Advertisement

Integration of an intelligent tutoring system in a course of computer network design

  • Elena Verdú
  • Luisa M. Regueras
  • Eran Gal
  • Juan P. de Castro
  • María J. VerdúEmail author
  • Dan Kohen-Vacs
Development Article

Abstract

INTUITEL is a research project aiming to offer a personalized learning environment. The INTUITEL approach includes an Intelligent Tutoring System that gives students recommendations and feedback about what the best learning path is for them according to their profile, learning progress, context and environmental influences. INTUITEL combines efficient pedagogical-based recommendations with freedom of choice and it introduces this tutoring support in different Learning Management Systems. During the INTUITEL project various software and pedagogical testing procedures were defined to provide the development teams with feedback, both summative and formative. The current paper describes the initial user test, which was conducted at the University of Valladolid for the course “Network Design”. The experiment was focused on real learners’ reactions to INTUITEL recommendations received by an INTUITEL-enabled LMS. Nineteen students participated in a two phase testing procedure in order to analyze the learners’ behavior with INTUITEL, as well as obtaining information about how learners perceive the influence and usefulness of the tutoring system in online learning courses. Results show that students with INTUITEL follow learning paths that are more suitable for them. Besides, the general satisfaction level of participants is high. Most learners appreciate INTUITEL, would follow its recommendations and consider the messages shown by INTUITEL as useful and caring.

Keywords

Self-directed learning Personalized learning Intelligent tutoring systems Adaptive learning Semantic learning models 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors wish to thank all other INTUITEL partners. The research project INTUITEL leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under Grant Agreement No. 318496.

