Considerations for Immersive Learning in Intelligent Tutoring Systems

  • Anne M. SinatraEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9744)


Research has examined the benefits and retractors of immersing the learner in an environment. Immersive computer-based training environments are costly to construct and may not always lead to significant learning or transfer benefits over other methods. The current paper presents a brief review of presence and immersion research in computer-based learning and adaptive tutoring. The Generalized Intelligent Framework for Tutoring (GIFT) is an open source domain-independent framework for creating intelligent tutoring systems (ITS). GIFT offers flexibility, and can be interfaced with training applications ranging from highly immersive computer-based learning environments (e.g., TC3Sim, VBS2) to less immersive mediums such as PowerPoint. The capabilities of GIFT that can be used to create immersive adaptive tutoring are discussed. Additionally, the use of GIFT to run and generate experimental studies to examine the impact of immersion is highlighted. Finally, recommendations are given on how to provide more opportunities to integrate immersive environments into GIFT.


Immersion Intelligent tutoring systems Generalized Intelligent Framework for Tutoring Presence 


  1. 1.
    McMahan, A.: Immersion, engagement and presence. Video Game Theory Reader 67, 67–86 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Witmer, B.G., Singer, M.J.: Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 7(3), 225–240 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Greenwald, W.: Kinect vs. PlayStation Move vs. Wii: Motion-Control Showdown. PC Magazine, 6 November 2010.,2817,2372244,00.asp
  4. 4.
    Lessiter, J., Freeman, J., Keogh, E., Davidoff, J.: Across-media presence questionnaire: the ITC-sense of presence inventory. Presence 10(3), 282–297 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andre, A.D., Wickens, C.D.: When users want what’s not best for them. Ergon. Des. Q. Hum. Fact. Appl. 3(4), 10–14 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dede, C.: Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science 323(5910), 66–69 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alexander, A.L., Brunye, T., Sidman, J., Weil, S.A.: From gaming to training: a review of studies on fidelity, immersion, presence, and buy-in and their effects on transfer in PC-based simulations and games. DARWARS Training Impact Group 5, 1–14 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mantovani, F.: 12 VR learning: potential and challenges for the use of 3D environments in education and training. Towards Cyberpsychol.: Mind Cogn. Soc. Internet Age 2, 207–225 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kickmeier-Rust, M.D., Albert, D.: Micro-adaptivity: protecting immersion in didactically adaptive digital educational games. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 26(2), 95–105 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kickmeier-Rust, M.D., Hockemeyer, C., Albert, D., Augustin, T.: Micro adaptive, non-invasive knowledge assessment in educational games. In: 2nd IEEE International Conference on Digital Games and Intelligent Toys Based Education, pp. 135–137. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moreno, R., Mayer, R.E.: Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: role of methods and media. J. Educ. Psychol. 94(3), 598–610 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sottilare, R.A., LaViola, J.: Extending intelligent tutoring beyond the desktop to the psychomotor domain. In: Proceedings of Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harp, S.F., Mayer, R.E.: How seductive details do their damage: a theory of cognitive interest in science learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 90(3), 414–434 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mayer, R.E., Heiser, J., Lonn, S.: Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: when presenting more material results in less understanding. J. Educ. Psychol. 93(1), 187–198 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anderson, J.R., Corbett, A.T., Koedinger, K.R., Pelletier, R.: Cognitive tutors: lessons learned. J. Learn. Sci. 4, 167–207 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    VanLehn, K., Lynch, C., Schulze, K., Shapiro, J.A., Shelby, R., Taylor, L., et al.: The Andes physics tutoring system: lessons learned. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 15(3), 147–204 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sottilare, R.A., Brawner, K.W., Goldberg, B.S., Holden, H.K.: The Generalized Intelligent Framework for Tutoring (GIFT) (2012).
  18. 18.
    Sottilare, R.A., Graesser, A.C., Hu, X., Holden, H.: Preface. In: Design Recommendations for Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Volume 1, Learner Modeling, pp. ii–xiii (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goldberg, B., Cannon-Bowers, J.: Experimentation with the generalized intelligent framework for tutoring (GIFT): a testbed use case. In: AIED 2013 Workshops Proceedings, volume 7, pp. 27–36 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goldberg, B., Cannon-Bowers, J.: Feedback source modality effects on training outcomes in a serious game: pedagogical agents make a difference. Comput. Hum. Behav. 52, 1–11 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goldberg, B., Amburn, C., Brawner, K., Westphal, M.: Developing models of expert performance for support in an adaptive marksmanship trainer. In: Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goldberg, B., Amburn, C.: The application of GIFT in a psychomotor domain of instruction: a marksmanship use case. In: Generalized Intelligent Framework for Tutoring (GIFT) Users Symposium (GIFTSym3), pp. 115–124 (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sottilare, R.A.: Augmented cognition on the run: considerations for the design and authoring of mobile tutoring systems. In: Schmorrow, D.D., Fidopiastis, C.M. (eds.) AC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9183, pp. 683–689. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. Army Research LaboratoryOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations