Advertisement

The Architecture of Why2-Atlas: A Coach for Qualitative Physics Essay Writing

  • Kurt VanLehn
  • Pamela W. Jordan
  • Carolyn P. Rosé
  • Dumisizwe Bhembe
  • Michael Böttner
  • Andy Gaydos
  • Maxim Makatchev
  • Umarani Pappuswamy
  • Michael Ringenberg
  • Antonio Roque
  • Stephanie Siler
  • Ramesh Srivastava
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2363)

Abstract

The Why2-Atlas system teaches qualitative physics by having students write paragraph-long explanations of simple mechanical phenomena. The tutor uses deep syntactic analysis and abductive theorem proving to convert the student’s essay to a proof. The proof formalizes not only what was said, but the likely beliefs behind what was said. This allows the tutor to uncover misconceptions as well as to detect missing correct parts of the explanation. If the tutor finds such a flaw in the essay, it conducts a dialogue intended to remedy the missing or misconceived beliefs, then asks the student to correct the essay. It often takes several iterations of essay correction and dialogue to get the student to produce an acceptable explanation. Pilot subjects have been run, and an evaluation is in progress. After explaining the research questions that the system addresses, the bulk of the paper describes the system’s architecture and operation.

Keywords

Latent Semantic Analysis Dialogue System Discourse Manager Human Tutor Force Concept Inventory 
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.
    Graesser, A.C., et al., Using latent semantic analysis to evaluate the contributions of students in AutoTutor. Interactive Learning Environments, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Person, N.K., et al., Simulating human tutor dialog moves in AutoTutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, in press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hake, R.R., Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics students. American Journal of Physics, 1998. 66(4): p. 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hestenes, D., M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 1992. 30: p. 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rose, C.P. A framework for robust semantic interpretation. In The First Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rose, C.P. A syntactic framework for semantic interpretation. In The ESSLLI Workshop on Linguistic Theory and Grammar Implementation. 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rose, C.P. and A. Lavie, Balancing robustness and efficiency in unification-augmented context-free parsers for large practical applications, in Robustness in Language and Speech Technology, J.C. Junqua and G.V. Noord, Editors. 2001, Kluwer Academic press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McCallum, A.K., Bow: A toolkit for statistical language modeling, text retrieval, classification and clustering. 1996, CMU: Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Halliday, M.A.K., An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 1985: Adward Arnold: A division of Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bresnan, J., The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. 1982, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grishman, R., C. Mcleod, and A. Meyers. COMLEX syntax: Building a computational lexicon. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-94). 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aleven, V., O. Popescu, and K.R. Koedinger. A tutorial dialogue system with knowledge-based understanding and classification of student explanations. In Second IJCAI Workshop on Knowledge and Reasoning in Practical Dialogue Systems. 2001. Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Core, M.G., J.D. Moore, and C. Zinn. Supporting constructive learning with a feedback planner. In AAAI Fall Symposium on Building Dialogue Systems for Tutorial Applications. 2000. Cape Cod, MA.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jordan, P.W., et al. Engineering the Tacitus-lite weighted abduction inference engine for use in the Why-Atlas qualitative physics tutoring system. submitted.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hobbs, J., et al., Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence, 1993. 63(1–2): p. 69–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Strube, M. Never look back: An alternative to centering. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the 36th Annual Meeting of the ACL. 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jordan, P.W., C.P. Rose, and K. VanLehn, Tools for authoring tutorial dialogue knowledge, in Artificial Intelligence in Education: AI-Ed in the Wired and Wireless future, J.D. Moore, C. Redfield, and W.L. Johnson, Editors. 2001, IOS: Washington, DC. p. 222–233.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Graesser, A.C., et al., Intelligent tutoring systems with conversational dialogue. AI Magazine, 2001. 22(4).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rose, C.P. Facilitating the rapid development of language understanding interfaces for tutoring systems. In AAAI Fall Symposium on Building Tutorial Dialogue Systems. 2000. Cape Cod, MA.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Evens, M.W., et al. Circsim-Tutor: An intelligent tutoring system using natural language dialogue. In Twelfth Midwest AI and Cognitive Science Conference. 2001. Oxford, OH.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Freedman, R., et al., ITS Tools for natural language dialogue: A domain-independent parser and planner, in Intelligent Tutoring Systems: 5th International Conference, ITS 2000, G. Gauthier, C. Frasson, and K. VanLehn, Editors. 2000, Springer: Berlin. p. 433–442.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rickel, J., et al., Building a bridge between intelligent tutoring and collaborative dialogue systems, in Artificial Intelligence in Education: AI-Ed in the Wired and Wireless Future, J.D. Moore, C. Redfield, and W.L. Johnson, Editors. 2001, IOS: Washington, DC. p. 592–693.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kurt VanLehn
    • 1
  • Pamela W. Jordan
    • 1
  • Carolyn P. Rosé
    • 1
  • Dumisizwe Bhembe
    • 1
  • Michael Böttner
    • 1
  • Andy Gaydos
    • 1
  • Maxim Makatchev
    • 1
  • Umarani Pappuswamy
    • 1
  • Michael Ringenberg
    • 1
  • Antonio Roque
    • 1
  • Stephanie Siler
    • 1
  • Ramesh Srivastava
    • 1
  1. 1.LRDCUniversity of PittsburghPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations