PEPE: A computational framework for a content planner

  • Barbara J. Wasson
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NATO ASI F, volume 104)

Abstract

An investigation of the dimensions of knowledge required to make pedagogical content decisions has been conducted and an approach to designing an instructional component which represents and reasons about this knowledge is presented. PEPE is a competence-based computational framework for a content planner that views pedagogical decision making as a planning problem. During content planning, decisions about what concepts to present are made. Working in a one-on-one tutoring paradigm, PEPE incorporates the following types of pedagogical knowledge (a) the concepts to be learned, and the prerequisite and other structural relationships between concepts (e.g., part_of and isa), (b) the various abilities in using concepts such as knowing the definition of a concept, being able to analyze behavior or synthesize a solution using a concept, (c) the typical misconceptions of the domain, and (d) the pedagogical rules that represent a pedagogical philosophy for learning the domain. This knowledge is used in conjunction with a model of the student’s current knowledge state to dynamically map out a content plan that is tailored to an individual student. Thus, PEPE provides a framework through which an ITS designer can encode a precise instructional theory.

Keywords

generic models intelligent tutoring systems instructional planning instructional planning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bloom, B.S.: Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Company, Inc. 1956Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Calderhead, J.: Exploring teachers’ thinking, London: Cassell 1987Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clark, C.M., & Peterson, P.L.: Teachers’ thought processes. In: Handbook of research on teaching. 3rd ed. (M.C. Wittrock, ed.). pp. 255–296. New York: Macmillan 1986Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Castro, M.I., Sanchez, A., & Verdejo Maillo, M.F.: Building a programming tutor by dynamic planning: Case studies and a proposal. Proceedings of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS-88), Montréal, Canada. 230–237 (1988)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deny, S.J., Hawkes, L.W., & Ziegler, U.: A plan-based opportunistic architecture for intelligent tutoring. Proceedings of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS-88), Montréal, Canada. 116–123 (1988)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dillenbourg, P.: Designing a self-improving tutor: PROTO-TEG. Instructional Science. 18, 193–216 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    du Boulay, B., & Sothcott, C.: Computers teaching programming: An introductory survey of the field. In: Artificial intelligence and education. Volume 1: Learning environments and tutoring systems. (R.W. Lawler & M. Yazdani, eds.). pp. 345–372. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing 1987Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elbaz, F.: Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. New York: Nichols 1983Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gagné, R.M.: The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. 4th edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston 1985Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gagné, R.M., & Briggs, L.J.: Principles of instructional design. 2nd ed. New York: Hold, Rinehart & Winston 1974Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goodyear, P.: Approaches to the empirical derivation of teaching knowledge for intelligent tutoring systems. Proceedings of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS-88), Montréal, Quebec, Canada. 291–298 (1988)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grossman, P.L., Wilson, S.M., & Shulman, L.S.: Teachers of substance: Subject matter knowledge for teaching. In: Knowledge base for the beginning teacher. (M.C. Reynolds, ed.). pp. 23–26. Toronto: Pergamon Press 1989Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jones, M.: Instructional systems need instructional theory: Comments on a truism. Paper presented on the NATO Research Workshop on “New Directions in Educational Technology’, Cranfield, 1988Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Landa, L.N.: The Algo-heuristic theory of instruction. In: Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. (C.M. Reigeluth, ed.). pp. 163–211. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 1983Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Laurillard, D.: Computers and the emancipation of students: Giving control to the learner. Instructional Science. 16, 3–18 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J.G.: The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology. 78, (2), 75–95 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lesgold, A.: Toward a theory of curriculum for use in designing intelligent instructional systems. In: Learning issues for intelligent tutoring systems. (H. Mandl & A. Lesgold, eds.). pp. 114–137. New York: Springer Verlag 1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Littman, D.: Strategies for tutoring multiple bugs. Ph.D. Thesis. New Haven, CT: Yale University 1990Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Macmillan, S.A., & Sleeman, D.H.: An architecture for a self-improving instructional planner for intelligent tutoring systems. Computational Intelligence. 