User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction

, Volume 18, Issue 1–2, pp 81–123

Modeling self-efficacy in intelligent tutoring systems: An inductive approach

  • Scott W. McQuiggan
  • Bradford W. Mott
  • James C. Lester
Original Paper

Abstract

Self-efficacy is an individual’s belief about her ability to perform well in a given situation. Because self-efficacious students are effective learners, endowing intelligent tutoring systems with the ability to diagnose self-efficacy could lead to improved pedagogy. Self-efficacy is influenced by (and influences) affective state. Thus, physiological data might be used to predict a student’s level of self-efficacy. This article investigates an inductive approach to automatically constructing models of self-efficacy that can be used at runtime to inform pedagogical decisions. It reports on two complementary empirical studies. In the first study, two families of self-efficacy models were induced: a static self-efficacy model, learned solely from pre-test (non-intrusively collected) data, and a dynamic self-efficacy model, learned from both pre-test data as well as runtime physiological data collected with a biofeedback apparatus. In the second empirical study, a similar experimental design was applied to an interactive narrative-centered learning environment. Self-efficacy models were induced from combinations of static and dynamic information, including pre-test data, physiological data, and observations of student behavior in the learning environment. The highest performing induced naïve Bayes models correctly classified 85.2% of instances in the first empirical study and 82.1% of instances in the second empirical study. The highest performing decision tree models correctly classified 86.9% of instances in the first study and 87.3% of instances in the second study.

Keywords

Affective user modeling Affective student modeling Self-efficacy Intelligent tutoring systems Inductive learning Human-computer interaction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aïmeur E., Frasson C. and Dufort H. (2000). Co-operative learning strategies for intelligent tutoring systems. Appl. Artif. Intel. 14(5): 465–490 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aleven, V., McLaren, B., Roll, I., Koedinger, K.: Toward tutoring help seeking: Applying cognitive modeling to meta-cognitive skills. In: Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pp. 227–239. Maceió, Brazil (2004)Google Scholar
  3. Allanson J. and Fairclough S. (2004). A research agenda for physiological computing. Interact. Comput. 16(5): 857–878 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. André, E., Mueller, M.: Learning affective behavior. In: Tenth International Conference on Human- Computer Interaction, pp. 512–516. Heraklion, Crete, Greece (2003)Google Scholar
  5. Bandura A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ Google Scholar
  6. Bandura A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In: Bandura, A. (eds) Self-efficacy in Changing Societies, pp 1–45. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA Google Scholar
  7. Bandura A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Freeman, New York, NY Google Scholar
  8. Bandura A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In: Pajares, F. and Urdan, T. (eds) Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, pp 307–337. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, Connecticut Google Scholar
  9. Batliner, A., Steidl, S., Hacker, C., Nöth, E.: Private emotions vs. social interaction—a data-driven approach towards analyzing emotion in speech. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction. J. Personal. Res. 18, doi: 10.1007/s11257-007-9039-4 (2008)
  10. Baylor, A., Kim, Y.: Pedagogical agent design: the impact of agent realism, gender, ethnicity, and instructional role. In: Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pp. 592–603. Maceió, Brazil (2004)Google Scholar
  11. Beal, C., Lee, H.: Creating a pedagogical model that uses student self reports of motivation and mood to adapt ITS instruction’. In: Workshop on Motivation and Affect in Educational Software, in conjunction with the Twelfth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp. 39–46. Amsterdam, Netherlands (2005)Google Scholar
  12. Beer J., Heerey E., Keltner D., Knight R. and Scabini D. (2003). The regulatory function of self-conscious emotion: insights from patients with orbitofrontal damage. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 85: 594–604 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bloom B. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: the search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educ. Res. 13: 4–16 Google Scholar
  14. Branigan E. (1992). Narrative Comprehension and Film. Routledge, London, UK Google Scholar
  15. Bruner J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Google Scholar
  16. Burleson, W.: Affective learning companions: strategies for empathetic agents with real-time multimodal affective sensing to foster meta-cognitive and meta-affective approaches to learning, motivation, and perseverance. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2006)Google Scholar
  17. Burleson, W., Picard, R.: Affective agents: sustaining motivation to learn through failure and a state of stuck. In: Workshop of Social and Emotional Intelligence in Learning Environments, in conjunction with the Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Maceió, Brazil (2004)Google Scholar
  18. Cavazza, M., Charles, F., Mead, S.: Interacting with virtual characters in interactive storytelling. In: First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 318–325. Bologna, Italy (2002)Google Scholar
  19. Chan T.W. and Baskin A . (1990). Learning companion systems. In: Frasson, C. and Gauthier, G. (eds) Intelligent Tutoring Systems: At the Crossroads of Artificial Intelligence and Education, pp 6–33. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ Google Scholar
  20. Chen, M., Anderson, J., Sohn, M.: What can a mouse cursor tell us more? Correlation of eye/mouse movements on web browsing. Extended Abstracts CHI 2001, pp. 281–282. ACM Press, New York, NY (2001)Google Scholar
  21. Chou C.Y., Chan T.W. and Lin C.J. (2003). Redefining the learning companion: the past, present, and future of educational agents. Comput. Educ. 40: 255–269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Clark R. (1999). Yin and yang cognitive motivational processes operating in multimedia learning environments. In: (eds) Cognition and Multimedia Design, pp 73–107. Open University Press, Herleen, Netherlands Google Scholar
  23. Conati C. (2002). Probabilistic assessment of user’s emotions in educational games. Appl. Artif. Intel. 16: 555–575 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Conati, C., Maclaren, H.: Data-driven refinement of a probabilistic model of user affect. In: Tenth International Conference on User Modeling, pp. 40–49. New York, NY (2005)Google Scholar
  25. Corbett A. and Anderson J. (2001). Locus of feedback control in computer-based tutoring: Impact on learning rate, achievement and attitudes. Proc. CHI Lett. 3(1): 245–252 Google Scholar
  26. Csikszentmihalyi M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper-Row, New York Google Scholar
  27. Delcourt M. and Kinzie M. (1993). Computer technologies in teacher education: the measurement of attitudes and self-efficacy. J. Res. Develop. Educ. 27(1): 35–41 Google Scholar
  28. De Vicente, A., Pain, H.: Informing the detection of the students’ motivational state: An empirical study. In: Sixth International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pp. 933–943. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY (2002)Google Scholar
  29. D’Mello, S., Craig, S., Witherspoon, A., McDaniel, B., Graesser, A.: Automatic detection of learner’s affect from conversational cues. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction. J. Personal. Res. 18, doi: 10.1007/s11257-007-9037-6)
  30. Ekman P. and Friesen W. (1978). The Facial Action Coding System: A Technique for the Measurement of Facial Movement. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto Google Scholar
  31. Forbes-Riley, K., Rotaru, M., Litman, D.: The relative impact of student affect on performance models in a spoken dialog tutoring system. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction. J. Personal. Res. 18, doi: 10.1007/s11257-007-9038-5 (2008)
  32. Frijda N. (1996). The Emotions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Google Scholar
  33. Gerrig R. (1993). Experiencing Narrative Worlds: On the Psychological Activities of Reading. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT Google Scholar
  34. Gilleade, K., Allanson, J.: A toolkit for exploring affective interface adaptation in videogames. In: Proceedings of Human–Computer Interaction International, pp. 370–374. Crete, Greece (2003)Google Scholar
  35. Glaser R., Schauble L., Raghavan K. and Zeitz C. (1992). Scientific reasoning across different domains. In: De Corte, E., Linn, M., Mandle, H., and Verschaffel, L. (eds) Computer-Based Learning Environments and Problem Solving, pp 345–373. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany Google Scholar
  36. Goleman D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. Bantam Books, New York, NY Google Scholar
  37. Goodman B., Soller A., Linton F. and Gaimari R. (1998). Encouraging student reflection and articulation using a learning companion. Int. J. Artif. Intel. Educ. 9: 237–255 Google Scholar
  38. Graham S. and Weiner B. (1996). Principles and theories of motivation. In: Berliner, D. and Calfee, R. (eds) Handbook of Educational Psychology, pp 63–84. MacMillan Publishing, New York, NY Google Scholar
  39. Graesser, A., McDaniel, B., Chipman, P., Witherspoon, A., D’Mello, S., Gholson, B.: Detection of emotions during learning with AutoTutor. In: Twenty-eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 285–290 (2006)Google Scholar
  40. Gratch J. and Marsella S. (2004). A domain-independent framework for modeling emotion. J. Cogn. Syst. Res. 5(4): 269–306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Han J. and Kamber M. (2005). Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA Google Scholar
  42. Hanley J. and McNeil B. (1982). The meaning and use of the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143: 29–36 Google Scholar
  43. Healey, J.: Wearable and automotive systems for affect recognition from physiology. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2000)Google Scholar
  44. Johnson, L., Rizzo, P.: Politeness in tutoring dialogs: run the factory, that’s what I’d do. In: Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pp. 67–76. Maceió, Brazil (2004)Google Scholar
  45. Kapoor, A., Picard, R.: Multimodal affect recognition in learning environments. ACM Multimedia, pp. 677–682. Hilton, Singapore (2005)Google Scholar
  46. Kim, Y.: Empathetic virtual peers enhanced learner interest and self-efficacy. In: Workshop on Motivation and Affect in Educational Software, in conjunction with the Twelfth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp. 9–16. Amsterdam, Netherlands (2005)Google Scholar
  47. Kim, Y.: Pedagogical agents as learning companions: the effects of agent affect and gender on learning, interest, self-efficacy, and agent persona. PhD thesis, The Florida State University (2004)Google Scholar
  48. Lang P. (1995). The emotion probe: studies of motivation and attention. Am. Psychol. 50(5): 372–385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lazarus R. (1991). Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK Google Scholar
  50. Lepper M., Woolverton M., Mumme D. and Gurtner J. (1993). Motivational techniques of expert human tutors: lessons for the design of computer-based tutors. In: Lajoie, S. and Derry, S. (eds) Computers as Cognitive Tools, pp 75–105. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ Google Scholar
  51. Lester J., Towns S., Callaway C., Voerman J. and FitzGerald P. (2000). Deictic and emotive communication in animated pedagogical agents. In: Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., and Churchill, E. (eds) Embodied Conversational Agents, pp 123–154. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Google Scholar
  52. Litman D. and Forbes-Riley K. (2006). Recognizing student emotions and attitudes on the basis of utterances in spoken tutoring dialogues with both human and computer tutors. Speech Commun. 48(5): 559–590 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Machado, I., Brna, P., Paiva, A.: Learning by playing: supporting and guiding story-creation activities. In: Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp. 334–342. San Antonio, Texas (2001)Google Scholar
  54. Malone T. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cogn. Sci. 5(4): 333–369 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Malone T. and Lepper M. (1987). Making learning fun: a taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In: Snow, R. and Farr, M. (eds) Aptitude, Learning and Instruction: Conative and Affective Process Analyses, vol. 3, pp 223–253. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ Google Scholar
  56. McQuiggan, S., Lee, S., Lester, J.: Predicting user physiological response for interactive environments: An inductive approach. In: Second Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, pp. 60–65. Marina del Rey, CA (2006)Google Scholar
  57. McQuiggan, S., Lester, J.: Learning empathy: a data-driven framework for modeling empathetic companion agents. In: Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 961–968. Hakodate, Japan (2006a)Google Scholar
  58. McQuiggan, S., Lester, J.: Diagnosing self-efficacy in intelligent tutoring systems: an empirical study. In: Eighth International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pp. 565–574. Jhongli, Taiwan (2006b)Google Scholar
  59. Mekeig S. and Inlow M. (1993). Lapses in alertness: coherence of fluctuations in performance and EEG spectrum. Electroencephalogr. Clinic. Neurophysiol. 86: 23–25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Moreno R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instr. Sci. 32: 99–113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mota, S., Picard, R.: Automated posture analysis for detecting learner’s interest level. In: First IEEE Workshop on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition for Human-Computer Interaction, Madison, WI (2003)Google Scholar
  62. Mott, B., Callaway, C., Zettlemoyer, L., Lee, S., Lester, J.: Towards narrative-centered learning environments. In: Proceedings of the 1999 Fall Symposium on Narrative Intelligence, pp. 78–82. Cape Cod, MA (1999)Google Scholar
  63. Mott, B., Lester, J.: U-Director: a decision-theoretic narrative planning architecture for storytelling environments. In: Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 977–984. Hakodate, Japan (2006a)Google Scholar