Funding

This study was funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (Grant Agreement No. 318496).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Akbulut, Y., & Cardak, C. S. (2012). Adaptive educational hypermedia accommodating learning styles: A content analysis of publications from 2000 to 2011. Computers & Education, 58(2), 835–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amo, D. (2013). MOOCs: experimental approaches for quality in pedagogical and design fundamentals. In Proceeding of the first international conference on technological ecosystem for enhancing multiculturality (pp. 219–223). ACM.Google Scholar
  3. Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26–29.Google Scholar
  4. Bannert, M., Hildebrand, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2009). Effects of a meta-cognitive support device in learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 829–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berlanga, A. J., García, F. J., & Carabia, J. (2006). Authoring adaptive learning designs using IMS LD. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4018, 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhuvaneswari, A. S., & Padmanaban, T. (2012). Attitude of senior secondary students towards e-learning. Elixir Educational Technology, 51, 10886–10888.Google Scholar
  7. Cetintas, S., Si, L., Xin, Y. P., & Hord, C. (2010). Automatic detection of off-task behaviors in intelligent tutoring systems with machine learning techniques. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 3(3), 228–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, C. M. (2008). Intelligent web-based learning system with personalized learning path guidance. Computers & Education, 51(2), 787–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cordero, A., Jordán, C., Sanabria-Codesal, E., & Torregrosa, J. R. (2015). Towards a better learning models through OCWs and MOOCs. International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, 3(4), 26–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daradoumis, T., Bassi, R., Xhafa, F., & Caballé, S. (2013). A review on massive e-learning (MOOC) design, delivery and assessment. In 2013 eighth international conference on P2P, parallel, grid, cloud and internet computing (3PGCIC) (pp. 208–213). IEEE.Google Scholar
  11. Drachsler, H., Hummel, H., van den Berg, B., Eshuis, J., Waterink, W., Nadolski, R., et al. (2009). Effects of the ISIS recommender system for navigation support in self-organised learning networks. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 115–126.Google Scholar
  12. Fasihuddin, H., Skinner, G., & Athauda, R. (2014). Towards an adaptive model to personalise open learning environments using learning styles. In International conference on information, communication technology and system (ICTS) (pp. 183–188). doi:  10.1109/ICTS.2014.7010580.
  13. Fischer, G. (2014). Supporting self-directed learning with cultures of participation in collaborative learning environments. In Problem-based learning for the 21st century-new practices and learning environments (pp. 15–50).Google Scholar
  14. Gal, E., & Nachmias, R. (2011). Implementing on-line learning and performance support using an EPSS. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7(25), 213–224.Google Scholar
  15. Gal, E., & Nachmias, R. (2012). The effect of user’s attitude on performance support platforms (EPSS) implementation. Performance Improvement Journal., 51(5), 22–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graf, S., Kinshuk, & Ives, C. (2010). A flexible mechanism for providing adaptivity based on learning styles in learning management systems. In Proceeding on 10th IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (pp. 30–34). doi: 10.1109/ICALT.2010.16.
  17. Gutierrez, F., & Atkinson, J. (2011). Adaptive feedback selection for intelligent tutoring systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5), 6146–6152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Han, I., & Shin, W. S. (2016). The use of a mobile learning management system and academic achievement of online students. Computers & Education, 102, 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heberle, F., Henning, P. A., Streicher, A., Swertz, C., Bock, J., & Zander, S. (2014). Advancement of MOOCs with learning pathways. International Journal of Excellence in Education, 6(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Henning, P. A., Forstner, A., Heberle, F., Swertz, C., Schmölz, A., Barberi, A., et al. (2014a). Learning pathway recommendation based on a pedagogical ontology and its implementation in moodle. Lecture Notes in Informatics, 233, 39–50.Google Scholar
  21. Henning, P. A., Fuchs, K., Bock, J., Zander, S., Streicher, A., Zielinski, A., et al. (2014b). Personalized web learning by joining OER. Lecture Notes in Informatics, 233, 127–132.Google Scholar
  22. Henning, P., Heberle, F., Fuchs, K., Swertz, C., Schmölz, A., Forstner, A., et al. (2014c). INTUITEL—Intelligent tutorial interface for technology enhanced learning. In Proceedings of the 22nd conference on user modeling, adaptation, and personalization.Google Scholar
  23. Kim, Y. L., & Lee, S. M. (2016). Effect of satisfaction in major at university on academic achievement among physical therapy students. Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 27(2), 405–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim, R., Olfman, L., Ryan, T., & Eryilmaz, E. (2014). Leveraging a personalized system to improve self-directed learning in online educational environments. Computers & Education, 70, 150–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klasnja-Milicevic, A., Vesin, B., Ivanovic, M., & Budimac, Z. (2011). E-Learning personalization based on hybrid recommendation strategy and learning style identification. Computers & Education, 56(3), 885–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kozierkiewicz-Hetmańska, A. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring system offering personalized learning scenario. In J.-S. Pan, S.-M. Chen, & N. T. Nguyen (Eds.), Intelligent information and database systems (Vol. 7196, pp. 310–319). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the national survey of student engagement. Change, 33(3), 10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2011). A review of online dropout research: Implications for practice and future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 593–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liyanage, M. P. P., Gunawardena, K. S. L., & Hirakawami, M. (2013). A framework for adaptive learning management systems using learning style. In Proceeding 2013 international conference on advances in ICT for emerging regions (pp. 261–265).Google Scholar
  30. Long, C. (2001). IP network design. New York City: Osborne/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  31. Marengo, A., Pagano, A., & Barbone, A. (2012). Adaptive learning: A new approach in student modelling. In Proceeding ITI 2012 34th international conference on information technology interfaces (pp. 217–222).Google Scholar
