[JepZ]

There are other ways of making sure the student understood the concept. Recently I played the game 'The Witness'. The whole game is about learning new puzzle rules, and yet there is not a single dialog within the game or even text explaining those rules.

I am not saying that their technique is the most efficient (e.g., adding hints would undoubtedly increase the efficiency, but also ruin the game experience), just that there are other methods of making sure a student understands a concept. You don't necessarily need the one-on-one conversations. Those conversations are mostly useful to round up incomplete teaching material (again, I am not saying that creating perfect teaching material is easy).

[JabavuAdams]

You had a one on one conversation with Jon Blow's creation. This is not an argument against one on one. More like an argument for low-key AI tutors.

[JepZ]

While I like your way of thinking, I don't think the argument applies. The game itself doesn't possess any kind of AI and is somewhat static, more like a sudoku book: There are lots of puzzles, but you know it when you have solved one.

The one-on-one tutor idea is that you have a master who sees the mistakes the student makes and gives him an exercise to target precisely the misconception the student might have in his head.

The Witness, on the other hand, doesn't possess such intelligence. Instead, it is a carefully crafted series of puzzles which slowly broaden the possible moves. Most of the time every next puzzle requires you to learn a new part of the rules. Sometimes you assumed that part anyway, and the puzzles are easy. But sometimes you have to find out that misconception in your head and replace it with something correct which makes the puzzle harder.

So one concept includes an intelligent observer while the other is more like a perfected text book.