What students expect may have more impact than what they know or feel

Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications

Volumn 200, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 73-80

  Jackson, G Tanner ^a   Graesser, Arthur C ^a   McNamara, Danielle ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

Intelligent Tutoring Systems; Student Expectations

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION; DOMAIN KNOWLEDGE; EDUCATION COMPUTING; ENGINEERING EDUCATION;

EFFECTIVE LEARNING; INTELLIGENT TUTORING; INTELLIGENT TUTORING SYSTEM; KNOWLEDGE USE; LEARN+; LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS; LEARNING STRATEGY; STUDENT EXPECTATIONS; SYSTEM INTERACTIONS; TUTORING SYSTEM;

STUDENTS;

EID: 73149104883     PISSN: 09226389     EISSN: 18798314     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.3233/978-1-60750-028-5-73     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (26)

1. K.J. Garland, & J.M. Noyes, Computer attitude scales: How relevant today. Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008), 563-575.
2. K.E. Boyer, R. Phillips, M. Wallis, M. Vouk, & J. Lester, Balancing cognitive and motivational scaffolding in tutorial dialogue. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Montreal, Canada, (2008), 239-249.
3. G.T. Jackson, & A.C. Graesser, Content matters: An investigation of feedback categories within an ITS. In: Luckin, R., Koedinger, K.R., Greer, J. (eds.) Proceedings of AIED 2007 conference 158, (2007), 127-134.
4. A. Antonietti, B. Colombo, & Y. Lozotsev, Undergraduates' metacognitive knowledge about the psychological effects of different kinds of computer-supported instructional tools. Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008), 2172-2198.
5. S. Cepni, E. Tas, & S. Kose, The effects of computer-assisted material on students' cognitive levels, misconceptions and attitudes toward science. Computers & Education 46 (2006), 192-205.
6. I. Clarke, & T.B. Flaherty, Student perceptions of educational technology tools. Journal of Marketing Education 23 (2001), 169-177.
7. A. Mitra, Categories of computer use and their relationships with attitudes toward computers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 30 (1998), 281-294.
8. K.J. Garland, & J.M. Noyes, Computer experience: A poor predictor of computer attitudes, Computers in Human Behavior 20 (2004), 823-840.
9. D.F. Davis, P.R. Bagozzi, and R.P. Warshaw, User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35 (1989), 982-1003.
10. R. Saadé, & B. Bahli, The impact of cognitive absorption on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in on-line learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model, Information and Management 42 (2005), 317-327.
11. M. Jennings, Theory and models for creating engaging and immersive ecommerce Websites. Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research, New York: ACM Press. (2000), 77-85.
12. G. Lindgaard, G. Fernandes, C.C. Dudek, & J. Brown, Attention web designers: You have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression, Behaviour & Information Technology 25 (2006), 115-126.
13. B. Weiner, Human Motivation: Metaphors, Theories, and Research, Sage Publications, 1992.
14. L.N. Foner, Entertaining agents: A social case study, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents, New York: ACM Press (1997), 122-129.
15. D.A. Norman, How might people interact with agents. Communications of the ACM 37 (1994), 68-71.
16. W.L. Johnson, Interaction tactics for socially intelligent pedagogical agents, In IUI '03: Proceedings of the 8th int'l conference on Intelligent user interfaces, ACM Press (2003), 251-253.
17. W.L. Johnson, E. Shaw, A. Marshall, & C. Labore, Evolution of user interaction: The case of agent Adele. Proceedings of IUI'03. New York: ACM Press (2003), 93-100.
18. A.C. Graesser, S. Lu, G.T. Jackson, H. Mitchell, M. Ventura, A. Olney, & M.M. Louwerse, Auto Tutor: A tutor with dialogue in natural language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36 (2004), 180-193.
19. A.C. Graesser, K. Wiemer-Hastings, P. Wiemer-Hastings, R. Kreuz, & the TRG, Auto Tutor: A simulation of a human tutor. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research 1 (1999), 35-51.
20. K. VanLehn, A.C. Graesser, G.T. Jackson, P. Jordan, A. Olney, & C.P. Rose, When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading? Cognitive Science 31(2007), 3-62.
21. A.C. Graesser, C.A. Bowers, D.J. Hacker, & N.K. Person, An anatomy of naturalistic tutoring. In K. Hogan and M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding of instruction. Brookline Books, 1997.
22. A.C. Graesser, N.K. Person, & J. Magliano, Collaborative dialog patterns in naturalistic one-on-one tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology 9 (1995), 495-522.
23. G.T. Jackson, J. Mueller, N.K. Person, & A.C. Graesser, Assessing the pedagogical effectiveness and conversational appropriateness in three versions of AutoTutor. In J.D. Moore, C.L. Redfield, and W.L. Johnson (Eds.) Artificial Intelligence in Education: AI-ED in the Wired and Wireless Future, OIS Press, Amsterdam (2001), 263-267.
24. N.K. Person, A.C. Graesser, R.J. Kreuz, V. Pomeroy, & TRG, Simulating human tutor dialog moves in Auto Tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 12 (2001), 23-39.
25. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, & G. Swackhamer, Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher 30 (1992), 141-158.
26. A. Adcock, & R. Van Eck, Reliability and factor structure of the Attitude Toward Tutoring Agent Scale (ATTAS). Journal of Interactive Learning Research 16 (2005), 195-212.