Advertisement

Fading and Deepening: The Next Steps for Andes and Other Model-Tracing Tutors

  • Kurt VanLehn
  • Reva Freedman
  • Pamela Jordan
  • Charles Murray
  • Remus Osan
  • Michael Ringenberg
  • Carolyn Rosé
  • Kay Schulze
  • Robert Shelby
  • Donald Treacy
  • Anders Weinstein
  • Mary Wintersgill
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1839)

Abstract

Model tracing tutors have been quite successful in teaching cognitive skills; however, they still are not as competent as expert human tutors. We propose two ways to improve model tracing tutors and in particular the Andes physics tutor. First, tutors should fade their scaffolding. Although most model tracing tutors have scaffolding that needs to be gradually removed (faded), Andes’ scaffolding is already “faded,” and that causes student modeling difficulties that adversely impact its tutoring. A proposed solution to this problem is presented. Second, tutors should integrate the knowledge they currently teach with other important knowledge in the task domain in order to promote deeper learning. Several types of deep learning are discussed, and it is argued that natural language processing is necessary for encouraging such learning. A new project, Atlas, is developing natural language based enhancements to model tracing tutors that are intended to encourage deeper learning.

Keywords

Graphical User Interface Deep Learning Intelligent Tutor System Expert Model Cognitive Science Society 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aleven, V., Koedinger, K. R., & Cross, K. (1999). Tutoring answer-explanation fosters learning with understanding, Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 199–206). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aleven, V., Koedinger, K. R., Sinclair, H. C., & Snyder, J. (1998). Combating shallow learning in a tutor for geometry problem solving. In B.P. Goettle, H. M. Halff, C. L. Redfield, & V. J. Shute (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference (pp. 364–373). Berlin: Spring-Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson, J. R., Boyle, C. F., & Reiser, B. J. (1985). Intelligent tutoring systems. Science, 228, 456–462.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive Tutors: Lessons Learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 543–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Collins, A., & Stevens, A. (1982). Goals and methods for inquiry teachers. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology, Vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    DiEugenio, B., Jordan, P. W., Thomason, R. H., & Moore, J. D. (in press). The agreement process: An empirical investigation of human-human computer-mediated dialogues. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freedman, R., & Evens, M. W. (1996). Generating and revising hierarchical multi-turn text plans in an ITS. In C. Frasson, G. Gauthier, & A. Lesgold (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Proceedings of the 1996 Conference (pp. 632–640). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freedman, R., Rose, C. P., Ringenberg, M. A., & VanLehn, K. (2000). ITS Tools for natural language dialogue: A domain-independent parser and planner. In C. Frasson (Ed.), Proceedings of ITS 2000.. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gertner, A., Conati, C., & VanLehn, K. (1998). Procedural help in Andes: Generating hints using a Bayesian network student model., Proceedings of the 15th national Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gertner, A. S. (1998). Providing feedback to equation entries in an intelligent tutoring system for Physics. In B. P. Goettl, H. M. Halff, C. L. Redfield, & V. J. Shute (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems: 4th International Conference (pp. 254–263). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gertner, A. S., & VanLehn, K. (2000). Andes: A coached problem solving environment for physics. In C. Frasson (Ed.), Proceedings of ITS 2000. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Graesser, A. C., Person, N., & Magliano, J. (1995). Collaborative dialog patterns in naturalistic one-on-one tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 359–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koedinger, K., & Anderson, J. R. (1993). Reifying implicit planning in geometry: Guidelines for model-based intelligent tutoring system design. In S. P. L. a. S. J. Derry (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koedinger, K. R., Anderson, J. R., Hadley, W. H., & Mark, M. A. (1995). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. In J. Greer (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education (pp. 421–428). Charlottesville, NC: AACE.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lewis, C. (1981). Skill in algebra. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 85–110). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mark, M. A., & Greer, J. E. (1995). The VCR tutor: Effective instruction for device operation. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 209–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McArthur, D., Stasz, C., & Zmuidzinas, M. (1990). Tutoring techniques in algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 7(3), 197–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McKendree, J., Radlinski, B., & Atwood, M. E. (1992). The Grace Tutor: A qualified success. In C. Frasson, G. Gautheir, & G. I. McCalla (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Second International Conference (pp. 677–684). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Merrill, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (1994). Scaffolding effective problem solving strategies in interactive learning environments. In A. R. a. K. Eiselt (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 629–634). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reif, F., & Scott, L. A. (1999). Teaching scientific thinking skills: Students and computers coaching each other. American Journal of Physics, 67(9), 819–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reiser, B. J., Beekelaar, R., Tyle, A., & Merrill, D. C. (1991). Gil: Scaffolding learning to program with reasoning-congruent representations. In L. Birnbaum (Ed.), The International Conference of the Learning Sciences: Proceedings of the 1991 Conference (pp. 382–388). Charlottesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computers in Education.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reiser, B. J., Copen, W. A., Ranney, M., Hamid, A., & Kimberg, D. Y. (in press). Cognitive and motivational consequences of tutoring and discovery learning. Cognition and Instruction.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reiser, B. J., Kimberg, D. Y., Lovett, M. C., & Ranney, M. (1992). Knowledge representation and explanation in GIL, an intelligent tutor for programming. In J. H. a. C. Larkin, R.W. (Ed.), Computer Assisted Instruction and Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Shared Goals and Complementary Approaches (pp. 111–150). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rose, C. P., & Lavie, A. (in press). Balancing robustness and efficiency in unificationaugmented context-free parsers for large practical applications. In J. C. Junqua & G. V. Noord (Eds.), Robustness in Language and Speech Technology: Kluwer Academic press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shelby, R. N., Schulze, K. G., Treacy, D. J., Wintersgill, M. C., Gertner, A. G., & Vanlehn, K. (in prep.). The Andes Intelligent Tutor: an Evaluation.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shute, V. J. (1993). A macroadaptive approach to tutoring. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 4(1), 61–93.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Singley, M. K. (1990). The reification of goal structures in a calculus tutor: Effects on problem solving performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 102–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    VanLehn, K. (1988). Student modeling. In M. Polson & J. Richardson (Eds.), Foundations of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 55–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    VanLehn, K. (1996). Conceptual and meta learning during coached problem solving. In C. Frasson, G. Gauthier, & A. Lesgold (Eds.), ITS96: Proceeding of the Third International conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems.. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    VanLehn, K., Siler, S., Murray, C., & Baggett, W. B. (1998). What makes a tutorial event effective? In M. A. Gernsbacher & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1084–1089). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    VanLehn, K., Siler, S., Murray, C., Yamauchi, T., & Baggett, W. B. (in press). Human tutoring: Why do only some events cause learning? Cognition and Instruction.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kurt VanLehn
    • 1
  • Reva Freedman
    • 1
  • Pamela Jordan
    • 1
  • Charles Murray
    • 1
  • Remus Osan
    • 1
  • Michael Ringenberg
    • 1
  • Carolyn Rosé
    • 1
  • Kay Schulze
    • 3
  • Robert Shelby
    • 2
  • Donald Treacy
    • 2
  • Anders Weinstein
    • 1
  • Mary Wintersgill
    • 2
  1. 1.Learning Research and Development CenterUniversity of PittsburghPittsburgh
  2. 2.Department of PhysicsUnited States Naval AcademyUSA
  3. 3.Computer Science DepartmentUnited States Naval AcademyUSA

Personalised recommendations