Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Overview of Intelligent Tutoring System Authoring Tools: Updated Analysis of the State of the Art

  • Chapter
Authoring Tools for Advanced Technology Learning Environments

Abstract

This paper consists of an in-depth summary and analysis of the research and development state of the art for intelligent tutoring system (ITS) authoring systems. A seven-part categorization of two dozen authoring systems is given, followed by a characterization of the authoring tools and the types of ITSs that are built for each category. An overview of the knowledge acquisition and authoring techniques used in these systems is given. A characterization of the design tradeoffs involved in building an ITS authoring system is given. Next the pragmatic questions of real use, productivity findings, and evaluation are discussed. Finally, I summarize the major unknowns and bottlenecks to having widespread use of ITS authoring tools.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Arroyo, I., Schapira, A. & Woolf, B. (2001). Authoring and sharing worked problems with AWE. Proc. of Artificial Intelligence in Education (Moore et al. Eds), pp. 527–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Vol. 1. New York: David McKay Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boose, J. H. (1988). “A Survey of Knowledge Acquisition Techniques and Tools.” 3rd AAAI-Sponsored Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop, November 1988, pg. 3.1–3. 23. Banff, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusilovsky, P. (1998). Methods and Techniques of Adaptive Hypermedia. In P. Brusilovsky, A. Kobsa, & J. Vassileva, editors, Adaptive Hypertext and Hypermedia, Chapter 1, pp. 1–44, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1998.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekaran,B. (1986). Generic tasks in knowledge based reasoning: high-level building blocks for expert system design. IEEE Expert, 1 (3), pp. 23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheikes, B. (1995). Should ITS Designers be Looking for a Few Good Agents? In AIED-95 workshop papers for Authoring Shells for Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clancey, W. J. (1986). “Qualitative Student Models.” In Annual Review of Computer Science, pp. 381–450: Palo Alto, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J.A., Greer, J.E., & Huang, S.H. “Adaptive assessment using granularity hierarchies and Bayesian nets.” Proceedings of the Third International Conference: ITS ‘86. Frasson, Gautheir & Lesgold (Eds). Springer, pp. 569–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, M (2001). The Gateway to Educational Materials: An evaluation Study: Year 2. ERIC Clearinghouse technical report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbus, K & Falkenhainer, B. (1995). Scaling up Self-Explanatory Simulators: Polynomial-time Compilation. Proceedings of IJCCAI-95, Montreal, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forte, E., Wentland, M. & Duval, E. (1997). The ARIADNE Project: Knowledge Pools for Computer-based and Telematics-supported Classical, Open, and Distance Learning. European Journal of Engineering Education 22 (1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. (1985). The Conditions of Learning and Theory of Instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehard, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodkovsky, V.A., Kirjutin, E.V. & Bulekov, A.A. (1994). Shell, tool, and technology for Pop Class ITS production. In P. Brusilovsky, S. Dikareve, J.Greer & V. Pertrushin (Eds). Proc. of East-West International Conference on Computer Technology in Education. Part 1, pp. 87–92. Crimea, Ukraine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodyear, P. & Johnson, R. (1990). Knowledge-based authoring of knowledge-based courseware. In Proc. of ICTE-7, Brussels:CEP Consultants LTD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgins, W. & Massie, E. (2002). Making Sense of Learning Specifications and Standards: A decision makers guide to their adoption. MASIE Center technical report, Saratogy Springs, NS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgins, W. et al. (2002). Making Sense of Learning Specifications and Standards: A Decision Maker’s Guide to their Adoption. Industry Report by the MASIE Center: Saratoga Springs, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, R. (1987). “The Problem of Extracting the Knowledge of Experts From the Perspective of Experimental Psychology.” AI Magazine, pp. 53–67, Summer 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D.H. & Reeves, T.C (1996). Learning with Technology: Using Computers as Cognitive Tools. In D.H. Jonassen, (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. New York: Scholastic Press, Chapter 25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koediner, K.R, Suthers, D.D., Forbus, K.D. (1998). Component-based construction of a science learning space. In the Proceedings of Intelligent Tutoring Systems 4th International Conference, Goettl, Half, Redfield, & Shute (Eds), 166–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koedinger, K., & Anderson, J. (1995). Intelligent tutoring goes to the big city. Int. J. of Artificial Intellignece in Education, 8, 30–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, M.S.V. & Long, P. (2002) MITs Open Courseware Initiative (OCW) and Open Knowledge Initiative (OKI). At www.cren.net/know/techtalk/mit.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mark, M.A. & Greer, J.E. (1991). The VCR Tutor: Evaluating instructional effectiveness. In Hammond, & Gentern (Eds.) Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Lawrence Erlbaum Asso., Hillsdale, NJ., 564–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCalla, G. & Greer, J. (1988). “Intelligent Advising in Problem Solving Domains: The SCENT-3 Architecture.” Proceedings of ITS-88, pp. 124–131. June, 1988, Montreal, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, S., Emme, D., & Berkowitz, M. (1980). Instructional Planners: Lessons Learned. In Psotka, Massey, & Mutter (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Lessons Learned. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 229–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M.D. (1983). Component Display Theory. In Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status,. C.M. Reigeluth. (Ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 279–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, T (1998). A Model for Distributed Curriculum on the World Wide Web. J. of Interactive Media in Education 98(5). On-line journal at http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, T. (1993). Formative Qualitative Evaluation for “Exploratory” ITS research. J. of AI in Education. 4 (2/3), pp. 179–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, T. (1996b). Toward a Conceptual Vocabulary for Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Working Paper. Murray, T. (1997) Expanding the knowledge acquisition bottleneck for intelligent tutoring systems. International J. of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Vol. 8, No. 3–4, pp. 222–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, T., Winship, L., Bellin, R. & Cornell, M. (2001). “Toward Glass Box Educational Simulations: Reifying Models for Inspection and Design.” In workshop proceedings for External Representations in AIED at AIED-2001. May 2001, San Antonio, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nejdl, W., Wold, B., Staab, S., & Tane, J. (2002). EDUTELLA: Searching and Annotating Resources within and RDF-based P2P Network. White paper at edutella.jxta.org.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohlsson, S. (1987). Some Principles of Intelligent Tutoring. In Lawler & Yazdani (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence and Education, Volume 1. Ablex: Norwood, NJ, pp. 203–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Person, N. K., Bautista, L., Graesser, A. C., Mathews, E. & The Tutoring Research Group (2001). Evaluating student learning gains in two versions of AutoTutor. In J. D. Moore, C. L Redfield, & W. L. Johnson (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education: AI–ED in the Wired and Wireless Future (pp. 286–293 ). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. (1983). The Elaboration Theory of Instruction. In Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, S. & Blessing, S. (1998). Authoring tools for component-based learning environments. Journal of the Learning Sciences,. 7 (1) pp. 107–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, S. & Koedinger, K.R. (1997). An architecture for plug-in tutoring agents. In J. of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 7 (3/4) 315–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., Kaput, J., Stroup, W. & Kahn, T.M. (1998). Scaleable integration of educational software: Exploring the promise of component architectures. J. of Interactive Media in Education, 98 (6).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosé, C. P., Jordan, P., Ringenberg, M., Siler, S., VanLehn, K., & Weinstein, A. (2001). Interactive conceptual tutoring in Atlas–Andes. In J. D. Moore, C. L Redfield, & W. L. Johnson (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education: AI–ED in the Wired and Wireless Future (pp. 256–266 ). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoening, J. & Wheeler, T. (1997). Standards—The key to educational reform. In IEEE Computer, March 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M. L. G. & Gaines, B. R. (1986). “Advances in Interactive Knowledge Engineering.” Submitted to Expert Systems ‘86. University of Calgary, Alberta, CANADA: Dept. of Computer Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J., & Psotka, J., (1996). Intelligent tutoring systems: Past, present, and future. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 570–600 ). New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V.J. & Regian, J.W. (1990). Rose Garden Promises of Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Blossom or Thorn? Presented at Space Operations, Automation and Robotics Conference, June 1990, Albuquerque, NM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. (2000). Using learning object meta-data in a database of primary and secondary school resources. Proc. of International Conf. on Computer in Education, November 2000, Taipei, Taiwan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D., Toth, E., 7 Weiner, A. (1997). An integrated approach to implementing collaborative inquiry in the classroom. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL-97), Toronto, December, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasson, B. (1992) PEPE: A computational framework for a content planner. In S.A. Dijkstra, H.P.M. Krammer & J.J.G. van Merrienboer (Eds), Instructional Models in Computer-Based Learning Environments. NATO ASI Series F. Vol. 104 (pp. 153–170). New York: Sringer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1987). Artificial Intelligence and Tutoring Systems. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetzel, M., & Hanley, G. (2001). Evaluation of MERLOT Tools, Processes, and Accomplishments. Center for Usability in Design and Assessment: Long Beach CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, B. & Frederiksen, J. (1995). Developing Metacognitive Knowledge and Processes: The Key to Making Scientific Inquiry and Modeling Accessible to All Students. Technical Report No CM-95–04. Berkeley, CA: School of Education, University of California at Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youngblut, C., 1995. Government-Sponsored Research and Development Efforts in the Area of Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Summary Report. Inst. for Defense Analyses Paper No. P-3058, Alexandra VA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Tom Murray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hampshire College, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA

    Tom Murray

  2. Carnegie Learning, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

    Stephen B. Blessing

  3. University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

    Shaaron Ainsworth

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Murray, T. (2003). An Overview of Intelligent Tutoring System Authoring Tools: Updated Analysis of the State of the Art. In: Murray, T., Blessing, S.B., Ainsworth, S. (eds) Authoring Tools for Advanced Technology Learning Environments. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0819-7_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0819-7_17

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6499-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0819-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation