ITS, The End of the World as We Know It: Transitioning AIED into a Service-Oriented Ecosystem

Article

Abstract

Advanced learning technologies are reaching a new phase of their evolution where they are finally entering mainstream educational contexts, with persistent user bases. However, as AIED scales, it will need to follow recent trends in service-oriented and ubiquitous computing: breaking AIED platforms into distinct services that can be composed for different platforms (web, mobile, etc.) and distributed across multiple systems. This will represent a move from learning platforms to an ecosystem of interacting learning tools. Such tools will enable new opportunities for both user-adaptation and experimentation. Traditional macro-adaptation (problem selection) and step-based adaptation (hints and feedback) will be extended by meta-adaptation (adaptive system selection) and micro-adaptation (event-level optimization). The existence of persistent and widely-used systems will also support new paradigms for experimentation in education, allowing researchers to understand interactions and boundary conditions for learning principles. New central research questions for the field will also need to be answered due to these changes in the AIED landscape.

Keywords

Artificial intelligence Education Meta-adaptation Micro-adaptation Distributed systems Intelligent tutoring systems Social computing Adaptive sampling Reinforcement learning Transfer learning Ontologies 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The core intuitions for this work have been developed through research supported by the Office of Naval Research (N00014-12-C-0643, W911NF-04-D-0005), the Army Research Lab (W911NF-14-D-0005, W911NF-12-2-0030), and Advanced Distributed Learning (W911QY-14-C-0019). However, the contents and opinions of this paper are the authors’ alone and do not represent those of the sponsoring organizations.

