Advertisement

Modeling Student Performance to Enhance the Pedagogy of AutoTutor

  • Tanner Jackson
  • Eric Mathews
  • King-Ip Lin
  • Andrew Olney
  • Art Graesser
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2702)

Abstract

The Tutoring Research Group from the University of Memphis has developed a pedagogically effective Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS), called AutoTutor, that implements conversational dialog as a tutoring strategy for conceptual physics. Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) is used to evaluate the quality of student contributions and determine what dialog moves AutoTutor gives. By modeling the students’ knowledge in this fashion, AutoTutor successfully adapted its pedagogy to match the ideal strategy for students’ ability.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 167–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fischer, G. (2001). User modeling in human-computer interaction. User-Modeling-and-User-Adapted-Interaction, 11(1–2): pp 65–86.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Foltz, P.W. (1996). Latent semantic analysis for text-based research. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 197–202.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., & Magliano, J. P. (1995). Collaborative dialog patterns in naturalistic one-on-one tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 359–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lepper, M. R., Woolverton, M., Mumme, D.L., & Gurtner, J.L. (1991). Motivational techniques of expert human tutors: Lessons for the design of computer-based tutors. In S.P. Lajoie & S.J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 75–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erbaum.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Merrill, D. C., Reiser, B. J., Ranney, M., & Trafton, J. G. (1992). Effective tutoring techniques: A comparison of human tutors and intelligent tutoring systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 277–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Person, N. K., Graesser, A. C., Kreuz, R. J., Pomeroy, V. & the Tutoring Research Group. (2000). Simulating human tutor dialog moves in AutoTutor. Submitted to International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Person, N. K., Graesser, A. C., Magliano, J. P., & Kreuz, R. J. (1994). Inferring what the student knows in one-to-one tutoring: The role of student questions and answers. Learning and Individual Differences, 6, 205–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Person, N. K., Klettke, B., Link, K., Kreuz, R. J., & the Tutoring Research Group (1999). The integration of affective responses into AutoTutor. Proceeding of the International Workshop on Affect in Interactions (pp. 167–178). Siena, Italy.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Person, N. K., Kreuz, R. J., Zwaan, R., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). Pragmatics and pedagogy: Conversational rules and politeness strategies may inhibit effective tutoring. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 161–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Putnam, R. T. (1987). Structuring and adjusting content for students: A study of live and simulated tutoring of addition. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 13–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wiemer-Hastings, P., Graesser, A. C., Harter, D., & the Tutoring Research Group (1998). The foundations and architecture of AutoTutor. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 334–343). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zukerman, I. & McConachy, R. (2001) WISHFUL: A discourse planning system that considers a user’s inferences. Computational Intelligence. 17(1): 1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tanner Jackson
    • 1
  • Eric Mathews
    • 1
  • King-Ip Lin
    • 2
  • Andrew Olney
    • 1
  • Art Graesser
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MemphisMemphisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MemphisMemphisUSA

Personalised recommendations