Using LSA in AutoTutor: Learning Through Mixed-Initiative Dialogue in Natural Language

Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 243-262

  Graesser, Art ^a   Penumatsa, Phanni ^a   Ventura, Matthew ^a   Cai, Zhiqiang ^a   Hu, Xiangen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85145524261     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203936399-19     Document Type: Chapter

References (33)

1. Aleven, V., andKoedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26, 147-179.
2. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., and Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 167-207.
3. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
4. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., and LaVancher, C. (1994) Eliciting self-explanation improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
5. Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., and Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471-533.
6. Foltz, P. W., Gilliam, S., and Kendall, S. (2000). Supporting content-based feedback in on-linewriting evaluation with LSA. InteractiveLearningEnvironments, 8, 111-127.
7. Fox, B. (1993). The human tutorial dialog project. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
8. Graesser, A. C., Chipman, P., Haynes, B. C., and Olney, A. (2005). AutoTutor: An intelligent tutoring systemwithmixed-initiative dialogue. IEEE Transactions in Education, 48, 612-618.
9. Graesser, A. C., Hu, X., and McNamara, D. S. (2005). Computerized learning environments that incorporate research in discourse psychology, cognitive science, and computational linguistics. In A. F. Healy (Ed.), Experimental cognitive psychology and its applications: Fetschrift in honor of Lyle Bourne, Walter Kintsch, and Thomas Landauer (pp. 183-194). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
10. Graesser, A. C., Hu, X., Person, P., Jackson, T., and Toth, J. (2004). Modules and information retrieval facilities of the human use regulatory affairs advisor (HURAA). International Journal on eLearning, 3, 29-39.
11. Graesser, A. C., Lu, S., Jackson, G. T., Mitchell, H., Ventura, M., Olney, A., and Louwerse, M. M. (2004). AutoTutor: Atutor with dialogue in natural language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 180-193.
12. Graesser, A. C., and Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104-137.
13. Graesser, A. C., Person, N., Harter, D., andthe Tutoring Research Group (2001). Teaching tactics and dialog in AutoTutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 257-279.
14. Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., and Magliano, J. P. (1995). Collaborative dialogue patterns in naturalistic one-to-one tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 1-28.
15. Graesser, A. C., VanLehn, K., Rose, C., Jordan, P., and Harter, D. (2001). Intelligent tutoring systems with conversational dialogue. AI Magazine, 22, 39-51.
16. Graesser, A. C., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Kreuz, R., and the Tutoring Research Group (1999). Auto Tutor:Asimulation of a human tutor. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, 1, 35-51.
17. Graesser, A.C., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Harter, D., Person, N., and the TutoringResearchGroup (2000). Using latent semantic analysis to evaluate the contributions of students in AutoTutor. Interactive Learning Environments, 8, 129-148.
18. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., and Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141-158.
19. Hewitt, P. G. (1998). Conceptual physics (8th ed.).Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
20. Hu, X., Cai, Z., Graesser, A. C., Louwerse, M. M., Penumatsa, P., Olney, A., andthe Tutoring Research Group (2003). An improved LSA algorithm to evaluate student contributions in tutoring dialogue. In G. GottlobandT.Walsh (Eds.), Proceedings of 18th International Joint Conference in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1489-4491). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
21. Jackson, G. T., Person, N. K., and Graesser, A. C. (2004). Adaptive tutorial dialogue in AutoTutor. Proceedings of theWorkshop on Dialog-Based Intelligent Tutoring Systems at the Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 368-372). Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Brazil.
22. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
23. Kintsch, W. (2001). Predication. Cognitive Science, 25, 173-202.
24. Landauer, T. K., and Dumais, S. T. (1997). Asolution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of the acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
25. Landauer, T. K., Laham, D., andFoltz, P.W. (2003). Automatic scoring and automation of essays with the Intelligent Essay Assessor. In M. D. Shermis and J. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 87-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26. McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38, 1-30.
27. Millis, K. K., Kim, H. J., Todaro, S., Magliano, J. P., Wiemer-Hastings, K., and McNamara, D. S. (2004). Identifying reading strategies using latent semantic analysis: Comparing semantic benchmarks. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 213-221.
28. Olde, B. A., Franceschetti, D. R., Karnavat, Graesser, A. C., and the Tutoring Research Group (2002). The right stuff:Doyou need to sanitize your corpus whenusing latent semantic analysis? In W. Gray and C. D. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 708-713). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. Penumatsa, P., Ventura, M., Graesser, A. C., Franceschetti, D. R., Louwerse, M., Hu, X., Cai, Z., and the Tutoring Research Group (2004). The right threshold value: What is the right threshold of cosine measure when using latent semantic analysis for evaluating student answers? International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools, 12, 257-279.
30. VanLehn, K., Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., and Rosé, C. P. (in press). When are tutorial dialoguesmore effective thanreading? CognitiveScience.
31. VanLehn, K., Jordan, P., Rosé, C. P., Bhembe, D., Bottner, M., Gaydos, A., et al. (2002). The architecture of Why2-Atlas: A coach for qualitative physics essay writing. In S. A. Cerri, G. Gouarderes, and F. Paraguacu (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring (pp.158-167). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
32. Ventura, M., Hu, X., Graesser, A. C., Louwerse, M. M., and Olney, A. (2004). The context dependent sentence abstraction model. In K. D. Forbus, D. Gentner, and T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1387-1392). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
33. Wiemer-Hastings, P., Wiemer-Hastings, K., and Graesser, A. (1999). Improving an intelligent tutor’s comprehension of students with latent semantic analysis. In S. P. Lajoie andM. Vivet (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education (pp. 535-542). Amsterdam: IOS Press.