Can simple Natural Language Generation improve Intelligent Tutoring Systems

One of our general goals is to answer the question of what is the “added value” of a Natural Language interaction for a learner that interacts with an ITS. To do so, we applied simple Natural Language Generation techniques to improve the feedback provided by intelligent tutoring systems built within the DIAG framework (Towne 1997a). We have evaluated the original version of the system and the enhanced one with a between subjects experiment. The results are mixed. Although differences rarely achieve statistical significance, there appears to be slight improvement on performance measures in the group interacting with the enhanced system; however, subjects using the original system have better recall of the actions they took.

[1]  Chris Mellish,et al.  Current research in natural language generation , 1990 .

[2]  Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza,et al.  Getting the message across in RST-based text generation , 1990 .

[3]  Douglas M. Towne.  Approximate Reasoning Techniques for Intelligent Diagnostic Instruction , 1997 .

[4]  Robert Dale,et al.  Building applied natural language generation systems , 1997, Natural Language Engineering.

[5]  Michael White,et al.  EXEMPLARS: A Practical, Extensible Framework For Dynamic Text Generation , 1998, INLG.

[6]  Michael Elhadad,et al.  FUF: the Universal Unifier User Manual Version 5.2 , 1991 .

[7]  Reva Freedman.  Atlas: A Plan Manager for Mixed-Initiative, Multimodal Dialogue , 1999 .

[8]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  AutoTutor: A simulation of a human tutor , 1999, Cognitive Systems Research.

[9]  Johanna D. Moore,et al.  Discourse Generation for Instructional Applications: Identifying and Exploiting Relevant Prior Explanations , 1996 .

[10]  Xiaorong Huang,et al.  Paraphrasing and Aggregating Argumentative Texts Using Text Structure , 1996, INLG.

[11]  Reva Freedman,et al.  Learning the Use of Discourse Markers in Tutorial Dialogue for an Intelligent Tutoring System , 2000 .

[12]  Jennifer Chu-Carroll,et al.  Collaborative Response Generation in Planning Dialogues , 1998, Comput. Linguistics.

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

[14]  Barbara Di Eugenio,et al.  Introduction to the Special Issue on Natural Language Generation , 1998, CL.

[15]  James C. Lester,et al.  Developing and Empirically Evaluating Robust Explanation Generators: The KNIGHT Experiments , 1997, Comput. Linguistics.

[16]  MellishChris,et al.  An empirical study on the generation of anaphora in Chinese , 1997 .

[17]  James Shaw,et al.  Segregatory Coordination and Ellipsis in Text Generation , 1998, ACL.

[18]  Joel A. Michael,et al.  Hinting as a Tactic in One-on-One Tutoring , 1996 .

[19]  Benoit Lavoie,et al.  A Fast and Portable Realizer for Text Generation Systems , 1997, ANLP.

[20]  Chris Mellish,et al.  An Empirical Study on the Generation of Anaphora in Chinese , 1997, Comput. Linguistics.

[21]  Songsak Channarukul,et al.  A Natural Language Generation Component for Dialog Systems , 1999 .

[22]  Chris Mellish,et al.  Towards Evaluation in Natural Language Generation , 1998, LREC.

[23]  Johanna D. Moore,et al.  Generating descriptions of complex activities , 1997 .

[24]  Douglas M. Towne.  Intelligent Diagnostic Tutoring Using Qualitative Symptom Information , 1997 .

[25]  Johanna D. Moore,et al.  Empirical Studies in Discourse , 1997, CL.

[26]  James H. Martin,et al.  Speech and language processing: an introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition, 2nd Edition , 2000, Prentice Hall series in artificial intelligence.