Abstract
With the rise of VR, the internet, and mobile technologies and the shifts in educational focus from teaching to learning and from solitary to collaborative work, it’s easy (but mistaken) to regard Artificial Intelligence in Education, in general, and Intelligent Tutoring Systems, in particular, as a technology that has had its day—an old solution looking for a new problem. The issues of modeling the student, the domain or the interaction are still very much to the fore, and we can learn much from the development of ITSs.
Despite the changes in technology and in educational focus there is still an ongoing desire for educational and training systems to tailor their interactions to suit the individual learner or group of learners: for example, by being able to deal appropriately with a wider range of background knowledge and abilities; by helpfully limiting the scope for the learner to tailor the system; by being better able to help learners reflect productively on the experience they have had or are about to have; by being able to select and operate effectively over a wider range of problems within the domain of interest; by being able to monitor collaborative interchanges and intervene where necessary; or, most tellingly, by being able to react sensibly to learners when the task they are engaged on is inherently complex and involves many coordinated steps or stages at different levels of granularity. Individualising instruction in an effective manner is the Holy Grail of ITS work and it is taken as an article of faith that this is a sensible educational goal.
This paper explores the question of how much educational difference the “AI” in an ITS system makes compared either to conventional classroom teaching or to conventional CAI methods. One criterion of educational effectiveness might be the amount of time it takes students to reach a particular level of achievement. Another might be an improvement in achievement levels, given the same time on task. So the paper surveys the recent past for ITS systems that have been evaluated against unintelligent versions or against traditional classroom practice and finds cause for optimism in that some of the techniques and solutions found can be applied in the present and the future.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
S. Ainsworth, D. Wood, and P. Bibby. Co-ordinating multiple representations in computer based learning environments. In A. Paiva, and J. Self, editors. Euroaied: European Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Lisbon, 1996. Edicoes Colibri Brna et al. [3], pages 336–342.
B. S. Bloom. The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6):4–16, 1984.
P. Brna, A. Paiva, and J. Self, editors. Euroaied: European Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Lisbon, 1996. Edicoes Colibri.
A. T. Corbett and J. R. Anderson. LISP intelligent tutoring system: Research in skill acquisition. In J. H. Larkin and R. W. Chabay, editors, Computer-Assisted Instruction and Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Shared Goals and Complementary Approaches, pages 73–109. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1992.
F. M. de Oliveira and R. M. Viccari. Are learning systems distributed or social systems? In A. Paiva, and J. Self, editors. Euroaied: European Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Lisbon, 1996. Edicoes Colibri Brna et al.[3], pages 247–253.
B. du Boulay. What does the AI in AIED buy? In Colloquium on Artificial Intelligence in Educational Software, pages 3-1–3-4. IEE Digest No: 98/313, 1998.
S. Dugdale. The design of computer-based mathematics education. In J. H. Larkin and R. W. Chabay, editors, Computer-Assisted Instruction and Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Shared Goals and Complementary Approaches, pages 11–45. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1992.
K. R. Koedinger, J. R. Anderson, W. H. Hadley, and M. A. Mark. Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8(1):30–43, 1997.
S. P. Lajoie. Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In S. P. Lajoie and S. J. Derry, editors, Computers as Cognitive Tools, pages 261–288. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1993.
S. P. Lajoie and S. J. Derry, editors. Computers as Cognitive Tools. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1993.
R. Luckin. ‘ECOLAB’: Explorations in the zone of proximal development. Technical Report CSRP 386, School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences Research Paper, University of Sussex, 1998.
R. Luckin and B. du Boulay. Ecolab: The development and evaluation of a vygotskian design framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10(2):198–220, 1999.
M. A. Mark and J. E. Greer. The VCR tutor: Effective instruction for device operation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2):209–246, 1995.
J. Mitchell, J. Liddle, K. Brown, and R. Leitch. Integrating simulations into intelligent tutoring systems. In A. Paiva, and J. Self, editors. Euroaied: European Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Lisbon, 1996. Edicoes Colibri Brna et al. [3], pages 80–86.
J. Self. Special issue on evaluation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 4(2/3), 1993.
V. J. Shute. Rose garden promises of intelligent tutoring systems: Blossom or thorn? In Space Operations, Applications and Research (SOAR) Symposium, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1990.
V. J. Shute. SMART: Student modelling approach for responsive tutoring. User Modelling and User-Adapted Interaction, 5(1):1–44, 1995.
V. J. Shute and L. A. Gawlick-Grendell. What does the computer contribute to learning? Computers and Education, 23(3):177–186, 1994.
V. J. Shute, L. A. Gawlick-Grendell, R. K. Young, and C. A. Burnham. An experiential system for learning probability: Stat Lady description and evaluation. Instructional Science, 24(1):25–46, 1996.
V. J. Shute and R. Glaser. A large-scale evaluation of an intelligent discovery world: Smithtown. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1):51–77, 1990.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
du Boulay, B. (2000). Can We Learn from ITSs?. In: Gauthier, G., Frasson, C., VanLehn, K. (eds) Intelligent Tutoring Systems. ITS 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1839. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45108-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45108-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-67655-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45108-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive