Recent Advances in Conversational Intelligent Tutoring Systems

We report recent advances in intelligent tutoring systems with conversational dialogue. We highlight progress in terms of macro and microadaptivity. Macroadaptivity refers to a system’s capability to select appropriate instructional tasks for the learner to work on. Microadaptivity refers to a system’s capability to adapt its scaffolding while the learner is working on a particular task. The advances in macro and microadaptivity that are presented here were made possible by the use of learning progressions, deeper dialogue and natural language processing techniques, and by the use of affect-enabled components. Learning progressions and deeper dialogue and natural language processing techniques are key features of DeepTutor, the first intelligent tutoring system based on learning progressions. These improvements extend the bandwidth of possibilities for tailoring instruction to each individual student which is needed for maximizing engagement and ultimately learning.

[1]  Arthur Graesser,et al.  Autotutor Learning through Natural Language Dialogue that Adapts to the Cognitive and Affective States of the Learner , .

[2]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  A Time for Emoting: When Affect-Sensitivity Is and Isn't Effective at Promoting Deep Learning , 2010, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[3]  A. Renkl.  Worked-out examples: instructional explanations support learning by self- explanations , 2002 .

[4]  Vasile Rus,et al.  Experiments with Semantic Similarity Measures Based on LDA and LSA , 2013, SLSP.

[5]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Latent Dirichlet Allocation , 2001, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[6]  Vasile Rus,et al.  A Comparison of Greedy and Optimal Assessment of Natural Language Student Input Using Word-to-Word Similarity Metrics , 2012, BEA@NAACL-HLT.

[7]  M. Battista.  Conceptualizations and Issues related to Learning Progressions, Learning Trajectories, and Levels of Sophistication , 2011, The Mathematics Enthusiast.

[8]  M. Chi,et al.  Can Tutors Monitor Students' Understanding Accurately? , 2004 .

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

[10]  Model Analysis: Assessing the dynamics of student learning , 2002, physics/0207069.

[11]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Deeper Natural Language Processing for Evaluating Student Answers in Intelligent Tutoring Systems , 2006, AAAI.

[12]  Aaron Rogat,et al.  Learning Progressions in Science: An Evidence-Based Approach to Reform. CPRE Research Report # RR-63. , 2009 .

[13]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Automatic Discovery of Speech Act Categories in Educational Games , 2012, EDM.

[14]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Applied Cognitive Psychology , 2022 .

[15]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Handbook of latent semantic analysis , 2007 .

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

[17]  R. Glaser,et al.  Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment , 2001 .

[18]  Keith K. Millis,et al.  Operation ARA: A computerized learning game that teaches critical thinking and scientific reasoning , 2012 .

[19]  Andrew Olney,et al.  Gaze tutor: A gaze-reactive intelligent tutoring system , 2012, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[20]  Chris Quirk,et al.  Unsupervised Construction of Large Paraphrase Corpora: Exploiting Massively Parallel News Sources , 2004, COLING.

[21]  Kristen N. Moreno,et al.  AutoTutor Improves Deep Learning of Computer Literacy : Is it the Dialog or the Talking Head ? , 2004 .

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

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

[24]  Nobal B. Niraula,et al.  The SIMILAR Corpus: A Resource To Foster The Qualitative Understanding of Semantic Similarity of Texts , 2012 .

[25]  Douglas J. Hacker,et al.  Handbook of Metacognition in Education , 2009 .

[26]  T. Koopmans,et al.  Assignment Problems and the Location of Economic Activities , 1957 .

[27]  William R. Penuel,et al.  Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from the First Student Cohort , 2007 .

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

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

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

[31]  Kurt VanLehn,et al.  The Behavior of Tutoring Systems , 2006, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[32]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Guru: A Computer Tutor That Models Expert Human Tutors , 2012, ITS.

[33]  Charles W. Anderson,et al.  Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems , 2009 .

[34]  Diane J. Litman,et al.  Benefits and challenges of real-time uncertainty detection and adaptation in a spoken dialogue computer tutor , 2011, Speech Commun..

[35]  Vasile Rus,et al.  SEMILAR: The Semantic Similarity Toolkit , 2013, ACL.

[36]  A. Graesser,et al.  Confusion can be beneficial for learning. , 2014 .