Skip to main content

A Study On Two Hint-level Policies in Conversational Intelligent Tutoring Systems

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Innovations in Smart Learning

Abstract

In this work, we compared two hint-level instructional strategies, minimum scaffolding vs. maximum scaffolding, in the context of conversational intelligent tutoring systems (ITSs). The two strategies are called policies because they have a clear bias, as detailed in the paper. To this end, we conducted a randomized controlled trial experiment with two conditions corresponding to two versions of the same underlying state-of-the-art conversational ITS, i.e. DeepTutor. Each version implemented one of the two hint-level strategies. Experimental data analysis revealed that pre-post learning gains were significant in both conditions. We also learned that, in general, students need more than just a minimally informative hint in order to infer the next steps in the solution to a challenging problem; this is the case in the context of a problem selection strategy that picks challenging problems for students to work on.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aleven V., Popescu, O., & Koedinger, K. R. (2001). Towards Tutorial Dialog to Support Self-Explanation: Adding Natural Language Understanding to a Cognitive Tutor. In J. D. Moore, C. L. Redfield, & W. L. Johnson (Eds.), Proceedings of AI-ED 2001 (pp. 246-255). Amsterdam, IOS Press

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alonzo, A. C., & Steedle, J. T. (2009). Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression. Science Education, 93, 389-421.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Boyer, K.E., Phillips, R., Ingram, A., Ha, E.Y., Wallis, M.D., Vouk, M.A., & Lester, J.C. (2011). The International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), Vol. 21 No. 1, 2011, 65-81.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cade, W., Copeland, J., Person, N., & D’Mello, S. (2008). Dialog modes in expert tutoring. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Montreal, Canada, 470-479.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chi, M. T., Siler, S. A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., and Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25 (2001) 471–533.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chi, M., VanLehn, K., Litman, D. and Jordan, P. (2011). Empirically evaluating the application of reinforcement learning to the induction of effective and adaptive pedagogical strategies. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction. Special Issue on Data Mining for Personalized Educational Systems. Vol. 21, Numbers 1-2, pgs 137-180.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Di Eugenio, B., Kershaw, T. C., Lu, X., Corrigan-Halpern, A., and Ohlsson, S. (2006). Toward a computational model of expert tutoring: a first report. The 19th International conference of Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society. (2006). pp. 503–508.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Doignon, J.P. and Falmagne, J.C. (1999), A Practical Application: The Aleks System, Knowledge Spaces, Berlin, Heidelberg, and New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 9–10.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Graesser, A. C.; VanLehn, K.; Rose, C. P.; Jordan, P.; and Harter, D. (2001). Intelligent tutoring systems with conversational dialogue. AI Magazine, 22(4), 39-41.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Graesser, A. C., D’Mello, S. K., and Person, N., (2009). Meta-knowledge in tutoring. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 361-412). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., and Swackhamer, G. (1992). “Force concept inventory,” Phys. Teach. 30, 141-158 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jeong, H., Gupta, A., Roscoe, R., Wagster, J., Biswas, G., & Schwartz, D. (2008). Using hidden markov models to characterize student behaviors in learning-by-teaching environments. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Vol. 5091. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 614-625). Montreal, Canada: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lehman, B., D’Mello, S., Cade, W., & Person, K. (2012). How Do They Do It? Investigating Dialogue Moves within Dialogue Modes in Expert Human Tutoring. In. S. A. Cerri, & B. Clancey (Eds.), Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2012) (pp. 560-565). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rowe, J., Mott, B., McQuiggan, S., Robison, J., Lee, S., and Lester, J. (2009) Crystal Island: A Narrative-Centered Learning Environment for Eighth Grade Microbiology. In Proceedings of the AIED’09 Workshop on Intelligent Educational Games, Brighton, UK, pp. 11-20, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rus, V., D’Mello, S., Hu, X., & Graesser, A.C. (2013). Recent Advances in Conversational Intelligent Tutoring Systems, AI Magazine, 34(3):42-54.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rus, V., Graesser, A.C., & Conley, M. (2014). The DENDROGRAM Model of Instruction, Design Recommendations for Adaptive Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Adaptive Instructional Strategies (Volume 2), (Eds. Sottilare, R.), Army Research Lab.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rus, V., Stefanescu, D., Baggett, W., Niraula, N., Franceschetti, D., & Graesser, A.C. (2014). Macro-adaptation in Conversational Intelligent Tutoring Matters, The 12th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, June 5-9, Honolulu, Hawaii.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rus, V., Maharjan, N., & Banjade, R. (2015). Unsupervised Discovery of Tutorial Dialogue Modes in Human-to-Human Tutorial Data, Proceedings of the Third Annual GIFT Users Symposium (Eds. Sottilare, R. and Sinatra, A.M.), Army Research Lab, June 2015, pp. 63-80.

    Google Scholar 

  19. VanLehn, K., Jordan, P., and Litman, D. (2007). Developing pedagogically effective tutorial dialogue tactics: Experiments and a testbed, Proceedings of SLaTE Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education (ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop).

    Google Scholar 

  20. VanLehn, K. (2011). The Relative Effectiveness of Human Tutoring, Intelligent Tutoring Systems, and Other Tutoring Systems, Educational Psychologist, 46:4, 197-221.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vasile Rus .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this paper

Cite this paper

Rus, V., Banjade, R., Niraula, N., Gire, E., Franceschetti, D. (2017). A Study On Two Hint-level Policies in Conversational Intelligent Tutoring Systems. In: Popescu, E., et al. Innovations in Smart Learning. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2419-1_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2419-1_24

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-2418-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-2419-1

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics