Examining Elements of an Adaptive Instructional System (AIS) Conceptual Model

  • Robert SottilareEmail author
  • Brian Stensrud
  • Andrew J. Hampton
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11597)


This paper examines the components, functions, and interactions of adaptive instructional systems (AISs) as a method to construct a conceptual model for use in the development of IEEE standards. AISs are artificially-intelligent, computer-based systems that guide learning experiences by tailoring instruction and recommendations based on the goals, needs, and preferences of each individual learner or team in the context of domain learning objectives. IEEE is exploring standards and best practices for AIS modeling, interoperability, and evaluation under its Project 2247 and affiliated working group. This paper was composed to document the interaction of learners with AISs in the context of a domain of instruction. The goal is to identify key interactions within AISs that drive instructional decisions, and to identify the data and methods required to support those machine-based instructions. In other words, we seek to identify methods to assess learner/team progress toward instructional objectives (e.g., knowledge, acquisition, skill development, performance, retention, and transfer of skills from instruction to operational/working environments. As part of the examination of AIS elements, we review a set of popular AIS architectures as a method of identifying what makes AISs unique from other instructional technologies. We conclude with recommendations for future AIS research and standards development.


Instructional decisions Learner data Learner interaction Learner states 


  1. 1.
    Anderson, J.R., Boyle, C.F., Reiser, B.J.: Intelligent tutoring systems. Science 228(4698) 456–462 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Psotka, J., Mutter, S.A.: Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Lessons Learned. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (1988). ISBN 978-0-8058-0192-7Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baylor, A.: Beyond butlers: intelligent agents as mentors. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 22(4), 373–382 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sottilare, R., Graesser, A.C., Hu, X., Sinatra, A.M.: Introduction to team tutoring and GIFT. In: Design Recommendations for Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Volume 6—Team Tutoring. U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Orlando (2018). ISBN 978-0-9977257-4-2Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoppenbrouwers, S.J.B.A., Proper, H.A.(Erik), van der Weide, Th.P.: A fundamental view on the process of conceptual modeling. In: Delcambre, L., Kop, C., Mayr, Heinrich C., Mylopoulos, J., Pastor, O. (eds.) ER 2005. LNCS, vol. 3716, pp. 128–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kung, C.H., Solvberg, A.: Activity modeling and behavior modeling. In: Ollie, T., Sol, H., Verrjin-Stuart, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference on Comparative Review of Information Systems Design Methodologies: Improving the Practice, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 145–171 (1986)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sottilare, R., Brawner, K.: Component interaction within the Generalized Intelligent Framework for Tutoring (GIFT) as a model for adaptive instructional system standards. In: The Adaptive Instructional System (AIS) Standards Workshop of the 14th International Conference of the Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) Conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, June 2018Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oppermann, R.: Adaptive User Support: Ergonomic Design of Manually and Automatically Adaptable Software. Routledge, Abingdon (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gross, R.: Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour, 7th edn. Hodder Education, London (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Latham, G.P.: Behavioral approaches to the training and learning process. In: Goldstein, I.L. (ed.) Frontiers of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, The Jossey-Bass Management Series and The Jossey-Bass Social and Behavioral Science Series. Training and Development in Organizations, pp. 256–295. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1989)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ausubel, D.P.: Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York (1968)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Piaget, J.: Psychology and Epistemology: Towards a Theory of Knowledge. Grossman, New York (1971)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dewey, J.: How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process, 2nd edn. D.C. Heath & Company, Boston (1933)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Anzai, Y., Simon, H.A.: The theory of learning by doing. Psychol. Rev. 86(2), 124 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mayer, R.E.: Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? Am. Psychol. 59(1), 14 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kolb, D.A.: Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. FT Press, New Jersey (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dillenbourg, P.: Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. Advances in Learning and Instruction Series. Elsevier Science Inc., New York (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Berio, M.P.: Team training vs. team building and cooperative learning: defining the field of research (Team training vs team building en cooperatief leren: afbakening van het onderzoeksterrein). Human Factors Research Institute of Technology, Soesterberg, Netherlands (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sottilare, R.A., Burke, C.S., Salas, E., Sinatra, A.M., Johnston, J.H., Gilbert, S.B.: Designing adaptive instruction for teams: a meta-analysis. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 28(2), 225–264 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Salas, E.: Team Training Essentials: A Research-Based Guide. Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sottilare, R.: Considerations in the development of an ontology for a generalized intelligent framework for tutoring. In: International Defense & Homeland Security Simulation Workshop in Proceedings of the I3M Conference, Vienna, Austria (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sottilare, R., Ragusa, C., Hoffman, M., Goldberg, B.: Characterizing an adaptive tutoring learning effect chain for individual and team tutoring. In: Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training Simulation & Education Conference, Orlando, Florida (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Corbett, A.: Cognitive computer tutors: solving the two-sigma problem. In: Bauer, M., Gmytrasiewicz, P.J., Vassileva, J. (eds.) UM 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2109, pp. 137–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goldberg, B., Amburn, C., Ragusa, C., Chen, D.W.: Modeling expert behavior in support of an adaptive psychomotor training environment: a marksmanship use case. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 28(2), 194–224 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sottilare, R.A., LaViola, J.: Extending intelligent tutoring beyond the desktop to the psychomotor domain. In: Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training Simulation and Education Conference (I/ITSEC), Orlando, FL (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Singley, M.K., Fairweather, P.G., Swerling, S.: Team tutoring systems: reifying roles in problem solving. In: Proceedings of the 1999 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, p. 66. International Society of the Learning Sciences (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    VanLehn, K.: The behavior of tutoring systems. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 16(3), 227–265 (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Russell, S., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligent: A Modern Approach. Pearson Education Ltd., Malayia (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Baylor, A.: Intelligent agents as cognitive tools for education. Educ. Technol. 1, 36–40 (1999)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Corbett, A., Kauffman, L., MacLaren, B., Wagner, A., Jones, E.: A cognitive tutor for genetics problem solving: learning gains and student modeling. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 42(2), 219–239 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lebiere, C., Anderson, J.R.: A connectionist implementation of the ACT-R production system. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 635–640. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1993)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Anderson, J.R.: Rules of the Mind. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1993)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kodaganallur, V., Weitz, R.R., Rosenthal, D.: A comparison of model-tracing and constraint-based intelligent tutoring paradigms. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 15(2), 117–144 (2005)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ritter, S., Anderson, J.R., Koedinger, K.R., Corbett, A.: Cognitive tutor: applied research in mathematics education. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 14(2), 249–255 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    VanLehn, K., Wetzel, J., Grover, S., Van De Sande, B.: Learning how to construct models of dynamic systems: an initial evaluation of the dragoon intelligent tutoring system. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 10(2), 154–167 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Aleven, V., et al.: Example-tracing tutors: intelligent tutor development for non-programmers. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 26(1), 224–269 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Heffernan, N.T., Turner, T.E., Lourenco, A.L., Macasek, M.A., Nuzzo-Jones, G., Koedinger, K.R.: The ASSISTment builder: towards an analysis of cost effectiveness of ITS creation. In: FLAIRS Conference, pp. 515–520 (2006)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mitrovic, A., Martin, B., Suraweera, P.: Intelligent tutors for all: the constraint-based approach. IEEE Intell. Syst. 4, 38–45 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Holland, J., Mitrovic, A., Martin, B.: J-LATTE: a constraint-based tutor for Java. In: Kong, S.C., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computers in Education, pp. 142–146. Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education, Hong Kong (2009)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ohlsson, S.: Constraint-based student modeling. In: Greer, J.E., McCalla, G.I. (eds.) Student Modelling: The Key To Individualized Knowledge-Based Instruction. NATO ASI Series, pp. 167–189. Springer, Heidelberg (1994). Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sottilare, R.A., Brawner, K.W., Goldberg, B.S., Holden, H.K.: The Generalized Intelligent Framework for Tutoring (GIFT). Concept paper released as part of GIFT software documentation. U.S. Army Research Laboratory—Human Research & Engineering Directorate (ARL-HRED), Orlando, FL, USA (2012)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sottilare, R., Brawner, K., Sinatra, A., Johnston, J.: An Updated Concept for a Generalized Intelligent Framework for Tutoring (GIFT). US Army Research Laboratory, Orlando, FL, USA (2017)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Feng, S., Stewart, J., Clewley, D., Graesser, A.C.: Emotional, epistemic, and neutral feedback in autotutor trialogues to improve reading comprehension. In: Conati, C., Heffernan, N., Mitrovic, A., Verdejo, M.F. (eds.) AIED 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9112, pp. 570–573. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mitrovic, A., Suraweera, P., Martin, B., Zakharov, K., Milik, N., Holland, J.: Authoring constraint-based tutors in ASPIRE. In: Ikeda, M., Ashley, K.D., Chan, T.-W. (eds.) ITS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4053, pp. 41–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Soar Technology, Inc.OrlandoUSA
  2. 2.University of MemphisMemphisUSA

Personalised recommendations