Discourse processing for explanatory essays in tutorial applications

Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2002 Workshop - 3rd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue

Volumn , Issue , 2002, Pages 74-83

  Jordan, Pamela W ^a   VanLehn, Kurt ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DISCOURSE PROCESSING; NATURAL LANGUAGES; QUALITATIVE PHYSICS; RUNTIMES; SENTENCE LEVEL; STUDENT ESSAYS; STUDENT FEEDBACK; TUTORING SYSTEM;

STUDENTS;

EID: 6944229880     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (27)

1. Vincent Aleven and Kenneth R. Koedinger. 2000. The need for tutorial dialog to support self-explanation. In Building Dialogue System for Tutorial Applications, Papers of the 2000 AAAI Fall Symposium.
2. Vincent Aleven, Octav Popescu, and Kenneth R. Koedinger. 2001. A tutorial dialogue system with knowledge-based understanding and classification of student explanations. In Working Notes of 2nd IJCAI Workshop on Knowledge and Reasoning in Practical Dialogue Systems.
3. Douglas Appelt and Martha Pollack. 1992. Weighted abduction for plan ascription. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 2(1-2):1-25.
4. Eugene Charniak. 1986. A neat theory of marker passing. In Proceedings of the 5th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'86), pages 584-588.
5. Michelene T. H. Chi, Nicholas de Leeuw, Mei-Hung Chiu, and Christian LaVancher. 1994. Eliciting selfexplanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18:439-477.
6. Michelene T. H. Chi, Stephanie A. Siler, Heisawn Jeong, Takashi Yamauchi, and Robert G. Hausmann. 2001. Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25(4):471-533.
7. David Dowty. 1986. The effects of aspectual class on the temporal structure of discourse: Semantics or pragmatics? Linguistics and Philosophy, 9(1).
8. Reva Freedman, Carolyn Rosé, Michael Ringenberg, and Kurt Van Lehn. 2000. ITS tools for natural language dialogue: A domain-independent parser and planner. In Proceedings of the Intelligent Tutoring Systems Conference.
9. Arthur C. Graesser, Peter Wiemer-Hastings, Katja Wiemer-Hastings, Derek Harter, Natalie Person, and the TRG. 2000. Using latent semantic analysis to evaluate the contributions of students in autotutor. Interactive Learning Environments, 8:129-148.
10. Richard R. Hake. 1998. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics students. American Journal of Physics, 66(4):64-74.
11. Jerry Hobbs, Mark Stickel, Paul Martin, and Douglas Edwards. 1988. Interpretation as abduction. In Proc. 26th Annual Meeting of the ACL, Association of Computational Linguistics, pages 95-103.
12. Jerry Hobbs, Mark Stickel, Douglas Appelt, and Paul Martin. 1993. Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence, 63(1-2):69-142.
13. Pamela W. Jordan, Maxim Makatchev, Michael Ringenberg, and Kurt Van Lehn. 2002. Engineering the Tacitus-lite weighted abductive inference engine for use in the Why-Atlas qualitative physics tutoring system. Manuscript, University of Pittsburgh.
14. Hans Kamp. 1993. From Discourse to Logic; Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht Holland.
15. Thomas K. Landauer, Peter W. Foltz, and Darrell Laham. 1998. An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25:259-284.
16. Alex Lascarides and Nicholas Asher. 1991. Discourse relations and defeasible knowledge. In 29th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 55-62.
17. Benoit Lavoie and Owen Rambow. 1997. A fast and portable realizer for text generation systems. In Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 265-268, Washington, D.C.
18. Susan McRoy and Graeme Hirst. 1995. The repair of speech act misunderstandings by abductive inference. Computational Linguistics, 21(4):435-478, December.
19. Barbara Partee. 1984. Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7:243-286.
20. Manny Rayner and Hiyan Alshawi. 1992. Deriving database queries from logical forms by abductive definition expansion. In Proceedings of the Third Conference of Applied Natural Language Processing, pages 1-8, Trento, Italy.
21. Carolyn Rosé, Pamela Jordan, Michael Ringenberg, Stephanie Siler, Kurt Van Lehn, and Anders Weinstein. 2001. Interactive conceptual tutoring in atlas-andes. In Proceedings of AI in Education 2001 Conference.
22. Carolyn P. Rosé, Antonio Roque, Dumisizwe Bhembe, and Kurt Van Lehn. 2002. An efficient incremental architecture for robust interpretation. In Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference, San Diego, CA.
23. Carolyn P. Rosé. 2000. A framework for robust semantic interpretation. In Proceedings of the First Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
24. James D. Slotta, Michelene T.H. Chi, and Elana Joram. 1995. Assessing students' misclassifications of physics concepts: An ontological basis for conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 13(3):373-400.
25. Mark Stickel. 1988. A prolog-like inference system for computing minimum-cost abductive explanations in natural-language interpretation. Technical Report 451, SRI International, 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, California.
26. Richmond H. Thomason, Jerry Hobbs, and Johanna D. Moore. 1996. Communicative goals. In K. Jokinen, M. Maybury, M. Zock, and I. Zukerman, editors, Proceedings of the ECAI 96 Workshop Gaps and Bridges: New Directions in Planning and Natural Language Generation.
27. Bonnie Webber. 1988. Tense as discourse anaphor. Computational Linguistics, 14(2):61-71.