Graph grammars: An ITS technology for diagram representations

Proceedings of the 21th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, FLAIRS-21

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 433-438

  Pinkwart, Niels ^a   Ashley, Kevin D ^b   Aleven, Vincent ^c   Lynch, Collin ^b  

^a CLAUSTHAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^c CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; CONTEXT SENSITIVE GRAMMARS; FORMAL LANGUAGES; INTELLIGENT VEHICLE HIGHWAY SYSTEMS; STUDENTS;

DO-MAINS; EDUCATIONAL APPLICATIONS; EXTERNAL REPRESENTATIONS; FEEDBACK MESSAGES; GRAPH GRAMMARS; LEARNING TOOLS; OF GRAPHS;

GRAPH THEORY;

EID: 55849102794     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. Aleven, V., Ashley, K., Lynch, C., & Pinkwart, N. (Eds.) 2007. Proc. of the Workshop on AIED Applications for Ill-Defined Domains at AIED. Los Angeles (CA).
2. Anderson, J., Corbett, A., Koedinger, K., & Pelletier, R. 1995. Cognitive Tutors: Lessons Learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 4(2): 167-207.
3. Ashley, K. 2007. Interpretive Reasoning with Hypothetical Cases", Proc. of FLAIRS, Key West (FL).
4. Baghaei, N., Mitrovic, A., & Irwin, W. 2007. Supporting collaborative learning and problem-solving in a constraint-based CSCL environment for UML class diagrams. International Journal of CSCL 2(2-3): 159-190
5. Easterday, M., Aleven, V., & Scheines, R. (2007). Tis better to construct than to receive? The effects of diagramming tools on causal reasoning. In Proc. of AIED, 93-100. Amsterdam, IOS Press.
6. Gordon, T. F. 2007. Visualizing Carneades argument graphs. Law, Probability and Risk (Advance Access).
7. Larkin, J., & Simon, H. 1987. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cog.Sci 11:65-99
8. Kuhn, D. 2001. The Skills of Argument. New York (NY), Cambridge University Press.
9. McLaren, B. M., Scheuer, O., De Laat, M., Hever, R., De Groot, R., & Rose, C. P. 2007. Using Machine Learning Techniques to Analyze and Support Mediation of Student E-Discussions. In Proc. of AIED. Amsterdam, IOS Press.
10. Ohlsson, S. 1994. Constraint-based Student Modelling. Proceedings of Student Modelling, 167-189, Berlin.
11. Paolocci, M., Suthers, D., & Weiner, A. 1996. Automated Advice-Giving Strategies for Scientific Inquiry. In Proceedings of ITS, 372-381. Berlin, Springer.
12. Pinkwart, N., Aleven, V., Ashley, K., & Lynch, C. 2006. Schwachstellenermittlung und Rückmeldungsprinzipen in einem intelligenten Tutorensystem für juristische Argumentation. In Tagungsband der 4. e-Learning Fachtagung Informatik, 75-86. Bonn, GI.
13. Reed, C., and Rowe, G. 2004. Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation. International Journal of AI Tools 14:961-980.
14. Rekers, J., & Schürr, A. 1997. Defining and parsing visual languages with layered graph grammars. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 8:27-55.
15. Suraweera, P., and Mitrovic, A. 2002. KERMIT: A Constraint-Based Tutor for Database Modeling. In Proceedings of ITS, 201-216. Berlin, Springer.
16. Verheij, B. 2003. Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. An. Intelligence 150:291-324.