Effectiveness of Intelligent Tutoring Systems: A Meta-Analytic Review

Review of Educational Research

Volumn 86, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 42-78

  Kulik, James A ^a   Fletcher, J D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES   (United States)

Author keywords

computer assisted instruction; intelligent tutoring systems; meta analysis; tutoring

Indexed keywords

EID: 84957928264     PISSN: 00346543     EISSN: 19351046     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0034654315581420     Document Type: Article

References (104)

1. J.Anania (1981). The effects of quality of instruction on the cognitive and affective learning of students (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (Order No. T-28171)
2. J.R.*AndersonC.F.BoyleA.T.CorbettM.W.Lewis (1990). Cognitive modeling and intelligent tutoring. Artificial Intelligence, 42, 7–49. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(90)90093-F
3. J.R.AndersonA.T.CorbettK.R.KoedingerR.Pelletier (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 167–207. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0402_2
4. J.R.AndersonB.J.Reiser (1985). The LISP tutor. Byte, 10, 159–175. Retrieved from http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/staff/com/c8clat/resources/TheLISPTutor.pdf
5. W.J.*Arbuckle (2005). Conceptual understanding in a computer-assisted Algebra 1 classroom (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Proquest Dissertations & Theses database. (Order No. 3203318)
6. E.*ArnottP.HastingsD.Allbritton (2008). Research methods Tutor: Evaluation of a dialogue-based tutoring system in the classroom. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 694–698. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.694
7. I.*ArroyoJ.M.RoyerB.P.Woolf (2011). Using an intelligent tutor and math fluency training to improve math performance. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 21, 135–152. doi:10.3233/JAI-2011-020
8. R.C.Atkinson (1968). Computerized instruction and the learning process. American Psychologist, 23, 225–239. doi:10.1037/h0020791
9. R.K.*Atkinson (2007). An experimental evaluation of three computer-based reading comprehension tutors (Final Report ONR N00014-05-1-0129). Tempe: Division of Psychology in Education, Arizona State University.
10. C.R.BealI.M.ArroyoP.R.CohenB.P.Woolf (2010). Evaluation of AnimalWatch: An intelligent tutoring system for arithmetic and fractions. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9, 64–77.
11. C.R.BealR.WallesI.ArroyoB.P.Woolf (2007). On-line tutoring for math achievement testing: A controlled evaluation. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6, 43–55.
12. K.BiesingerK.Crippen (2008). The impact of a state-funded online remediation site on performance related to high school mathematics proficiency. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 27, 5–17.
13. B.S.Bloom (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. doi:10.3102/0013189X013006004
14. M.Borenstein (2009). Effect sizes for continuous data. In (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 221–236). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
15. A.J.Burke (1980). Students’ potential for learning contrasted under tutorial and group approaches to instruction. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (Order No. T-28810)
16. L.M.*Burns (1993). MEADOW: An integrated system for intelligent tutoring of subtraction concepts and procedures. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Proquest Dissertations & Theses database. (Order No. 9333735)
17. J.*CabaloM.Vu (2007). Comparative effectiveness of Carnegie Learning’s Cognitive Tutor Algebra I curriculum: A report of a randomized experiment in the Maui School District. Palo Alto, CA: Empirical Education. Available from ERIC database. (ED538963)
18. L.*CampuzanoM.DynarskiR.AgodiniK.Rall (2009). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from two student cohorts (Report No. NCEE 2009-4041). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Available from ERIC database. (ED504657)
19. J.R.Carbonell (1970). AI in CAI: An artificial-intelligence approach to computer-assisted instruction. IEEE Transactions on Man-Machine Systems, 11, 190–202. doi:10.1109/TMMS.1970.299942
20. P.A.*CarlsonT.M.Miller (1996). Beyond word processing: Using an interactive learning environment to teach writing (Report No. AL/HR-TR-1996-0090). Brooks AFB, TX: Human Resources Directorate, Technical Training Research Division. Available from DTIC Online database. (ADA319034)
