Talk:Intelligent tutoring system/Archive 1

Archive 1

Morological

What are the current research topics regarding ITS.

What the heck is meant by "morological"??? 06:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.238.229 (talk)

Examples

I am a student trying to learn about this for a research project. I suspect that I have already used ITSs in my academic career, but would like examples. So, could somebody please provide some examples? I am thinking that Aplia (for Econ) is one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.109.34 (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Jamiesonj (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

History

• date
• Theories
• collection of important people in the field
• major events
• environmental factors

142.58.199.201 (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

(List of readings so far)

• Anderson, K. (1986) Computer-Assisted Instruction. Journal of Medical Systems, 10(2), 163-171. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethtee (talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Larkin, J, & Chabay, R. (Eds.). (1992). Computer Assisted Instruction and Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Shared Goals and Complementary Approaches. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Chambers, J., & Sprecher, J. (1983). Computer-Assisted Instruction: Its Use in the Classroom. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
• Dede, C., & Swigger, K. (1988). The Evolution of Instructional Design Principles for Intelligent Computer-Assisted Instruction. Journal of Instructional Development, 11(1), 15-22.
• Shute, V. J., & Psotka, J. (1994). Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Past, Present, and Future. Human resources directorate manpower and personnel research division.  pp. 2-52.
• Fry, E. (1960). Teaching Machine Dichotomy: Skinner vs. Pressey. Pshychological Reports(6) 11-14. Southern University Press.
• Cooper, Sunny (2009), Theories of Learning in Educational Psychology. www.lifecircles-inc.com.

Sonwol (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Kinshuk, and Ashok Patel. (1997) A Conceptual Framework for Internet Based Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Knowledge Transfer, II, 117-24.
• Graesser, Arthur C., Kurt VanLehn, Carolyn P. Rose, Pamela W. Jordan, and Derek Harter. (2001) Intelligent Tutoring Systems with Conversational Dialogue. Al Magazine 22.4, 39-52.

Helyue (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.80.92 (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Early Mechanical Systems

The concept of intelligent machines for instructional use date back as early as 1924-1926. Sidney Pressey of Ohio State University created a mechanical machine to instruct students without a human teacher. (Fry, 1960). His machine resembled closely a typewriter with only five keys. There was a window that revealed a question. The learner would select their answer and the score was recorded on a counter at the back of the machine giving the learner immediate feedback. (Shute & Psotka, 1994). There was also a lever that when shifted, would only allow for the next question to be revealed if the learner responded correctly to the previous question. Pressey’s machine was created for rote and drill-learning.

Pressey was influenced by Edward L. Thorndike, a learning theorist and educational psychologist at the Columbia University Teacher College of the late 19th and early 20th century. Thorndike posited laws for maximizing learning. Pressey created his teaching machines based on Thorndike’s several laws including the law of effect, which states that if an association is followed by a “satisfying state of affairs” it will be strengthened and if it is followed by an “annoying state of affairs “ it will be weakened (wikipedia); the law of exercise, which explains that stimulus-response associations are strengthened through repetition; and the law of recency which explains that the most recent response is most likely to reoccur (wikipedia 14). Later, Pressey’s teaching and testing machine was not considered intelligent as it was mechanically run and was based on one question and answer at a time. (Shute & Psotka, 1994).

By the 1950's and 1960's, Burrhus Frederic "B.F." Skinner at Harvard University did not agree with Thorndike's learning theory of connectionism or Pressey's teaching machine. Rather, Skinner was a behaviourist who believed that learners should construct their answers and not rely on recognition (Fry, 1960). He too, constructed a teaching machine. It was a mechanical system that would reward students for correct responses to a list of questions (wikipedia). The information presented to learners was structured and incremental (wikipedia).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonwol (talk • contribs) 18:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Early Electronic Systems

By the mid 1900’s mechanical binary systems gave way to binary based electronic machines.  These machines were considered intelligent when compared to their mechanical counterparts as they had the capacity to make logical decisions. However, defining and recognizing a machine's intelligence was difficult at the time.

Alan Turing, a mathematician, logician and computer scientist, linked computing systems to thinking. He developed the Turing test to test the intelligence of a machine.  Essentially, the test consisted of having a person communicate with a human and a computer.  A person poses questions to a computer and another human.  A computer passes the test if the human posing the questions perceives the responses to be from a human.  The Turing test has been used in its essence for more than two decades as a model for current ITS development. The main ideal for ITS systems is to effectively communicate (Shute & Psotka, 1994) By the 1960’s - 1970’s, programmed instruction (PI) was being implemented in education.  It was based on an input - output system on a computer.  Many who supported this form of instruction thought it could enhance learning, however, there was not much evidence supporting this belief ((Shute & Psotka, 1994)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonwol (talk • contribs) 19:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Sonwol (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The late 1960's and 70's saw many new CAI projects that built on advances in computer science. With the creation of BASIC programming language in 1958 many schools and universities had begun developing CAI programs. Major computer vendors and federal agencies in the US such as IBM, HP, and the National Science Foundation funded the development of these projects (Chambers & Sprecher, 1983). The programming language LOGO was created in 1967 by Wally Feurzeign and Seymour Papert as a language for educating. PLATO, an educational terminal featuring displays, animations, and touch controls that could store and deliver large amounts of course material, was developed by Donald Bitzer in the University of Illonois in the early 1970's. Many other CAI projects were started in many countries including the US, the UK, and Canada (Chambers & sprecher, 1983).

Towards the latter part of the 70's interest in CAI technologies began to wane (Anderson, 1986, Chambers & Sprecher, 1983). Computers were still expensive and not as available as expected. Developers and instructors were reacting negatively to the high cost of developing CAI programs, the inadequate provision for instructor training, and the lack of resources (Anderson, 1986).

Sethtee (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Computer Assisted Instruction Intelligent Systems and Microcomputers

At the same time that CAI was gaining interest, Jaime Carbonell suggested that computers could act as a teacher rather than just a tool (Carbonell, 1970). A new perspective would emerge that focused on the using computers to intelligently coach students called Intelligent Computer Assisted Instruction or Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Where CAI used a behaviourist perspective on learning based on Skinner's theories (Dede & Swigger, 1988) within a specific knowledge domain (Larkin & Charbay, 1992), ITS drew from work in cognitive psychology and computer science(Larkin & Chabay, 1992). A key goal of ITS was to adapt dynamically to user input by both being able to teach a task, but also perform that task in a general way. The technical requirements of ITS, however, proved to be higher and more complex than CAI systems and ITS systems would not be developed at this time.

The microcomputer revolution in the late 1970's and early 80's helped to revive CAI development and jumpstart development of ITS systems. Personal computers such as the Apple 2, Commodore PET, and TRS-80 reduced the resources required to own computers and by 1981, 50% of US schools were using computers (Chambers & Sprecher, 1983). Several CAI projects utilized the Apple 2 as a system to deliver CAI programs in high schools and universities including the British Columbia Project and California State University Project in 1981.

LISP ITS was developed and researched in 1983 as an ITS system teaching students the LISP programming language (Corbett & Anderson, 1992). It provided a total of 240 programming exercises and an editor in which students could write code. When entering code, LISP ITS could identify mistakes and provide constructive feedback to students while performing the exercise. This system was found to decrease the time required to complete the exercises while improving student test scores (Corbett & Anderson, 1992). Sethtee (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Other systems evolved into computer-assisted instruction (CAI) and then Intelligent Computer-Assisted Instruction (ICAI) by the 1980’s. In the transition from CAI to ICAI systems, the computer would have to distinguish not only between the correct and incorrect response but the type of incorrect response to adjust the type of instruction. Research in Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Psychology is fueling ITS.  Psychologists have been looking at how a computer can solve problems and perform ‘intelligent’ activities.  An ITS programme would have to be able to represent, store and retrieve knowledge and even search it’s own database to derive it’s own new knowledge to respond to learner’s questions. Basically, early specifications for ITS or (ICAI) require it to “diagnose errors and tailor remediation based on the diagnosis” (Shute & Psotka, 1994, p.9)  The idea of diagnosis and remediation is still in use today when programming ITS.

Sonwol (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Intelligent Electronic Systems

test

Modern ITS

After the implementation of initial ITS, more researchers created a number of ITS for different students. In the late 20th century, Intelligent Tutoring Tools (ITTs) was developed by the Byzantium project, which involved six universities. The ITTs were general purpose tutoring system builders and many institutions had positive feedbacks while using them. This builder, ITT, would produce an Intelligent Tutoring Applet (ITA) for different subject areas. Different teachers created the ITAs and built up a large inventory of knowledge that was accessible by others through the Internet. Once an ITS was created, teachers could copy it and modify it for future use. This system was efficient and flexible. However, some researchers believed that the ITS was not designed from an educational point of view and was not developed based on the actual needs of students and teachers.Helyue (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There were three ITS projects that functioned based on conversational dialogue: AutoTutor, Atlas, and Why2. The idea behind these projects was that since students learn best through constructing knowledge by themselves, the programs would begin with leading questions for the students and would give out answers as a last resort. AutoTutor’s students focused on answering questions about computer technology, Atlas’s students focused on solving quantitative problems, and Why2’s students focused on explaining physical systems qualitatively. Research showed that these projects improved students’ learning when compared to other systems such as Andes. However, since the systems require analysis of students’ dialogues, improvement is yet to be made so that more complicated dialogues can be managed.Helyue (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

ITS Structure and Development

Did you want to take this section out:

Intelligent tutoring systems consist of four basic components based on a general consensus amongst researchers (Nwana,1990 [10]; Nkambou et al, 2010 [11]) The Domain model, The Student model, The Tutoring model, and The User interface model:

and put a reference to it in/ after the first sentence?

Awsfueduc (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Assessment

Effectiveness / Limitations

I added something under 'evaluation issues'that I had written up before we were assigned our topics. It might be useful, or not. ~HH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bckay (talk • contribs) 02:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think we should edit this into a paragraph about all of the self-contained issues in ITS (e.g. expenses, difficulties of implementation, etc.). Another author has promised to work on such a paragraph. In the end, I don't think this issue should take up more than a sentence of discussion. It goes deeper into ITS than I think is needed for a wiki.4tomz0110 (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I edited the title of the wiki section and this talk section to "limitations and effectiveness". I wrote a small section that gives an overview of the effectiveness. The section that I wrote provides one widely cited (but outdated) review, one modern review, and an overview of focused evaluations on a specific ITS. Another author is working on a section about limitations. They may want to retitle things too. Anyways, give it a look over.4tomz0110 (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Limitations and Effectiveness have been split, with effectiveness now leading into the limitations. HHs writing was added into the Effectiveness section. The ending paragraph of the effectiveness was moved into the limitations, as it flowed nicely into the "future directions" section. 4tomz0110 (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Current directions

Just a suggestion for this section- perhaps it should be dated ie Current directions (as of 2012) so that it can be adjusted from an identifiable 'current' point in time. -HH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bckay (talk • contribs) 04:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Archive

Archive 1: All talk up to and including June 2012 --Nesbit (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Low quality

I don't have the time to address it, currently, but this article is nearly incomprehensible as is, and does not read like an encyclopedia article: awkward prose, vague structures, and the topic itself is vague. I would suggest better defining its scope, trading the length for clarity, and possibly renaming to "intelligent tutoring" or "computer-based tutoring" based on the consensus in reliable sources. czar · · 21:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wolfram link

I deleted the Wolfram Demonstrations link in the links section because I don't think that it relates to ITS. I think that it can be a powerful educational tool but it is not a tutoring system or intelligent per se. SpookyFM (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Definition and Scope

The definition probably needs to distinguish between CAI (or several other labels like elearning) and ITSs. CAI typically includes immediate feedback and no human instructor involvement. It is the degree of "customization" that really distinguishes ITSs from a well-designed CAI lesson, which can include features (like feedback and branching) that vary among student users. Also, ITSs include more integrated and comprehensive assessment to determine how instruction should be customized. ITSs typically employ some AI functions. It would be useful to say that ITSs seek to mimic human tutors.

The use of "meaningful learning" is just jargon. The technical meaning of that phrase is learning that is other than rote memorization, but that difference is not a critical characteristic of ITSs. I don't see the point of telling the reader that there are many examples that have demonstrated ITS capabilities and limitations, especially in the intro. An assertion of a connection between IT and cognitive theory must be supported in some way (e.g., with a citation). Robotczar (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Updates

The part of the page about ITS conference has been balanced by Peter Brusilovsky to list several related conferences. Specific information on ITS series has been separated into a new page International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems and considerably updated.Pbrusilovsky (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Lettre de motivation de gestion des entreprises et administrations en licence 1

Comme meilleurs 154.73.115.229 (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

C'est quoi l'atmosphère

Un 154.73.115.229 (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)