Deconstructing a Computer-Based Tutor: Striving for Better Learning Efficiency in Stat Lady

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1452)


This paper is a prospective report of an ongoing design project involving a computer-based tutoring system called Stat Lady (Shute & Gluck, 1994). Previous studies have shown considerable improvement on curriculum objectives as a result of interation with the tutor. The goal now is to try to improve on learning efficiency, defined as knowledge gain per unit of time. The question we will be asking in this study is: What can we peel away from the tutor to make it a more efficient teaching tool, without having a negative impact on curriculum learning? Additionally, as we remove pieces of the tutor, what effect (if any) will that have on the subjective enjoyment of the learning experience? The study in progress investigates these issues in a 2×2 factorial design varying the presence or absence of contextualized instruction and problem solving across the presence or absence of certain interface features that were an integral part of the original tutor.


Word Problem Posttest Score Number Factory Verbal Protocol Learning Efficiency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, J. R., Reder, L.M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aubé, M. (1997). Toward computational models of motivation: A much needed foundation for social sciences and education. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8(1), 43–75.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (revised edition). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gluck, K. A., Lovett, M. C., Anderson, J. R., & Shute, V. J. (1998). Learning about the learning environment: Adaptive behaviors and instruction. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. R. (in press). Illustrating principled design: The early evolution of a cognitive tutor for algebra symbolization. Interactive Learning Environments.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koedinger, K. R., Anderson, J.R., Hadley, W.H., & Mark, M. A. (1997). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8, 30–43.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koedinger, K.R., & MacLaren, B. A. (1997). Implicit strategies and errors in an improved model of early algebra problem solving. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shute, V. J. (1995). SMART: Student Modeling Approach for Responsive Tutoring. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 5, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shute, V. J., & Gluck, K. A. (1994). Stat Lady Descriptive Statistics Tutor: Data Organization and Plotting Module. [Unpublished computer program]. Brooks AFB, TX: Armstrong Laboratory.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Simon, H. A. (1979). Motivational and emotional controls of cognition. In Models of thought, Vol. 1. (pp. 29–38). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Air Force Research Laboratory/HEJTLackland AFBUSA

Personalised recommendations