21. Carnegie Learning. (2001). Report of results from Canton, Ohio (Cognitive Tutor Research Report OH-01-01). Pittsburgh, PA: Author. Retrieved from https://www.carnegielearning.com/research-results/whitepapers-reports/
22. Carnegie Learning. (2011). Cognitive tutor evaluation. Unpublished manuscript, Carnegie Learning, Pittsburgh, PA. Retrieved from https://www.carnegielearning.com/research-results/whitepapers-reports/references/cognitive-tutor-evaluation
23. K.-E.*ChangK.-Y.WangC.-Y.DaiT.-C.Sung (1999). Learning recursion through a collaborative Socratic dialectic process. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 18, 303–315.
24. J.Cohen (1988). Statistical power analysis for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. P.A.CohenJ.A.KulikC.L.C.Kulik (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237–248. doi:10.3102/00028312019002237
26. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (Version 2.2.064) [Computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
27. A.T.Corbett (2001a). Cognitive computer tutors: Solving the two-sigma problem. In (Eds.), User modeling 2001: Proceedings of the eighth international conference, UM 2001 (pp. 137–147). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
28. A.T.*Corbett (2001b). Cognitive Tutor results report: 7th grade. Unpublished manuscript, Carnegie Learning, Pittsburgh, PA.
29. A.T.*Corbett (2002). Cognitive Tutor results report: 8th & 9th grade. Unpublished manuscript, Carnegie Learning, Pittsburgh, PA.
30. A.T.CorbettJ.R.Anderson (1991, April). Feedback control and learning to program with the CMU LISP tutor. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://repository.cmu.edu/psychology/28
31. A.T.*CorbettJ.R.Anderson (2001). Locus of feedback control in computer-based tutoring: Impact on learning rate, achievement and attitudes. In (Eds.), Proceedings of the CHI 2001 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 245–252). New York, NY: ACM.
32. A.T.CorbettK.R.KoedingerJ.R.Anderson (1997). Intelligent tutoring systems. In (Eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (2nd ed., pp. 849–874). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
33. S.D.CraigD.M.DriscollB.Gholson (2004). Constructing knowledge from dialog in an intelligent tutoring system: Interactive learning, vicarious learning, and pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13, 163–184.
34. S.D.CraigJ.SullinsA.WitherspoonB.Gholson (2006). The deep-level-reasoning-question effect: The role of dialogue and deep-level-reasoning questions during vicarious learning. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 565–591. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2404_4
35. N.A.Crowder (1959). Automatic tutoring by means of intrinsic programming. In (Ed.), Automatic teaching: The state of the art (pp. 109–116). New York, NY: Wiley.
36. J.D.Fletcher (1982). Training technology: An ecological point of view. In (Eds.), Psychology and society: Information technology in the 1980s (pp. 166–191). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
37. J.D.Fletcher (1985). Intelligent instructional systems in training. In (Ed.), Applications in artificial intelligence (pp. 427–451). Princeton, NJ: Petrocelli Books.
38. J.D.*Fletcher (2011). DARPA Education Dominance Program: April 2010 and November 2010 Digital Tutor assessments (IDA Document D-4260). Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analysis. Available from DTIC Online database. (ADA542215)
39. J.D.*FletcherJ.E.Morrison (2012). DARPA digital Tutor: Assessment data (IDA Document D-4686). Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analyses.
40. B.GholsonA.WitherspoonB.MorganJ.K.BrittinghamR.ColesA.C.GraesserS.D..Craig (2009). Exploring the deep-level reasoning questions effect during vicarious learning among eighth to eleventh graders in the domains of computer literacy and Newtonian physics. Instructional Science, 37, 487–493. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9069-2
41. G.V.GlassB.McGawM.L.Smith (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
42. S.P.*GottA.LesgoldR.S.Kane (1996). Tutoring for transfer of technical competence. In (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 33–48). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
43. A.C.*GraesserG.T.JacksonE.C.MathewsH.H.MitchellA.OlneyM.VenturaM.M..Louwerse (2003). Why/AutoTutor: A test of learning gains from a physics tutor with natural language dialog. In (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fifth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 474–479). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved from http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2003/pdfs/103.pdf
44. A.C.GraesserS.LuG.T.JacksonH.H.MitchellM.VenturaA.OlneyM.M.Louwerse (2004). AutoTutor: A tutor with dialogue in natural language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 180–192. doi:10.3758/BF03195563
45. A.C.*GraesserK.MorenoJ.MarineauA.AdcockA.OlneyN.Person, & The Tutoring Research Group. (2003). AutoTutor improves deep learning of computer literacy: Is it the dialog or the talking head? In (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Shaping the future of learning through intelligent technologies (pp. 47–54). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
46. A.*GrubišicS.StankovM.RosicB.Žitko (2009). Controlled experiment replication in evaluation of e-learning system’s educational influence. Computers & Education, 53, 591–602. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.03.014
47. A.*GrubišicS.StankovB.Žitko (2006). An approach to automatic evaluation of educational influence. In (Eds.), DIWEB 06 Proceedings of the 6th WSEAS International Conference on Distance Learning and Web Engineering (pp. 20–25). Stevens Point, WI: World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society. Retrieved from http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/259289.DIWEB2006_Grubisic_Stankov_Zitko.pdf
48. S.S.Hartley (1977). Meta-analysis of the effects of individually paced instruction in mathematics (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (Order No. 7729926)
49. P.*HastingsE.Arnott-HillD.Allbritton (2010). Squeezing out gaming behavior in a dialog-based ITS. In (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems 2010 (pp. 204–213). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
50. C.*HategekimanaS.GilbertS.Blessing (2008). Effectiveness of using an intelligent tutoring system to train users on off-the-shelf software. In (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 414–419). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
51. L.V.HedgesI.Olkin (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.
52. Z.*JeremicJ.JovanovicD.Gasevic (2009). Evaluating an intelligent tutoring system for design patterns: The DEPTHS experience. Educational Technology & Society, 12, 111–130. Available from ERIC database. (EJ836295)
53. S.D.*JohnsonJ.W.FlesherJ.C.J.JehngA.Ferej (1993). Enhancing electrical troubleshooting skills in a computer-coached practice environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 3, 199–214. doi:10.1080/1049482930030303
54. K.R.Koedinger (2002). Toward evidence for instructional design principles: Examples from Cognitive Tutor Math 6. In (Eds.), Proceedings of PMENA XXII (North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education; Vol. 1, pp. 21–49). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. Available from ERIC database. (SE066887)
55. K.R.*KoedingerV.AlevenN.HeffernanB.McLarenM.Hockenberry (2004). Opening the door to non-programmers: Authoring intelligent tutor behavior by demonstration. In (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 162–173). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Retrieved from http://repository.cmu.edu/hcii/158
56. K.R.*KoedingerJ.R.Anderson (1993). Effective use of intelligent software in high school math classrooms. In (Eds.), Proceedings of the World Conference on AI in Education, 1993 (pp. 241–248). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Retrieved from http://repository.cmu.edu/hcii/4
57. K.R.*KoedingerJ.R.AndersonW.H.HadleyM.A.Mark (1997). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8, 30–43. Retrieved from http://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00197383/
58. C.L.C.KulikJ.A.Kulik (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75–94. doi:10.1016/0747-5632(91)90030-5
59. C.L.C.KulikJ.A.KulikR.L.Bangert-Drowns (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 265–299. doi:10.3102/00346543060002265
60. J.A.Kulik (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In Jr. (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 9–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
61. H.C.LaneK.VanLehn (2005). Teaching the tacit knowledge of programming to novices with natural language tutoring. Computer Science Education, 15, 183–201. doi:10.1080/08993400500224286
62. N.T.*LeW.MenzelN.Pinkwart (2009). Evaluation of a constraint-based homework assistance system for logic programming. In (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Web-based Learning, Edinburgh, UK, 2007 (pp. 367–379). Berlin, Germany: Springer. Retrieved from http://www.icce2009.ied.edu.hk/pdf/C1/proceedings051-058.pdf
63. W.MaO.O.AdesopeJ.C.NesbitQ.Liu (2014). Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 901–918. doi:10.1037/a0037123
64. P.G.MathesL.S.Fuchs (1994). The efficacy of peer tutoring in reading for students with mild disabilities: A best-evidence synthesis. School Psychology Review, 23, 59–80. Available from ERIC database. (ED344352)
65. M.*MendicinoN.Heffernan (2007). Comparing the learning from intelligent tutoring systems, non-intelligent computer-based versions, and traditional classroom instruction. Unpublished manuscript, West Virginia University, Morgantown.
66. M.*MendicinoL.RazzaqN.T.Heffernan (2009). A comparison of traditional homework to computer-supported homework. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41, 331–359. Available from ERIC database. (EJ835243)
67. S.*Naser (2009). Evaluating the effectiveness of the CPP-Tutor, an intelligent tutoring system for students learning to program in C++. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 5, 109–114. Retrieved from http://www.aensiweb.com/jasr/jasr/2009/109-114.pdf
68. J.F.*PaneB.A.GriffinD.F.McCaffreyR.Karam (2013). Effectiveness of Cognitive Tutor Algebra I at Scale (Working Paper No. WR-984-DEIES). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR984.html
69. J.F.*PaneD.F.McCaffreyM.E.SlaughterJ.L.SteeleG.S.Ikemoto (2010). An experiment to evaluate the efficacy of Cognitive Tutor geometry. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3, 254–281. doi:10.1080/19345741003681189
70. S.M.*ParvezG.D.Blank (2007). A pedagogical framework to integrate learning style into intelligent tutoring systems. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 22, 183–189. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1181849.1181886
71. P.-K.*PekK.-L.Poh (2005). Making decisions in an intelligent tutoring system. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 4, 207–233. doi:10.1142/S0219622005001489
72. N.K.*PersonL.BautistaA.C.GraesserE.C.Mathews, & The Tutoring Research Group. (2001). Evaluating student learning gains in two versions of AutoTutor. In (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: AI-ED in the wired and wireless future (pp. 286–293). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
73. F.*PhillipsB.G.Johnson (2011). Online homework versus intelligent tutoring systems: Pedagogical support for transaction analysis and recording. Issues in Accounting Education, 26, 87–97. doi:10.2308/iace.2011.26.1.87
74. G.Plano (2004). The effects of the Cognitive Tutor Algebra on student attitudes and achievement in a 9th-grade algebra course (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Proquest Dissertations and Theses database. (Order No. 3130130)
75. Z.R.Radwan (1997). Evaluation of the effectiveness of a computer-assisted intelligent tutoring system model developed to improve specific learning skills of special needs students (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Proquest Dissertations and Theses database. (Order No. 9729551)
76. F.*ReifL.A.Scott (1999). Teaching scientific thinking skills: Students and computers coaching each other. American Journal of Physics, 67, 819–831. doi:10.1119/1.19130
77. B.J.*ReiserJ.R.AndersonR.G.Farrell (1985). Dynamic student modelling in an intelligent tutor for LISP programming. In (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 8–13). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Available from ACM Digital Library database. (1623611)
78. G.W.RitterJ.H.BarnettG.S.DennyG.R.Albin (2009). The effectiveness of volunteer tutoring programs for elementary and middle school students: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 79, 3–38. doi:10.3102/0034654308325690
79. S.*RitterJ.KulikowichP.W.LeiC.L.McGuireP.Morgan (2007). What evidence matters? A randomized field trial of Cognitive Tutor Algebra I. In (Eds.), Supporting learning flow through integrative technologies (pp. 13–20). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
80. B.RosenshineC.Meister (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479–530.
81. H.Sarkis (2004). Cognitive Tutor Algebra 1 program evaluation: Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Lighthouse Point, FL: The Reliability Group. Retrieved from https://www.carnegielearning.com/research-results/whitepapers-reports/
82. A.*Shneyderman (2001). Evaluation of the Cognitive Tutor Algebra I program. Unpublished manuscript, Miami–Dade County Public Schools, Office of Evaluation and Research, FL.
