Recognizing effective and student-adaptive tutor moves in task-oriented tutorial dialogue

Proceedings of the 25th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, FLAIRS-25

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 450-455

  Mitchell, Christopher M ^a   Ha, Eun Young ^a   Boyer, Kristy Elizabeth ^a   Lester, James C ^a  

^a North Carolina State University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION; DIALOGUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS; DIALOGUE SYSTEMS; ENGAGING STUDENTS; MODELING TASK; NATURAL LANGUAGE DIALOGUE; ONE-ON-ONE TUTORING; TUTORING SYSTEM;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; SPEECH PROCESSING; STUDENTS;

TEACHING;

EID: 84864970120     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (26)

1. Bloom, B. (1984). The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-one Tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4-16.
2. Boyer, K. E., Phillips, R., Ingram, A., Ha, E. Y., Wallis, M., Vouk, M., and Lester, J. (2010). Characterizing the Effectiveness of Tutorial Dialogue with Hidden Markov Models. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 55-64).
3. Boyer, K. E., Vouk, M. A., and Lester, J. C. (2007). The Influence of Learner Characteristics on Task-oriented Tutorial Dialogue. Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 365-372).
4. Cade, W., Copeland, J., and Person, N. (2008). Dialogue Modes in Expert Tutoring. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 470-479).
5. Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S. a., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., and Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from Human Tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25(4), 471-533.
6. Chi, M., VanLehn, K., and Litman, D. (2010). Do Micro-Level Tutorial Decisions Matter: Applying Reinforcement Learning To Induce Pedagogical Tutorial Tactics. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 224-234).
7. Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., and Kulik, C.-L. C. (1982). Educational Outcomes of Tutoring: A Meta-analysis of Findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 237-248.
8. Di Eugenio, B., Chen, L., Fossati, D., Ohlsson, S., and Cosejo, D. (2011). Exploring Effective Dialogue Act Sequences in One-on-one Computer Science Tutoring Dialogues. Proceedings of the Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (pp. 65-75).
9. Dzikovska, M., Steinhauser, N., Moore, J. D., Campbell, G. E., Harrison, K. M., and Taylor, L. S. (2010). Content, Social, and Metacognitive Statements: An Empirical Study Comparing Human-human and Human-computer Tutorial Dialogue. Proceedings of the European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 93-108).
10. D'Mello, S. K., Hays, P., Williams, C., Cade, W., Brown, J., and Olney, A. (2010). Collaborative Lecturing by Human and Computer Tutors. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 178-187).
11. D'Mello, S. K., Lehman, B., and Graesser, A. C. (2011). A Motivationally Supportive Affect-Sensitive AutoTutor. In R. A. Calvo and S. K. D'Mello (Eds.), New Perspectives on Affect and Learning Technologies (pp. 113-126).
12. D'Mello, S. K., Olney, A., and Person, N. (2010). Mining Collaborative Patterns in Tutorial Dialogues. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 2(1), 1-37.
13. D'Mello, S. K., Williams, C., Hays, P., and Olney, A. (2009). Individual Differences as Predictors of Learning and Engagement. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 308-313).
14. Evens, M. W., and Michael, J. (2005). One-on-one tutoring by humans and computers.
15. Forbes-Riley, K., and Litman, D. (2009). Adapting to Student Uncertainty Improves Tutoring Dialogues. Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 33-40).
16. Forbes-Riley, K., and Litman, D. (2011). When Does Disengagement Correlate with Learning in Spoken Dialog Computer Tutoring? Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 81-89).
17. Fox, B. A. (1993). The Human Tutorial Dialogue Project: Issues in the design of instructional systems (1st ed.).
18. Graesser, A. C., Person, N., and Magliano, J. P. (1995). Collaborative Dialogue Patterns in Naturalistic One-to-one Tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(6), 495-522.
19. Kumar, R., Ai, H., Beuth, J., and Rosé, C. P. (2010). Socially Capable Conversational Tutors Can Be Effective in Collaborative Learning Situations. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 156-164).
20. Lehman, B., Cade, W., and Olney, A. (2010). Off Topic Conversation in Expert Tutoring: Waste of Time or Learning Opportunity? Proceedings of the International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 101-110).
21. Lepper, M. R., Woolverton, M., Mumme, D. L., and Gurtner, J.-L. (1993). Motivational Techniques of Expert Human Tutors: Lessons for the Design of Computer-based Tutors. In S. P. Lajoie and S. J. Derry (Eds.). Computers as Cognitive Tools (pp. 75-105).
22. Litman, D., Moore, J. D., Dzikovska, M., and Farrow, E. (2009). Using Natural Language Processing to Analyze Tutorial Dialogue Corpora Across Domains Modalities. Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 149-156).
23. Litman, D., and Forbes-Riley, K. (2006). Correlations Between Dialogue Acts and Learning in Spoken Tutoring Dialogues. Natural Language Engineering, 12(2), 161-176.
24. Marx, J. D., and Cummings, K. (2007). Normalized Change. American Journal of Physics, 75(1), 87.
25. Ohlsson, S., Di Eugenio, B., Chow, B., Fossati, D., Lu, X., and Kershaw, T. C. (2007). Beyond the Code-and-count Analysis of Tutoring Dialogues. Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 349-356).
26. VanLehn, K., Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., and Rosé, C. P. (2007). When Are Tutorial Dialogues More Effective Than Reading? Cognitive Science, 30(1), 3-62.