Discuss: toward a domain independent representation of dialogue

While many studies have demonstrated that conversational tutoring systems have a positive effect on learning, the amount of manual effort required to author, design, and tune dialogue behaviors remains a major barrier to widespread deployment and adoption of these systems. Such dialogue systems must not only understand student speech, but must also endeavor to keep students engaged while scaffolding them through the curriculum. Crafting robust, natural tutoring interactions typically involves writing tightly scripted behaviors for a wide variety of student responses and scenarios. Combining statistical machine learning with corpus-based methods in natural language processing presents a possible path to reducing this effort. Advances in reinforcement learning have been applied toward dialogue systems to learn optimal behaviors for a given task. However, these learned dialogue policies are tightly coupled to the specific dialogue system implementation. For content-rich applications such as intelligent tutoring systems, there is an immediate need to learn tutoring strategies and dialogue behaviors that can be leveraged across a variety of materials, concepts and lessons. Further generalization will require an intermediate representation of dialogue that can abstract the conversation to its underlying action, function, and content. This work introduces the Dialogue Schema Unifying Speech and Semantics (DISCUSS), an intermediate linguistic representation that captures the semantics and pragmatics of speech while also allowing for domain-independent modeling of tutorial dialogue. To better understand the benefits of the DISCUSS representation, a corpus of computer-mediated tutorial dialogues was manually tagged with DISCUSS labels. These data were then used for three different tasks: utterance classification, dialogue move selection, and learning gains prediction. System performance in these tasks demonstrate the utility and viability of the DISCUSS representation for analyzing and automating dialogue interactions. Utterance classifiers achieve DISCUSS labeling performance on par with inter-annotator agreement levels. System performance in ranking and selecting follow-up questions illustrates the usefulness of DISCUSS-based features for modeling and identifying the factors behind human decision making when teaching. Correlating features of the dialogue with measured learning gains in students shows how DISCUSS-derived metrics provide a detailed account of real tutoring strategies and student behaviors. Together these results represent a step toward more domain-independent mechanisms for modeling dialogue.

[1]  Claus Zinn,et al.  The Role of Initiative in Tutorial Dialogue , 2003, EACL.

[2]  E. Schegloff,et al.  The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation , 1977 .

[3]  Harry Bunt,et al.  Towards Multimodal Content Representation , 2009, ArXiv.

[4]  Csr Young,et al.  How to Do Things With Words , 2009 .

[5]  David J. Israel,et al.  Plans and resource‐bounded practical reasoning , 1988, Comput. Intell..

[6]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  How Adaptive Is an Expert Human Tutor? , 2010, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

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

[8]  J. Searle Expression and Meaning: A taxonomy of illocutionary acts , 1975 .

[9]  Daniel Jurafsky,et al.  Lexical, Prosodic, and Syntactic Cues for Dialog Acts , 1998 .

[10]  Max M. Louwerse,et al.  Dialog Act Classification Using N-Gram Algorithms , 2006, FLAIRS.

[11]  A. Stolcke,et al.  Automatic detection of discourse structure for speech recognition and understanding , 1997, 1997 IEEE Workshop on Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Proceedings.

[12]  Ronald A. Cole,et al.  My science tutor: A conversational multimedia virtual tutor for elementary school science , 2011, TSLP.

[13]  Sarel van Vuuren,et al.  Question Ranking and Selection in Tutorial Dialogues , 2012, BEA@NAACL-HLT.

[14]  Kristy Elizabeth Boyer,et al.  An Empirically-Derived Question Taxonomy for Task-Oriented Tutorial Dialogue , 2009 .

[15]  Martha Palmer,et al.  Novel Semantic Features for Verb Sense Disambiguation , 2008, ACL.

[16]  Srinivas Bangalore,et al.  Incremental Parsing Models for Dialog Task Structure , 2009, EACL.

[17]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  When Are Tutorial Dialogues More Effective Than Reading? , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[18]  J.D. Williams,et al.  Scaling up POMDPs for Dialog Management: The ``Summary POMDP'' Method , 2005, IEEE Workshop on Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding, 2005..

