A Study On Two Hint-level Policies in Conversational Intelligent Tutoring Systems

In this work, we compared two hint-level instructional strategies, minimum scaffolding vs. maximum scaffolding, in the context of conversational intelligent tutoring systems (ITSs). The two strategies are called policies because they have a clear bias, as detailed in the paper. To this end, we conducted a randomized controlled trial experiment with two conditions corresponding to two versions of the same underlying state-of-the-art conversational ITS, i.e. DeepTutor. Each version implemented one of the two hint-level strategies. Experimental data analysis revealed that pre-post learning gains were significant in both conditions. We also learned that, in general, students need more than just a minimally informative hint in order to infer the next steps in the solution to a challenging problem; this is the case in the context of a problem selection strategy that picks challenging problems for students to work on.

[1]  Kurt VanLehn,et al.  Developing pedagogically effective tutorial dialogue tactics: experiments and a testbed , 2007, SLaTE.

[2]  K. VanLehn The Relative Effectiveness of Human Tutoring, Intelligent Tutoring Systems, and Other Tutoring Systems , 2011 .

[3]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Meta-Knowledge in Tutoring , 2009 .

[4]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Intelligent Tutoring Systems with Conversational Dialogue , 2001, AI Mag..

[5]  Takashi Yamauchi,et al.  Learning from human tutoring , 2001, Cogn. Sci..

[6]  Sidney K. D'Mello,et al.  How Do They Do It? Investigating Dialogue Moves within Dialogue Modes in Expert Human Tutoring , 2012, ITS.

[7]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Recent Advances in Conversational Intelligent Tutoring Systems , 2013, AI Mag..

[8]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Macro-adaptation in Conversational Intelligent Tutoring Matters , 2014, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[9]  Gautam Biswas,et al.  Using Hidden Markov Models to Characterize Student Behaviors in Learning-by-Teaching Environments , 2008, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[10]  Jeffrey T. Steedle,et al.  Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression , 2009 .

[11]  Kurt VanLehn,et al.  Empirically evaluating the application of reinforcement learning to the induction of effective and adaptive pedagogical strategies , 2011, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[12]  D. Hestenes,et al.  Force concept inventory , 1992 .

[13]  Stellan Ohlsson,et al.  Toward a Computational Model of Expert Tutoring: A First Report , 2006, FLAIRS.

[14]  Sidney K. D'Mello,et al.  Dialogue Modes in Expert Tutoring , 2008, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[15]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Towards Tutorial Dialog to Support Self- Explanation: Adding Natural Language Understanding to a Cognitive Tutor * , 2001 .