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K.
- Affiliations
- University of Memphis (US)
- ORCID
- Graesser, Arthur C.
- Venue
- American Educational Research Journal
- Published
- 1994-03
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 104-137
- ISSN
- 0002-8312 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-1011
- OpenAlex
- W2098555131
- Cited by
- 900
- References
- 85
- Citations by year
- 2026: 39 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 57 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 47
- FWCI
- 12.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Educational Research Journal (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Keywords
- questioning, tutoring, student questions, question quality, student self-regulation, knowledge deficit, academic performance, research methods instruction, algebra instruction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review