Extensions of intelligent tutoring paradigms to support collaborative learning

  • Alan Lesgold
  • Sandra Katz
  • Linda Greenberg
  • Edward Hughes
  • Gary Eggan
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NATO ASI F, volume 104)


Intelligent training systems with rich underlying knowledge in systematic form can readily be extended to incorporate collaborative learning possibilities. We have realized this as we have built two generations of intelligent coached practice environments for learning to diagnose failures of complex electronic systems. Using standard artificial intelligence and object-oriented programming approaches, we built a work domain simulation in which students could diagnose electronic system failures. Intelligent, context-sensitive advice is available, and it is tailored to a model of the student’s developing knowledge. Reflection opportunities after solving a problem include a variety of tools for examining one’s performance and comparing it to that of an expert. With this base, it is straightforward to extend self-critique to peer critique, to support teams of students working together, and to allow students to pose problems to each other. We discuss these possibilities and show what is needed to extend intelligent training systems to include them.


coaching collaborative learning electronic trouble shooting implemented models instructional strategies problem reflection 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Brown, J.S.: Process versus product: A perspective on tools for communal and informal electronic learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 1, (2), 179–201 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chi, M.T.H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M.W.> Reimann, P., and Glaser, R.: Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science. 13, 145–182 (1989)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Collins, A., and Brown, J.S.: The computer as a tool for learning through reflection. In: Learning issues for intelligent tutoring systems. (H. Mandl and A. Lesgold, eds.). pp. 1–18. New York: Springer Verlag 1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Collins, A., Brown, J.S., and Newman, S.E.: Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In: Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. (L.B. Resnick, ed.). pp. 453–494. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 1989Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hall, R., and Newman, S.: From motion to marks: The social and material construction of abstraction. Paper presented at the Third Biannual Workshop on Cognition and Instruction, March, 1991. Pittsburgh, PA: 1991Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Katz, S., and Lesgold, A.: The role of the tutor in computer-based collaborative learning situations. In: Computers as cognitive tools. (S. Lajoie and S. Deny, eds.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum (in press)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lajoie, S., and Lesgold, A.: Apprenticeship training in the workplace: Computer coached practice environment as a new form of apprenticeship. Machine-Mediated Learning. 3, 7–28 (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lesgold, A.: Assessment of intelligent training systems: Sherlock as an example. In: Technology assessment: Estimating the future. (Tentative title). (E. Baker and H. O’Neil, Jr., eds.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum (in press)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lesgold, A., Eggan, G., Katz, S., and Rao, G.: Possibilities for assessment using computer-based apprenticeship environments. In: Cognitive approaches to automated instruction. (W. Regian and V. Shute, eds.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum (in press)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lesgold, A.M., Lajoie, S.P., Bunzo, M., and Eggan, G.: SHERLOCK: A coached practice environment for an electronics troubleshooting job. In: Computer assisted instruction and intelligent tutoring systems: Establishing communication and collaboration. (J. Larkin, R. Chabay and C. Scheftic, eds.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum (in press)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mitchell, T.M., Keller, R.M., and Kedar-Cabelli, S.T.: Explanation-based generalization: A unifying view. Machine Learning. 1, 47–80 (1986)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nichols, P., Pokorny, R., Jones, G., Gott, S.P.> and Alley, W.E.: Evaluation of an avionics troubleshooting tutoring system. Special Report. Brooks AFB, TX: Air Force Human Resources Laboratory (in press)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Owen, E., and Sweller, J.: What do students learn while solving mathematics problems? Journal of Educational Psychology. 77, 272–284 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Palincsar, A.S., and Brown, A.L.: Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction. 1, 117–175 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rewey, K.L., Dansereau, D.F. Skaggs, L.P., Hall, R.H., and Pitre, U.: Effects of scripted cooperation and knowledge maps on the processing of technical material. Journal of Educational Psychology. 81, 804–809 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R.S., Swallow, J., and Woodruff, E.: Computer-supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 5, (1), 51–68 (1989)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schoenfeld, A.H.: Problem solving in the mathematics curriculum: A report, recommendations and an annotated bibliography. MAA Notes. No. 1. Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America, (1983)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schoenfeld, A.H.: Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press 1985MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sipusic, M.J., Roschelle, J., and Pea, R.: Talking to learn, learning to talk: conceptual change in dynagrams and the envisioning Machine. Paper presented at the Third Biannual Workshop on Cognition and Instruction, March, 1991. Pittsburgh, PA 1991Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sweller, J.: Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science. 12, 257–285 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Swelter, J., and Cooper, G.: The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction. 2, 59–89 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Teasley, S., and Roschelle, J.: Constructing a joint problem state: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In: Computers as cognitive tools. (S.P. Lajoie and S. Derry, eds.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum (in press)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thomdike, E.L.: Educational psychology. New York: Lemcke and Buechner. [Cited in Theories of learning. Fourth edition. ( E.R. Hilgard and G.H. Bower, eds.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall 1975 ] 1903Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thomdike, E.L., and Woodworth, R.S.: The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. Psychological Review. 8, 247–261, 384–395, 553–564 (1901)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tudge, J., and Rogoff, B.: Peer influences on cognitive development: Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives. In: Interaction in human development. (M.H. Bornstein and J.S. Bruner, eds.). pp. 17–40. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 1989Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vygotskii, L.S.: Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1978Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Webb, N.M.: Predicting learning from student interaction: Defining the interaction variables. Educational Psychologist. 18, (1), 33–41 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan Lesgold
    • 1
  • Sandra Katz
    • 1
  • Linda Greenberg
    • 1
  • Edward Hughes
    • 1
  • Gary Eggan
    • 1
  1. 1.Learning Research and Development CenterUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations