The design and development of the dragoon intelligent tutoring system for model construction: lessons learned

Interactive Learning Environments

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 361-381

  Wetzel, Jon ^a   VanLehn, Kurt ^a   Butler, Dillan ^a   Chaudhari, Pradeep ^a   Desai, Avaneesh ^a   Feng, Jingxian ^a   Grover, Sachin ^a   Joiner, Reid ^a   Kong Sivert, Mackenzie ^a   Patade, Vallabh ^a   Samala, Ritesh ^a   Tiwari, Megha ^a   van de Sande, Brett ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

classroom orchestration tools; dynamic systems; Intelligent tutoring system; learning by authoring intelligent tutoring systems; model construction; open learner model

Indexed keywords

EID: 84961217223     PISSN: 10494820     EISSN: 17445191     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2015.1131167     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Aleven, V., Sewall, J., Popescu, O., van Velsen, M., Demi, S., & Leber, B., (2015). Reflecting on twelve years of ITS authoring tools research with CTAT. In R., Sottilare, A. C., Graesser, X., Hu, & K., Brawner (Eds.), Design recommendations for adaptive intelligent tutoring systems (Vol. III, Authoring Tools) (pp. 263–283). Orlando, FL:US Army Research Laboratory.
2. Alles, M., Crosby, D., Harleton, B., Pattison, G., Erickson, C., Marsiglia, M., & Steinstra, C., (2006). Presenter first:Organizing complex GUI applications for test-driven development. Paper presented at the Agile Conference, Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1667590&tag=1
3. Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M., (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
4. Baker, R. S. J. d., de Carvalho, A. M. J. A., Raspat, J., Corbett, A., & Koedinger, K. R., (2009). Educational software features that encourage or discourage “gaming the system”. Proceedings of the 14th international conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 475–482). Amsterdam:IOS Press.
5. Bergman, R. N., (2001). The minimal model of glucose regulation:A biography. In J., Novotny, M., Green, & R., Boston (Eds.), Mathematical modeling in nutrition and health (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam:Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
6. Bergman, R. N., Ider, Y. Z., Bowden, C. R., & Cobelli, C., (1979). Quantitative estimation of insulin sensitivity. American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism, 236(6), E667–E677. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=BnkxW2cAAAAJ&citation_for_view=BnkxW2cAAAAJ:PyEswDtIyv0C
7. Bravo, C., van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T., (2009). Using co-lab to build system dynamics models:Students’ actions and on-line tutorial advice. Computer and Education, 53, 243–251.
8. Bull, S., Dimitrova, V., & McCalla, G., (2007). Open learner models:Research questions (Preface to special issue of IJAIED, Part 1). International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Education, 17(2), 89–120.
9. Bull, S., & Kay, J., (2013). Open learner models as drivers for metacognitive processes. In International handbook of metacognition and learning technolologies (pp. 349–365). New York, NY:Springer.
10. CCSSO. (2011). The common core state standards for mathematics, Retrieved October 31, 2011 from www.corestandards.org.
11. Chi, M., & VanLehn, K., (2007a). Accelerated future learning via explicit instruction of a problem solving strategy. In K. R., Koedinger, R., Luckin, & J., Greer (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education (pp. 409–416). Berlin:Springer.
12. Chi, M., & VanLehn, K., (2007b). The impact of explicit strategy instruction on problem-solving behaviors across intelligent tutoring systems. In D. S., McNamara & G., Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 167–172). Mahway, NJ:Erlbaum.
13. Chi, M., & VanLehn, K., (2010). Meta-cognitive strategy instruction in intelligent tutoring systems:How, when and why. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 13(1), 25–39.
14. Chi, M., VanLehn, K., Litman, D., & Jordan, P., (2011). Empirically evaluating the application of reinforcement learning to the induction of effective and adaptive pedagogical strategies. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 21(1–2), 99–135.
15. Chi, M. T. H., (2009). Active-Constructive-Interactive:A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.
16. Clement, B., Roy, D., Oudeyer, P.-Y., Lopes, M., (2015). Multi-Armed Bandits for Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Journal of Educational Data Mining (JEDM), 7(2), 20–48.
17. Crawford, B., & Cullin, M. (2004). Supporting prospective teachers' conceptions of modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1379–1401. doi:10.1080/09500690410001673775
