Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Why Teachers Abandoned a Technology Aimed at Automating Teaching Processes

Expectations that technology will improve and streamline education are high. However, technology often introduces new problems. This study aims to explore the challenges mathematics teachers encounter when they implement a digital mathematics textbook with an integrated intelligent tutoring system. A formative intervention was conducted in a two-year project with 16 secondary school teachers. The method was based on activity theory and required the teachers to collaborate with researchers in analyzing their work activity when the new teaching tool was introduced. In this paper, we show that an intelligent tutoring system created systemic contradictions for the teachers. Those contradictions involved predictability, division of labor, individual versus collective learning, accountability, and expectations versus experience. The teachers all tried to resolve the contradictions, but eventually felt compelled to abandon the intelligent tutoring system. The findings contribute to a better understanding of teachers’ responses to a technology aimed at automating teaching processes

[1]  Wayne Holmes,et al.  Intelligence Unleashed: An argument for AI in Education , 2016 .

[2]  Stefan Hrastinski,et al.  Critical Imaginaries and Reflections on Artificial Intelligence and Robots in Postdigital K-12 Education , 2019, Postdigital Science and Education.

[3]  Giuditta De Prato,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: A European Perspective , 2018 .

[4]  Kirsten A. Foot,et al.  Pursuing an Evolving Object: A Case Study in Object Formation and Identification , 2002 .

[5]  Olusola O. Adesope,et al.  Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A meta-analysis , 2014 .

[6]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Co-generation of societally impactful knowledge in Change Laboratories , 2017 .

[7]  Yrjö Engeström,et al.  Studies in Expansive Learning: Learning What Is Not Yet There , 2016 .

[8]  A. Sannino.  The principle of double stimulation: A path to volitional action , 2015 .

[9]  Yrjö Engeström,et al.  From design experiments to formative interventions , 2008, ICLS.

[10]  H. Cooper,et al.  A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K–12 students’ mathematical learning. , 2013 .

[11]  Erik Duval,et al.  Technology Enhanced Learning: Research Themes. , 2017 .

[12]  Jaakko Virkkunen,et al.  The Change Laboratory: A Tool for Collaborative Development of Work and Education , 2013 .

[13]  Ryan Shaun Joazeiro de Baker,et al.  Stupid Tutoring Systems, Intelligent Humans , 2016, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.

[14]  Stan Karanasios,et al.  Toward a unified view of technology and activity: The contribution of activity theory to information systems research , 2018, Inf. Technol. People.

[15]  Faith Boninger,et al.  Personalized Learning and the Digital Privatization of Curriculum and Teaching , 2019 .

[16]  Susanne Bødker,et al.  Through the Interface: A Human Activity Approach To User Interface Design , 1990 .

[17]  V. Kaptelinin.  The Object of Activity: Making Sense of the Sense-Maker , 2005 .

[18]  A. N. Leont’ev,et al.  Activity, consciousness, and personality , 1978 .

[19]  Neil Selwyn,et al.  Education and Technology: Key Issues and Debates , 2011 .

[20]  Victor Kaptelinin,et al.  Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design , 2006, First Monday.

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

[22]  Albert T. Corbett,et al.  Cognitive Tutor: Applied research in mathematics education , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[23]  Martin Tallvid,et al.  Understanding teachers’ reluctance to the pedagogical use of ICT in the 1:1 classroom , 2014, Education and Information Technologies.

[24]  Vania Dimitrova,et al.  Adaptive intelligent learning environments , 2017 .

[25]  Johan Lundin,et al.  “What is the benefit of that?” Mathematics Teachers’ Motives in Discarding Digital Technology in their Teaching , 2017 .

[26]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  The impact of a technology-based mathematics after-school program using ALEKS on student's knowledge and behaviors , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[27]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[28]  K. Howells.  The future of education and skills: education 2030: the future we want , 2018 .

[29]  L. Hamilton,et al.  Continued Progress: Promising Evidence on Personalized Learning , 2015 .

[30]  A. Graesser,et al.  A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of ALEKS on learning , 2018, Educational Psychology.

[31]  Gerhard Satzger,et al.  Machine Learning in Artificial Intelligence: Towards a Common Understanding , 2019, HICSS.

[32]  Johan Lundin,et al.  Challenges in Mathematics Teachers' Introduction to a Digital Textbook: Analyzing Contradictions , 2018 .

[33]  Bruce Myint.  Oversold and Underused , 2003 .

[34]  Tom Routen,et al.  Intelligent Tutoring Systems , 1996, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.