  32. Mulwa, C., Lawless, S., Sharp, M., & Wade, V. (2011). A web-based framework for user-centred evaluation of end-user experience in adaptive and personalized e-learning systems. In Proceeding 2011 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology (WI-IAT) (Vol. 3, pp. 351–356).Google Scholar
  33. Nedungadi, P., & Raman, R. (2012). A new approach to personalization: Integrating e-learning and m-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 659–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nguyen, F., & Klein, J. D. (2008). The effect of performance support and training as performance interventions. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(1), 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nguyen, F., Klein, J. D., & Sullivan, H. (2005). A comparative study of electronic performance support systems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18(4), 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pahl, C., & Kenny, C. (2009). Interactive correction and recommendation for computer language learning and training. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 21(6), 854–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pascual-Nieto, I., Santos, O. C., Perez-Marin, D., & Boticario, J. G. (2011). Extending computer assisted assessment systems with natural language processing, user modeling, and recommendations based on human computer interaction and data mining. In Proceeding of the 22nd international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 2519–2524).Google Scholar
  38. Rodrigues, J. J. P. C., João, P. F. N., & Vaidya, B. (2010). EduTutor: An intelligent tutor system for a learning management system. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 8(4), 66–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ryan, A., & Tilbury, D. (2013). Flexible pedagogies: New pedagogical ideas. UK: The Higher Education Academy. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/npi_report.pdf. Accessed September 3, 2015.
  40. Saneifar, H., Bringay, S., Laurent, A., & Teisseire, M. (2008). S 2 MP: Similarity measure for sequential patterns. In Proceeding of the 7th Australasian data mining conference (Vol. 87, pp. 95–104). Australian Computer Society, Inc.Google Scholar
  41. Schmoelz, A., Swertz, S., Forstner, A., & Barberi, A. (2014). Does artificial tutoring foster inquiry based learning? Science Education International, 25(1), 123–129.Google Scholar
  42. Sessink, O. D. T., Beeftink, H. H., Tramper, J., & Hartog, R. J. M. (2007). Proteus: A lecturer-friendly adaptive tutoring system. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18(4), 533–554.Google Scholar
  43. Sonwalkar, N. (2013). The first adaptive MOOC: A case study on pedagogy framework and scalable cloud architecture—Part I. MOOCs Forum, 1(P), 22–29. doi: 10.1089/mooc.2013.0007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sunar, A. S., Abdullah, N. A., White, S., & Davis, H. C. (2015). Personalisation of MOOCs: The state of the art. In Proceeding CSEDU 2015 conference (Vol. 1, pp. 88–97).Google Scholar
  45. Swertz, C., Schmölz, A., Forstner, A., Heberle, F., Henning, P., Streicher, A., et al. (2013). A pedagogical ontology as a playground in adaptive e-learning environments. Lecture Notes in Informatics, 220, 1955–1960.Google Scholar
  46. Tseng, J. C. R., Chu, H.-C., Hwang, G.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Development of an adaptive learning system with two sources of personalization information. Computers & Education, 51(2), 776–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van Schaik, P., Barker, P., & Famakinwa, O. (2007). Making a case for using electronic performance support systems in academic libraries. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18(3), 411–428.Google Scholar
  48. van Schaik, P., Barker, P., & Pearson, R. (2002). Designing electronic performance support systems to facilitate learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(4), 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Verdú, E., de Castro, J. P., Verdú, M. J., Regueras, L., & Henning, P. A. (2013). Intelligent tutoring interface for technology enhanced learning with moodle. In Proceeding EDULEARN13 5th international conference on education and new learning technologies.Google Scholar
  50. Verdú, E., Regueras, L., Verdú, M. J., de Castro, J. P., Kohen-Vacs, D., Gal, E., et al. (2014). Intelligent tutoring interface for technology enhanced learning in a course of computer network design. In Proceeding 2014 IEEE frontiers in education conference (pp. 932–938).Google Scholar
  51. Verdú, E., Regueras, L. M., Verdú, M. J., de Castro, J. P., & Prez, M. A. (2008). An analysis of the research on adaptive learning: The next generation of e-Learning. WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Applications, 5(6), 859–868.Google Scholar
  52. Wanner, T., & Palmer, E. (2015). Personalising learning: Exploring student and teacher perceptions about flexible learning and assessment in a flipped university course. Computers & Education, 88, 354–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weber, G., & Brusilovsky, P. (2001). ELM-ART: An adaptive versatile system for web-based instruction. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 351–384.Google Scholar
  54. Wei, H.-C., Peng, H., & Chou, C. (2015). Can more interactivity improve learning achievement in an online course? Effects of college students’ perception and actual use of a course-management system on their learning achievement. Computers & Education, 88, 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yáñez, R., Cascado, D., & Sevillano, J. L. (2014). Heuristic evaluation on mobile interfaces: A new checklist. The Scientific World Journal. doi: 10.1155/2014/434326.
  56. Yang, J., Huang, Z. X., Gao, Y. X., & Liu, H. T. (2014). Dynamic learning style prediction method based on a pattern recognition technique. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7(2), 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zander, S., Swertz, C., Verdú, E., Verdú, M. J., & Henning, P. A. (2016). A semantic MediaWiki-Based approach for the collaborative development of pedagogically meaningful learning content annotations. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 9507, 73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elena Verdú
    • 1
  • Luisa M. Regueras
    • 2
  • Eran Gal
    • 3
  • Juan P. de Castro
    • 2
  • María J. Verdú
    • 2
    Email author
  • Dan Kohen-Vacs
    • 3
  1. 1.Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (UNIR)LogroñoSpain
  2. 2.ETSI TelecomunicaciónUniversidad de ValladolidValladolidSpain
  3. 3.Department of Instructional TechnologiesHolon Institute of TechnologyHolonIsrael

Personalised recommendations