18. Dillenbourg, P., Jarvela, S., & Fischer, F., (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning:From design to orchestration. In N., Balacheff, S., Ludvigsen, T., de Jong, A., Lazonder, & S., Barnes (Eds.,) Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 3–19). Ambsterdam:Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7
19. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P., (2010). Technology for classroom orchestration. In M. S., Khine & I. M., Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning:Cognition, computers and collaboration in education (pp. 3–19). New York:Springer.
20. Doerr, H. M., (1996). Stella ten-years later:A review of the literature. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1, 201–224.
21. Girard, S., Chavez-Echeagaray, M.-E., Gonzalez-Sanchez, J., Hidalgo Pontet, Y., Zhang, L., Burleson, W., & Vanlehn, K., (2013). Defining the behavior of an affective learning companion in the affective meta-tutor project. In H. C., Lane, K., Yacef, J., Mostow, & P. I., Pavlik (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education:16th International Conference, AIED 2013 (pp. 21–30). Heidelberg:Springer.
22. Girard, S., Zhang, L., Hidalgo Pontet, Y., VanLehn, K., Burleson, W., Chavez Echeagary, M. E., & Gonzales Sanchez, J., (2013). Using HCI task modeling techniques to define how deeply students model. In H. C., Lane, K., Yacef, J., Mostow, & P. I., Pavlik (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education:16th international conference, AIED 2013 (pp. 766–769). Heidelberg:Springer.
23. Gonzalez-Sanchez, J., Chavez-Echeagaray, M.-E., VanLehn, K., & Burleson, W., (2011). From behavioral description to a pattern-based model for intelligent tutoring systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 18th International conference onPattern Languages of Programs (PLoP), Portland, OR.
24. Hastings, P., Arnott-Hill, E., & Allbritton, D., (2010). Squeezing out gaming behavior in a dialog-based ITS. In V., Aleven, H., Kay, & J., Mostow (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems 2010 (pp. 204–213). Berlin:Springer-Verlag.
25. Hsiao, I.-H., & Brusilovsky, P., (2011). The role of community feedback in the student example authoring process:An evaluaiton of AnnotEx. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(3), 482–499.
26. Hsiao, I-H., & Brusilovsky, P., (in press). The power of learning community:guiding and motivating students through social visualization, Teachers College Record, Special Issue on Adaptive Learning Technologies, 118(2).
27. Iwaniec, D. M., Childers, D. L., VanLehn, K., & Wiek, A., (2014). Studying, teaching and applying sustainabilty visions using systems modeling. Sustainability, 6(7), 4452–4469. doi:10.3390/su6074452
28. Katz, S., Allbritton, D., & Connelly, J., (2003). Going beyond the problem given:How human tutors use post-solution discussions to support transfer. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 13, 79–116. Retrieved from http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/ijaied/members02/archive/Vol_13/katzetal/paper.pdf.
29. Katz, S., Connelly, J., & Wilson, C., (2007). Out of the lab and into the classroom:An evaluation of reflective dialogue in Andes. In R., Luckin & K. R., Koedinger (Eds.), Proceedings of AI in education (pp. 425–432). Amsterdam:IOS Press.
30. Katz, S., Connelly, J., Wilson, C., & Goedde, C., (2006). Post-practice dialogues in an intelligent tutoring system for college-level physics. Paper presented at the American Association of Physics Teachers Summer Meeting, Syracuse, NY.
31. Kay, J., (2001). Learner control. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11(1), 111–127. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.214.8072&rep=rep1&type=pdf
32. Koedinger, K. R., Aleven, V., Heffernan, N. T., McLaren, B., & Hockenberry, M., (2004). Opening the door to non-programmers:Authoring intelligent tutor behavior by demonstration. In J. C., Lester, R. M., Vicari, & F., Paraguaca (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems:7th international conference, ITS 2004 (pp. 162–174). Berlin:Springer.
33. Lee C. B., Jonassen, D., & Teo, T., (2011). The role of model building in problem solving and conceptual change. Interactive Learning Environments, 19, 247–265. doi:10.1080/10494820902850158
34. Lindsey, R. V., Mozer, M. C., Huggins, W. J., & Pashler, H., (2013). Optimizing instructional policies. Paper presented at the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26 (NIPS 2013), Stateline, NV.
35. Martinez-Maldonado, R., Kay, J., & Yacef, K., (2011). Visualisations for longitudinal participation, contribution and progress of a collaborative task at the tabletop. Paper presented at the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning.