References

  1. Andersen, E., Gulwani, S., & Popovic, Z. (2013). A trace-based framework for analyzing and synthesizing educational progressions. In W. E. Mackay, S. Brewster, & S. Bødker (Eds.) SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 773–782). ACM.Google Scholar
  2. Arroyo, I., Woolf, B. P., & Beal, C. R. (2006). Addressing cognitive differences and gender during problem solving. International Journal of Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 4, 31–63.Google Scholar
  3. Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc..Google Scholar
  4. Beck, J. E., & Gong, Y. (2013, January). Wheel-spinning: students who fail to master a skill. In H.C. Lane, K. Yacef, J. Mostow, & P. Pavlik (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) 2013 (pp. 431–440). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Brusilovsky, P. (1995). Intelligent learning environments for programming: The case for integration and adaptation. In Greer, J. (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) 1995, (pp. 1–8).Google Scholar
  6. Cavagnaro, D. R., Myung, J. I., Pitt, M. A., & Kujala, J. V. (2010). Adaptive design optimization: a mutual information-based approach to model discrimination in cognitive science. Neural Computation, 22(4), 887–905.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Chi, M., Jordan, P., & VanLehn, K. (2014). When is tutorial dialogue more effective than step-based tutoring? In S. Trausan-Matu, K. Boyer, M. Crosby, & K. Panourgia (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) 2014 (pp. 210–219). Springer: Berlin.Google Scholar
  8. Craig, S. D., Hu, X., Graesser, A. C., Bargagliotti, A. E., Sterbinsky, A., Cheney, K. R., & Okwumabua, T. (2013). The impact of a technology-based mathematics after-school program using ALEKS on student's knowledge and behaviors. Computers & Education, 68, 495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. El-Sheikh, E., & Sticklen, J. (2002). Generating intelligent tutoring systems from reusable components and knowledge-based systems. In S. A. Cerri, G. Gouarderes, & F. Paraguacu (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) 2002 (pp. 199–207). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Falmagne, J. C., Albert, D., Doble, C., Eppstein, D., & Hu, X. (2013). Knowledge spaces: applications in education. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  11. Futtersack, M., & Labat, J. M. (1992). QUIZ, a distributed intelligent tutoring system. In Computer Assisted Learning (pp. 225–237). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Graesser, A. C. (2011). AutoTutor. In P. M. McCarthy, & C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: identification, investigation and resolution. IGI Global: Hershey, PA.Google Scholar
  13. Heffernan, N. T., Turner, T. E., Lourenco, A. L., Macasek, M. A., Nuzzo-Jones, G., & Koedinger, K. R. (2006). The ASSISTment Builder: Towards an Analysis of Cost Effectiveness of ITS Creation. In G. Sutcliffe & R. Goebel (Eds.), Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society (FLAIRS) 2006 (pp. 515–520).Google Scholar
  14. IMS Global (2015). Learning Tools Interoperability. Retrieved from: http://www.imsglobal.org/lti/index.html on Feb 22, 2015.
  15. Khan Academy (2015). About Khan Academy. Retrieved www.khanacademy.org/about on Feb. 22, 2015.
  16. Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2013). Toward a framework for CSCL research. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Koedinger, K. R., Baker, R. S., Cunningham, K., Skogsholm, A., Leber, B., & Stamper, J. (2010). A data repository for the EDM community: The PSLC DataShop. In C. Romero, S. Ventura, M. Pechenizkiy, & R. S.J.d. Baker (Eds.) Handbook of educational data mining, 43–53.Google Scholar
  18. Liu, Y. E., Mandel, T., Brunskill, E., & Popovic, Z. (2014). Trading Off Scientific Knowledge and User Learning with Multi-Armed Bandits. In Educational Data Mining (EDM) 2014. 161–168. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Mizoguchi, R., & Bourdeau, J. (2000). Using ontological engineering to overcome common AI-ED problems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Education, 11, 107–121.Google Scholar
  20. Monsalve, S. (2014). A venture capitalist’s top 5 predictions for 2015. Fortune. Retrieved http://fortune.com/2014/12/29/a-venture-capitalists-5-predictions-for-2015/ on Feb. 22, 2015.
  21. Mostow, J., & Beck, J. (2006). Some useful tactics to modify, map and mine data from intelligent tutors. Natural Language Engineering, 12(02), 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Murray, K., & Silvers, A. (2013). A learning experience. Journal of Advanced Distributed Learning Technology, 1(3–4), 1–7.Google Scholar
  23. Murray, T., Blessing, S., & Ainsworth, S. (2003). Authoring tools for advanced technology learning environments: toward cost-effective adaptive, interactive and intelligent educational software. Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nye, B. D., Windsor, A., Pavlik, P. I., Olney, A., Hajeer, M., Graesser, A. C., & Hu, X. (2015). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Integrating Natural Language Tutoring into an Existing Adaptive Learning System. In C. Conati, N. Heffernan, A. Mitrovic, & M.F. Verdejo (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) 2015 (pp. 743–747). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. R Core Team (2013). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3–900051-07-0Google Scholar
  26. Ritter, S., Anderson, J. R., Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. (2007). Cognitive tutor: applied research in mathematics education. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roschelle, J., & Kaput, J. (1996). Educational software architecture and systemic impact: the promise of component software. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(3), 217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shvaiko, P., & Euzenat, J. (2013). Ontology matching: state of the art and future challenges. Knowledge and Data Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 25(1), 158–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Siemens, G. (2013). Learning analytics: the emergence of a discipline. American Behavioral Scientist, 0002764213498851.Google Scholar
  30. Sottilare, R. A., Goldberg, B. S., Brawner, K. W., & Holden, H. K. (2012). A modular framework to support the authoring and assessment of adaptive computer-based tutoring systems (CBTS). In Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2012.Google Scholar
  31. Stahl, G. (2010). Guiding group cognition in CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 255–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. VanLehn, K. (2006). The behavior of tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16(3), 227–265.Google Scholar
  33. VanLehn, K. (2015). Regulative Loops, Step Loops and Task Loops. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Online First.Google Scholar
  34. Woolf, B. P. (2010). Building intelligent interactive tutors: student-centered strategies for revolutionizing e-learning. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Artificial Intelligence in Education Society 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Creative TechnologiesUniversity of Southern California12015 Waterfront Dr., Playa VistaUSA

Personalised recommendations