[19]  Harry Bunt,et al.  Designing an Open, Multidimensional Dialogue Act Taxonomy , 2006 .

[20]  Margaret G. McKeown,et al.  Improving Comprehension with Questioning the Author: A Fresh and Expanded View of a Powerful Approach , 2006 .

[21]  E. Maier,et al.  Dialogue Acts in VERBMOBIL , 1995 .

[22]  J. Harrison THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING IMPORTANT , 1978 .

[23]  Margaret G. McKeown,et al.  Questioning the Author: A Yearlong Classroom Implementation to Engage Students with Text , 1996, The Elementary School Journal.

[24]  Hua Ai,et al.  Assessing Dialog System User Simulation Evaluation Measures Using Human Judges , 2008, ACL.

[25]  Harry Bunt,et al.  The DIT++ taxanomy for functional dialogue markup , 2009 .

[26]  James F. Allen,et al.  TRIPS: An Integrated Intelligent Problem-Solving Assistant , 1998, AAAI/IAAI.

[27]  Kurt VanLehn,et al.  Reinforcement Learning-based Feature Seleciton For Developing Pedagogically Effective Tutorial Dialogue Tactics , 2008, EDM.

[28]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  AutoTutor: an intelligent tutoring system with mixed-initiative dialogue , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Education.

[29]  M. A. R T H A P A L,et al.  Making fine-grained and coarse-grained sense distinctions , both manually and automatically , 2005 .

[30]  Ruowei Yang Repair Structures in Web-based Conversation , 2005, PACLIC.

[31]  M. Kendall A NEW MEASURE OF RANK CORRELATION , 1938 .

[32]  Johanna D. Moore,et al.  A comparative evaluation of socratic versus didactic tutoring , 2001 .

[33]  Carolyn Penstein Rosé,et al.  Tools for Authoring a Dialogue Agent that Participates in Learning Studies , 2007, AIED.

[34]  Andrei Popescu-Belis,et al.  Multi-level Dialogue Act Tags , 2004, SIGDIAL Workshop.

[35]  Kristy Elizabeth Boyer,et al.  Discovering Tutorial Dialogue Strategies with Hidden Markov Models , 2009, AIED.

[36]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Utterance Classification in AutoTutor , 2003, HLT-NAACL 2003.

[37]  William C. Mann,et al.  Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization , 1988 .

[38]  Martha Palmer,et al.  Class-Based Construction of a Verb Lexicon , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[39]  B. Bloom The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring , 1984 .

[40]  Kurt VanLehn,et al.  Looking Ahead to Select Tutorial Actions: A Decision-Theoretic Approach , 2004, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[41]  Anita M. Pomerantz Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes , 1984 .

[42]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Making large scale SVM learning practical , 1998 .

[43]  Carolyn Penstein Rosé,et al.  Spoken Versus Typed Human and Computer Dialogue Tutoring , 2006, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[44]  Wendy Grace Lehnert,et al.  The Process of Question Answering , 2022 .

[45]  J. Sadock Speech acts , 2007 .

[46]  Lee BECKER,et al.  What a pilot study says about running a question generation challenge , 2009 .

[47]  Peter W. Foltz,et al.  An introduction to latent semantic analysis , 1998 .

[48]  William C. Mann,et al.  Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis , 1989 .

[49]  Noah A. Smith,et al.  Rating Computer-Generated Questions with Mechanical Turk , 2010, Mturk@HLT-NAACL.

[50]  Wayne H. Ward Extracting information in spontaneous speech , 1994, ICSLP.

[51]  Diane J. Litman,et al.  ITSPOKE: An Intelligent Tutoring Spoken Dialogue System , 2004, NAACL.

[52]  Sarel van Vuuren,et al.  DISCUSS: A dialogue move taxonomy layered over semantic representations , 2011, IWCS.

[53]  Harry Bunt,et al.  Dynamic Interpretation and Dialogue Theory , 2000 .

[54]  Kristy Elizabeth Boyer,et al.  Dialogue Act Modeling in a Complex Task-Oriented Domain , 2010, SIGDIAL Conference.