36. Metcalf, S. J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Model-It:A design retrospective. In M. J., Jacobson & R. B., Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education:Advanced designs for technologies of learning (pp. 77–115). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
37. Muldner, K., Burleson, W., van de Sande, B., & VanLehn, K., (2011). An analysis of students’ gaming behaviors in an intelligent tutoring system:Predictors and impacts. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 21(1–2), 99–135.
38. National, R. C., (2012). A Framework for K-12 science education:Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC:National Academies Press.
39. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A., (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentrice-Hall.
40. Pavlik, P. I., Brawner, K., Olney, A., & Mitrovic, A., (2013). A review of student models used in intelligent tutoring systems. In R., Sottilare, A. C., Graesser, X., Hu, & H., Holden (Eds.), Design recommendations for adaptive intelligent tutoring systems (Vol. I, Learning Modeling) (pp. 39–68). Orlando, FL:Army Research Laboratory.
41. Prieto, L. P., Dlab, M. H., Abdulwahed, M., & Balid, W., (2011). Orchestrating technology enhanced learning:A literature review and conceptual framework. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(6), 583–598.
42. Rafferty, A. N., Brunskill, E., Griffiths, T. L., & Shafto, P., (2011). Faster teaching by POMDP planning. In G., Biswas (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 280–287). Berlin:Springer-Verlag.
43. Richmond, B. M., (1985). STELLA:Software for bringing system dynamics modeling to the other 98%. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1985 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society:1985 International System Dynamics Conference.
44. Roll, I., Aleven, V., McLaren, B., & Koedinger, K. R., (2011). Improving students’ help-seeking skills using metacognitive feedback in an intelligent tutoring system. Learning and Instruction, 21, 267–280.
45. Shapiro, J. A., (2005). Algebra subsystem for an intelligent tutoring system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(3), 205–228.
46. VanLehn, K., (2006). The behavior of tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Education, 16, 227–265.
47. VanLehn, K., (2013). Model construction as a learning activity:A design space and review. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(4), 371–413.
48. VanLehn, K., Burleson, W., Chavez-Echeagaray, M.-E., Christopherson, R., Gonzalez-Sanchez, J., Hastings, J., … Zhang, L., (2011). The affective meta-tutoring project:How to motivate students to use effective meta-cognitive strategies. Paper presented at the 19th International Conference on Computers in Education, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
49. VanLehn, K., Chung, G., Grover, S., Madni, A., Wetzel, J., & Dragoon, t. t., (in press). Learning about dynamic systems and domain principles:The effectiveness of the Dragoon intelligent tutoring system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.
50. VanLehn, K., Lynch, C., Schultz, K., Shapiro, J. A., Shelby, R. H., Taylor, L., … Wintersgill, M. C., (2005). The Andes physics tutoring system:Lessons learned. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Education, 15(3), 147–204.
51. VanLehn, K., Wetzel, J., Grover, S., Van de Sande, B., & Dragoon, t. t., (in press). Learning how to construct models of dynamic systems:The effectiveness of the Dragoon intelligent tutoring system. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.
52. Verbert, K., Govaerts, S., Duval, E., Santos, J. L., Assche, F. V., Parra, G., & Klerkx, J., (2013). Learning dashboards:An overview and future research opportunities. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18, 1499–1514.
53. Whitehill, J., (2012). A stochastic optimal control perspective on affect-sensitive teaching. (Ph. D.), University of California, San Diego.
54. Zhang, L., Burleson, W., Chavez-Echeagaray, M.-E., Girard, S., Gonzalez-Sanchez, J., Hidalgo Pontet, Y., & VanLehn, K., (2013). Evaluation of a meta-tutor for constructing models of dynamic systems. In H. C., Lane, K., Yacef, J., Mostow, & P. I., Pavlik (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education:16th International conference, AIED 2013 (pp. 666–669). Berlin:Springer.
55. Zhang, L., Vanlehn, K., Girard, S., Burleson, W., Chavez-Echeagaray, M.-E., Gonzalez-Sanchez, J., & Hidalgo Pontet, Y., (2014). Evaluation of a meta-tutor for constructing models of dynamic systems. Computers & Education, 75, 196–217.
56. Zhang, Y., & Luo, Y., (2010). An architecture and implement model for model-view-presenter pattern. Paper presented at the computer science and information technology (ICCSIT), 3rd IEEE International Conference.