A corpus of tutorial dialogs on theorem proving; the influence of the presentation of the study-material.

Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2006

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 1766-1769

  Benzmüller, Christoph ^a   Horacek, Helmut ^a   Lesourd, Henri ^a   Kruijff Korbayova, Ivana ^a   Schiller, Marvin ^a   Wolska, Magdalena ^a  

^a SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CORPUS ANALYSIS; NATURAL LANGUAGES; QUANTITATIVE RESULT; SIMULATED ENVIRONMENT; SIMULATED SYSTEM; STUDY MATERIALS; SUB-GROUPS; WIZARD OF OZ;

THEOREM PROVING;

EID: 77952726789     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. C. Benzmüller, A. Fiedler, M. Gabsdil, H. Horacek, I. Kruijff-Korbayová, M. Pinkal, J. Siekmann, D. Tsovaltzi, B.Q. Vo, and M. Wolska. 2003a. Tutorial dialogs on mathematical proofs. In Proc. of the IJCAI Workshop on Knowledge Representation and Automated Reasoning for E-Learning Systems, pp. 12-22.
2. C. Benzmüller, A. Fiedler, M. Gabsdil, H. Horacek, I. Kruijff-Korbayová, M. Pinkal, J. Siekmann, D. Tsovaltzi, B.Q. Vo, and M. Wolska. 2003b. A Wizard-of-Oz experiment for tutorial dialogues in mathematics. In AIED-03 Supplementary Proc., Advanced Technologies for Mathematics Education, pp. 471-481.
3. S.E. Brennan and J.O. Ohaeri. 1994. Effects of message style on users' attributions toward agents. In CHI -94: Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 281-282.
4. I.N. Bronstein and K.A. Semendjajew. 1991. Taschenbuch der Mathematik. Teubner.
5. N. Dahlbäck, A. Jönsson, and L. Ahrenberg. 1993. Wizard of Oz studies: why and how. In Proc. of the 1st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 193-200.
6. P. Dahlqvist, R. Ramberg, and Y. Waern. 1999. The effects of different presentation formats on learning. In European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction.
7. N.M. Fraser and G.N. Gilbert. 1991. Simulating speech systems. Computer Speech and Language, 5:81-99.
8. H. Horacek and M. Wolska. 2005. Interpretation of mixed language input in a mathematics tutoring system. In Proc. of the AIED-05 Workshop on Mixed Language Explanations in Learning Environments, pp. 27-34.
9. D. Maulsby, S. Greenberg, and R. Mander. 1993. Prototyping an intelligent agent through Wizard of Oz. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 277-285. ACM Press.
10. M.D. Ringle and R. Halstead-Nussloch. 1989. Shaping user input: a strategy for natural language dialogue design. Interacting with Computers, 1(3):227-244.
11. S. Tomko and R. Rosenfeld. 2004. Shaping spoken input in user-initiative systems. In The 8th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, pp. 2825-2828.
12. M. Wolska and I. Kruijff-Korbayová. 2004. Analysis of Mixed Natural and Symbolic Language Input in Mathematical Dialogs. In Proc. of the 42nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 25-32.
13. M. Wolska, B.Q. Vo, D. Tsovaltzi, I. Kruijff-Korbayová, E. Karagjosova, H. Horacek, M. Gabsdil, A. Fiedler, and C. Benzmüller. 2004. An annotated corpus of tutorial dialogs on mathematical theorem proving. In Proc. of International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pp. 1007-1010.
14. C. Zinn. 2003. A Computational Framework For Understanding Mathematical Discourse. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 11(4):457-484.
15. E. Zoltan-Ford. 1991. How to get people to say and type what computers can understand. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(4):527-547.