83. B.F.Skinner (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128, 969–977. doi:10.1126/science.128.3330.969
84. R.E.SlavinC.LakeC.Groff (2009). Effective programs in middle and high school mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79, 839–911. doi:10.3102/0034654308330968
85. D.SleemanJ.S.Brown (1982). Intelligent tutoring systems. New York, NY: Academic Press.
86. J.E.*Smith (2001). The effect of the Carnegie Algebra Tutor on student achievement and attitude in introductory high school algebra (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (Order No. 3065460)
87. S.*StankovV.GlavinicA.Grubišic (2004). What is our effect size: Evaluating the educational influence of a web-based intelligent authoring shell. In (Eds.), Eighth IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Engineering Systems (pp. 545–550). Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Faculty of Automation and Computer Science, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca.
88. S.*StankovM.RosicB.ŽitkoA.Grubišic (2008). TEx-Sys model for building intelligent tutoring systems. Computers & Education, 51, 1017–1036. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.10.002
89. S.Steenbergen-HuH.Cooper (2013). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K–12 students’ mathematical learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 970–987. doi:10.1037/a0032447
90. S.Steenbergen-HuH.Cooper (2014). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students’ academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 331–347. doi:10.1037/a0034752
91. K.*SteuckT.M.Miller (1997, March). Evaluation of an authentic learning environment for teaching scientific inquiry skills. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Available from ERIC database. (ED409217)
92. P.SuppesM.Morningstar (1969). Computer-assisted instruction. Science, 166, 343–350. doi:10.1126/science.166.3903.343
93. P.*SuraweeraA.Mitrovic (2002). KERMIT: A constraint-based tutor for database modeling. In (Eds.), Lecture notes in Computer Science: Vol. 2363. Intelligent tutoring systems, 6th International Conference, ITS 2002 (pp. 377–387). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
94. R.M.TamimR.M.BernardE.BorokhovskiP.C.AbramiR.F.Schmid (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning a second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81, 4–28. doi:10.3102/0034654310393361
95. M.J.*Timms (2007). Using item response theory (IRT) to select hints in an ITS. In (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Building technology rich learning contexts that work (pp. 213–221). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
96. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse. (2009, July). Middle school math intervention report; Cognitive Tutor Algebra I. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=87
97. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse. (2013, January). High school mathematics intervention report; Carnegie Learning Curricula and Cognitive Tutor. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=88
98. K.VanLehn (2006). The behavior of tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16, 227–265. Retrieved from http://iospress.metapress.com/content/AL6R85MM7C6QF7DR
99. K.VanLehn (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46, 197–221. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.611369
100. K.*VanLehnA.C.GraesserG.T.JacksonP.JordanA.OlneyC.P.Rosé (2007). When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading?Cognitive Science, 31, 3–62. doi:10.1080/03640210709336984
101. K.*VanLehnC.LynchK.SchulzeJ.A.ShapiroR.ShelbyL.TaylorM..Wintersgill (2005). The Andes physics tutoring system: Lessons learned. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15, 147–204. Retrieved from http://iospress.metapress.com/content/4QH80UBFDFT0G4YR
102. R.L.Walles (2005). Effects of web-based tutoring software on math test performance: A look at gender, math-fact retrieval ability, spatial ability and type of help (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
103. A.WeerasingheA.Mitrovic (2006). Facilitating deep learning through self-explanation in an open-ended domain. International Journal of Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Engineering Systems, 10, 3–19. Retrieved from http://iospress.metapress.com/content/6124YN5QFY99W83N
104. J.L.*WheelerJ.W.Regian (1999). The use of a cognitive tutoring system in the improvement of the abstract reasoning component of word problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 243–254. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(99)00021-7