3, (1) (1987)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McArthur, D., Stasz, C., Hotta, J., Peter, O., & Burdorf, C.: Skill-oriented sequencing in an intelligent tutor for basic algebra. Instructional Science. 17, 281–307 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McCalla, G.I.: Some issues for guided discovery tutoring research: Granularity-based reasoning, student model maintenance, and pedagogical planning., Paper presented on the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Guided Discovery Tutoring, Tuscany, July 1989Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McCalla, G.I., & Wasson, B.J.: Negotiated learning needs student modelling and instructional planning. In: Knowledge negotiation. ( R. Moyse & M. Elsom-Cook, eds.). London: Chapman 1991Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    McCalla, G.I., Greer, J.E., & the SCENT Research Team: SCENT-3: An architecture for intelligent advising in problem solving domains. In: Intelligent tutoring systems: At the crossroads of artificial intelligence and education. (C. Frasson & G. Gauthier, eds.). pp. 140–161. Norwood, NJ: Ablex 1990Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Merrill, M.D.: The new component design theory: Instructional design for courseware authoring. Instructional Science. 16, 19–34 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Merrill, M.D.: Component display theory. In: Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. (C.M. Reigeluth, ed.). pp. 279–333. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 1983Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Murray, W.R.: A blackboard-based dynamic instructional planner. Santa Clara, CA: Artificial Intelligence Center, FMC Corporation, Report No. R-6376, 1990Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Murray, W.R.: Control for intelligent tutoring systems: A blackboard-based dynamic instructional planner. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on AI and Education, pp. 150–168 Amsterdam: IOS 1989Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ohlsson, S.: Some principles of intelligent tutoring. Instructional Science. 14, 293–326, 1986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peachey, D.R., & McCalla, G.I.: Using planning techniques in intelligent tutoring systems. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 24, 77–88 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peterson, P.L.: Teachers’ and students’ cognitional knowledge for classroom teaching and learning. Educational Researcher. 17, (5), 5–14 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Peterson, L.P., Fennema, E., Carpenter, T.P., & Loef, M.: Teachers’ pedagogical content beliefs in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction. 6, (1), 1–40 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Putman, R.T.: Structuring and adjusting content for students: A study of live and simulated tutoring of addition. American Educational Research Journal. 24, (1), 13–48 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reigeluth, C.M.: Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 1983Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Romiszowski, AJ.: Producing instructional systems: Lesson planning for individualized and group learning design. London: Kogan Page 1984Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Scandura, J.M.: Instructional strategies based on the structural learning theory. In: Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. (C.M. Reigluth, ed.). pp. 213–246. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 1983Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shuell, TJ.: Designing instructional computing systems for meaningful learning. Paper presented at the NATO Advanced Studies Institute on Syntheses of Instructional Science and Computing Science for Instructional Computing Systems, Calgary, 1990Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shulman, L.: Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher. 15, (2), 4–14 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brecht, BJ.: Instructional planning: Content planning for intelligent tutoring systems, Ph.D dissertation. Saskatchewan: University of Saskatchewan 1990Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wilson, S.M., Shulman, L.S., & Richert, AE.: “150 different ways” of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In: Exploring teachers’ thinking. (J. Calderhead, ed.). pp. 104–124, London: Cassell 1987Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Winkels, R., Breuker, J., & Sandberg, J.: Didactic discourse in intelligent help systems. In: Proceedings of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (TS-88), Montréal, Canada, pp. 279–285 (1988)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Woolf, B., Murray, T., Suthers, D., & Schultz, K.: Knowledge primitives for tutoring systems. In: Proceedings of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS-88), Montréal, Canada. pp. 491–498 (1988)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara J. Wasson
    • 1
  1. 1.Research DepartmentNorwegian TelecomTromsϕNorway

Personalised recommendations