  64. Mott, B., Lester, J.: Narrative-centered tutorial planning for inquiry-based learning environments. In: Eighth International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pp. 675–684. Jhongli, Taiwan (2006b)Google Scholar
  65. Mott, B., McQuiggan, S., Lee, S., Lee, S.Y., Lester, J.: Narrative-centered environments for guided discovery learning. In: Workshop on Agent-Based Systems for Human Learning in conjunction with fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 22–28. Hakodate, Japan (2006)Google Scholar
  66. Nau, D., Muñoz-Avila, H., Cao, Y., Lotem, A., Mitchell, S.: Total-order planning with partially ordered subtasks. In: Seventeenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 999–1004. Seattle, WA (2001)Google Scholar
  67. Ortony A., Clore G. and Collins A. (1988). The Cognitive Structure of Emotions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Google Scholar
  68. Padilla M., Miaoulis I. and Cyr M. (2000). Science Explorer: Cells and Heredity (teacher ed). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ Google Scholar
  69. Pajares F. and Kranzler J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in mathematical problem solving. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 20: 426–443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Paiva A., Dias J., Sobral D., Aylett R., Woods S., Hall L. and Zoll C. (2005). Learning by feeling: evoking empathy with synthetic characters. Appl. Artif. Intel. 19: 235–266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Partala T. and Surakka V. (2003). Pupil size variation as an indication of affective processing. Int. J. Human–Comput. Stud. 59: 185–198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Picard R. (1997). Affective Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Google Scholar
  73. Picard R., Vyzas E. and Healey J. (2001). Toward machine emotional intelligence: analysis of affective physiological state. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intel. 23(10): 1185–1191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pope A., Bogart E. and Bartolome D. (1995). Biocybernetic system evaluates indices of operator engagement in automated task. Biol. Psychol. 40: 187–195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Porayska-Pomsta, K., Mavrikis, M., Pain, H.: Diagnosing and acting on student affect: the tutor’s perspective. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction. J. Personal. Res. 18, doi: 10.1007/s11257-007-9041-x (2008).
  76. Porayska-Pomsta, K., Pain, H.: Providing cognitive and affective scaffolding through teaching strategies: Applying linguistic politeness to the educational context. In: Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pp. 77–86. Maceió, Brazil (2004)Google Scholar
  77. Prendinger H. and Ishizuka M. (2005). The empathic companion: a character-based interface that addresses users’ affective states. Appl. Artif. Intel. 19: 267–285 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Prendinger H., Mori J. and Ishizuka M. (2005). Using human physiology to evaluate subtle expressivity of a virtual quizmaster in a mathematical game. Int. J. Human–Comput. Stud. 62: 231–245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Quinlan J. (1986). Induction of decision trees. Mach. Learn. 1(1): 81–106 Google Scholar
  80. Riedl, M., Lane, H., Hill, R., Swartout, W.: Automated story direction and intelligent tutoring: towards a unifying architecture. In: Workshop on Narrative Learning Environments at the Twelfth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp. 23–30. Amsterdam, Netherlands (2005)Google Scholar
  81. Riedl, M., Young, M.: An intent-driven planner for multi-agent story generation. In: Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 186–193. New York, NY (2004)Google Scholar
  82. Russell S., Norvig P.: Artificial intelligence: A Modern Approach, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ (2003)Google Scholar
  83. Schunk D. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Rev. Educ. Res. 57: 149–174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Schunk D. and Rice J. (1987). Enhancing comprehension skill and self-efficacy with strategy value information. J. Read. Behav. 19: 285–302 Google Scholar
  85. Schunk D. and Pajares F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In: Wigfield, A. and Eccles, J. (eds) Development of Achievement Motivation, pp 15–31. Academic Press, San Diego, CA Google Scholar
  86. Si, M., Marsella, S., Pynadath, D.: Thespian: using multi-agent fitting to craft interactive drama. In: Fourth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 21–28. Utrecht, Netherlands (2005)Google Scholar
  87. Smith C. and Lazarus R. (1990). Emotion and adaptation. In: (eds) Handbook of Personality: Theory & Research, pp 609–637. Guilford Press, New York NY Google Scholar
  88. Verwey W. and Veltman H. (1996). Detecting short periods of elevated workload: a comparison of nine workload assessment techniques. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2(3): 270–285 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wiederhold B., Jang D., Kaneda M., Cabral I., Lurie Y., May T., Wiederhold M. and Kim S. (2003). An investigation into physiological responses in virtual environments: an objective measurement of presence. In: Riva, G. and Galimberti, C. (eds) Towards Cyberpsychology: Minds, Cognitions and Society in the Internet Age, pp 175–184. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Google Scholar
  90. Wells C. (1986). The meaning makers: children learning language and using language to learn. Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH Google Scholar
  91. Witten I. and Frank E. (2005). Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco, CA MATHGoogle Scholar
  92. Yannakakis, G., Hallam, J., Lund, H.H.: Entertainment capture through heart rate activity in physical interactive playgrounds. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction. J. Personal. Res. 18 doi: 10.1007/s11257-007-9036-7 (2008)
  93. Zachos P., Hick L., Doane W. and Sargent C. (2000). Setting theoretical and empirical foundations for assessing scientific and discovery in educational programs. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 37(9): 938–962 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zimmerman B. (2000). Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25: 82–91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott W. McQuiggan
    • 1
  • Bradford W. Mott
    • 2
  • James C. Lester
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Emergent Game TechnologiesChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations