DNA — Uncorking the Bottleneck in Knowledge Elicitation and Organization
- 943 Downloads
There are two main purposes of this paper. First, we describe a novel cognitive tool that was designed to aid in knowledge elicitation and organization for instructional purposes — specifically to be used for intelligent tutoring system development. This automated approach to knowledge elicitation is embodied in a program called DNA (Decompose, Network, Assess). Our aim for this tool is to increase the efficiency of developing the expert model — often referred to as the bottleneck in developing intelligent instructional systems. The second purpose is to present a first-order summative evaluation of the tool’s efficacy. Specifically, we used DNA with three statistical experts to explicate their knowledge structures related to measures of central tendency. In short, we found that DNA can be used as a standalone program to effectively elicit relevant information on which to build instruction. This was achieved in hours compared to months for conventional elicitation procedures.
KeywordsKnowledge Structure Central Tendency Conceptual Knowledge Intelligent Tutoring System Expert Model
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Polson, M. C., & Richardson, J. J.: Foundations of Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey (1988)Google Scholar
- 2.Shute, V. J., & Psotka, J.: Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Past, Present, and Future. In: Jonassen, D. (ed.): Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology: A project of the Association for Educational Communication. Macmillan, New York (1996) 570–600Google Scholar
- 3.Anderson, J. R.: The Expert Module. In: Polson, M. C., Richardson, J. J. (eds.): Foundations of Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates New Jersey (1988) 21–50Google Scholar
- 4.Shute, V. J., Torreano, L. A., & Willis, R. E.: Cognitive Task Analysis: Towards an Automated, Powerful Tool. In: Lajoie, S. (ed.): Computers as Cognitive Tools, Vol. 2. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey (in press)Google Scholar
- 7.Card, S., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A.: The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates New Jersey (1983)Google Scholar
- 8.Shraagen, J. M. C., Chipman, S. E., Shute, V. J., Annett, J., Strub, M., Sheppard, C., Ruisseau, J. Y., & Graff, N.: State-of-the-Art Review of Cognitive Task Analysis Techniques. Deliverable Report of RSG.27 on Cognitive Task Analysis NATO Defense Research Group (Panel 8/RSG.27). TNO Human Factors Research Institute Group: Information Processing (1997)Google Scholar
- 9.Williams, K. E.: The Development of an Automated Cognitive Task Analysis and Modeling Process for Intelligent Tutoring System Development. Contract final report on N00014-97-J-5-1500. Manpower Personnel and Training Program, Office of Naval Research (1993)Google Scholar
- 10.Gordon, S. E., Schmierer, K. A., & Gill, R. T.: Conceptual Graph Analysis: Knowledge Acquisition For Instructional System Design. Human Factors 35 (1993) 459–481Google Scholar
- 11.Shute, V. J., Gawlick, L. A., & Lefort, N. K.: Stat Lady [Unpublished computer program]. Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Armstrong Laboratory (1996)Google Scholar