[55]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Eliciting Self-Explanations Improves Understanding , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[56]  Yoram Singer,et al.  Learning to Order Things , 1997, NIPS.

[57]  A. Graesser,et al.  Question Asking During Tutoring , 1994 .

[58]  Thomas Bub,et al.  VERBMOBIL: the evolution of a complex large speech-to-speech translation system , 1996, Proceeding of Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. ICSLP '96.

[59]  Marilyn A. Walker,et al.  SPoT: A Trainable Sentence Planner , 2001, NAACL.

[60]  Matthew W. Lewis,et al.  Self-Explonations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[61]  C. Raymond Perrault,et al.  Elements of a Plan-Based Theory of Speech Acts , 1979, Cogn. Sci..

[62]  Mark G. Core,et al.  Coding Dialogs with the DAMSL Annotation Scheme , 1997 .

[63]  Magdalena Wolska,et al.  A Classification of Dialogue Actions in Tutorial Dialogue , 2008, COLING.

[64]  Marilyn A. Walker,et al.  Evaluating a Trainable Sentence Planner for a Spoken Dialogue System , 2001, ACL.

[65]  Kurt VanLehn,et al.  To Elicit Or To Tell: Does It Matter? , 2009, AIED.

[66]  Gina-Anne Levow,et al.  Dialog act tagging with support vector machines and hidden Markov models , 2006, INTERSPEECH.

[67]  Hans Uszkoreit,et al.  Using Syntactic and Semantic based Relations for Dialogue Act Recognition , 2010, COLING.

[68]  Sandra Katz,et al.  Going Beyond the Problem Given: How Human Tutors Use Post-Solution Discussions to Support Transfer , 2003, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[69]  C. Raymond Perrault,et al.  Analyzing Intention in Utterances , 1986, Artif. Intell..

[70]  Maxine Eskénazi,et al.  Predicting Change in Student Motivation by Measuring Cohesion between Tutor and Student , 2011, BEA@ACL.

[71]  Alison Cawsey,et al.  A Belief Revision Model of Repair Sequences in Dialogue , 1992 .

[72]  Ralph Weischedel,et al.  PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR INFORMATION EXTRACTION , 2007 .

[73]  Adam L. Berger,et al.  A Maximum Entropy Approach to Natural Language Processing , 1996, CL.

[74]  John B. Lowe,et al.  The Berkeley FrameNet Project , 1998, ACL.

[75]  Mark G. Core Analyzing and Predicting Patterns of DAMSL Utterance Tags , 2002 .

[76]  Dirk Heylen,et al.  DIALOGUE-ACT TAGGING USING SMART FEATURE SELECTION; RESULTS ON MULTIPLE CORPORA , 2006, 2006 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop.

[77]  C. Rosé The Role of Why Questions in Effective Human Tutoring , 2003 .

[78]  Manish Agarwal,et al.  Automatic Gap-fill Question Generation from Text Books , 2011, BEA@ACL.

[79]  S. Singh,et al.  Optimizing Dialogue Management with Reinforcement Learning: Experiments with the NJFun System , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[80]  E. Schegloff,et al.  A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation , 1974 .

[81]  Patrick F. Reidy An Introduction to Latent Semantic Analysis , 2009 .

[82]  Jinho D. Choi,et al.  K -best, locally pruned, transition-based dependency parsing using robust risk minimization , 2009 .

[83]  Wayne H. Ward,et al.  The CU communicator: an architecture for dialogue systems , 2000, INTERSPEECH.

[84]  Kristen N. Moreno,et al.  Development and evaluation of a lesson authoring tool for AutoTutor , 2003 .

[85]  Benjamin S. Bloom,et al.  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. , 1957 .

[86]  Dimitra Tsovaltzi,et al.  A View on Dialogue Move Taxonomies for Tutorial Dialogues , 2004, SIGDIAL Workshop.

[87]  Ronald A. Cole,et al.  Perceptive animated interfaces: first steps toward a new paradigm for human-computer interaction , 2003, Proc. IEEE.

[88]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[89]  Kurt VanLehn,et al.  Do Micro-Level Tutorial Decisions Matter: Applying Reinforcement Learning to Induce Pedagogical Tutorial Tactics , 2010, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[90]  John B. Willett,et al.  Questions and Answers in the Measurement of Change , 1988 .

[91]  Andreas Stolcke,et al.  Dialogue act modeling for automatic tagging and recognition of conversational speech , 2000, CL.

[92]  P. K. Murphy,et al.  Examining the Effects of Classroom Discussion on Students' Comprehension of Text: A Meta-Analysis , 2009 .

[93]  Mitchell P. Marcus,et al.  Maximum entropy models for natural language ambiguity resolution , 1998 .

[94]  William C. Mann,et al.  Rhetorical Structure Theory: Description and Construction of Text Structures , 1987 .

[95]  Vladimir I. Levenshtein,et al.  Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals , 1965 .

[96]  Kôiti Hasida,et al.  Towards an ISO Standard for Dialogue Act Annotation , 2010, LREC.

[97]  Sebastian Varges Overgeneration and Ranking for Spoken Dialogue Systems , 2006, INLG.

[98]  Chen-Lin C. Kulik,et al.  Educational Outcomes of Tutoring: A Meta-analysis of Findings , 1982 .

[99]  Xuchen Yao,et al.  Question Generation with Minimal Recursion Semantics , 2010 .

[100]  Hong Va Leong,et al.  Dialogue act recognition using maximum entropy , 2008 .

[101]  Lori S. Levin,et al.  Tagging of Speech Acts and Dialogue Games in Spanish Call Home , 1999 .

[102]  Kurt VanLehn,et al.  The Andes Physics Tutoring System: Five Years of Evaluations , 2005, AIED.

[103]  Roger Azevedo,et al.  Automatic Analyses of Cohesion and Coherence in Human Tutorial Dialogues During Hypermedia: A Comparison among Mental Model Jumpers , 2008, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[104]  Jeroen Geertzen,et al.  Dialogue Act Prediction Using Stochastic Context-Free Grammar Induction , 2009 .

[105]  Kristy Elizabeth Boyer,et al.  Modeling Dialogue Structure with Adjacency Pair Analysis and Hidden Markov Models , 2009, NAACL.

[106]  Eric K. Ringger,et al.  A Robust System for Natural Spoken Dialogue , 1996, ACL.

[107]  Joseph P. Magliano,et al.  Collaborative dialogue patterns in naturalistic one-to-one tutoring , 1995 .

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

[109]  Kristy Elizabeth Boyer,et al.  Characterizing the Effectiveness of Tutorial Dialogue with Hidden Markov Models , 2010, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[110]  Harry Bunt,et al.  Context and Dialogue Control , 1994 .

[111]  Joel R. Tetreault,et al.  A Reinforcement Learning approach to evaluating state representations in spoken dialogue systems , 2008, Speech Commun..

[112]  Norbert Reithinger,et al.  Dia logue Acts in VERBMOBIL-2 Second Edition , 1997 .

[113]  H. B. Mann,et al.  On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other , 1947 .

[114]  Jean Carletta,et al.  Assessing Agreement on Classification Tasks: The Kappa Statistic , 1996, CL.

[115]  Dimitra Tsovaltzi,et al.  Formalising Hinting in Tutorial Dialogues , 2001 .

[116]  Martha Palmer,et al.  Verbnet: a broad-coverage, comprehensive verb lexicon , 2005 .

[117]  Noah A. Smith,et al.  Good Question! Statistical Ranking for Question Generation , 2010, NAACL.

[118]  Diane J. Litman,et al.  Correlations between dialogue acts and learning in spoken tutoring dialogues , 2006, Natural Language Engineering.

[119]  Julia Hirschberg,et al.  Empirical Studies on the Disambiguation of Cue Phrases , 1993, Comput. Linguistics.

[120]  Davide Fossati,et al.  Beyond the code-and-count analysis of tutoring dialogues , 2007, AIED.

[121]  Johanna D. Moore,et al.  Using Natural Language Processing to Analyze Tutorial Dialogue Corpora Across Domains Modalities , 2009, AIED.