skip to main content
10.1145/2876034.2893442acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesl-at-sConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Work in Progress

Bringing Non-programmer Authoring of Intelligent Tutors to MOOCs

Published:25 April 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Learning-by-doing in MOOCs may be enhanced by embedding intelligent tutoring systems (ITSs). ITSs support learning-by-doing by guiding learners through complex practice problems while adapting to differences among learners. We extended the Cognitive Tutor Authoring Tools (CTAT), a widely-used non-programmer tool kit for building intelligent tutors, so that CTAT-built tutors can be embedded in MOOCs and e-learning platforms. We demonstrated the technical feasibility of this integration by adding simple CTAT-built tutors to an edX MOOC, "Big Data in Education." To the best of our knowledge, this integration is the first occasion that material created through an open-access non-programmer authoring tool for full-fledged ITS has been integrated in a MOOC. The work offers examples of key steps that may be useful in other ITS-MOOC integration efforts, together with reflections on strengths, weaknesses, and future possibilities.

References

  1. Aleven, V. and Koedinger, K.R. 2013. Knowledge component approaches to learner modeling. In Design recommendations for adaptive intelligent tutoring systems, Army Research Lab., Orlando, FL, 165--182.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Aleven, V., McLaren, B.M., Sewall, J., van Velsen, M., et al 2016. Example-Tracing tutors: Intelligent tutor development for non-programmers. International Journal of AI in Education. 26, 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Aleven, V., et al 2015. The beginning of a beautiful friendship? Intelligent tutoring systems and MOOCs. Proc. AIED 2015, 525--528.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Koedinger, K.R., Baker, R.S.J.d., Cunningham, K., Skogsholm, A., et al 2010. A data repository for the EDM community: The PSLC Datashop. In Handbook of Ed Data Mining, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 43--55.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Koedinger K.R., Kim J., Jia J.Z., McLaughlin E.A., Bier N.L. 2015. Learning is not a spectator sport: Doing is better than watching for learning from a MOOC. Proc. Learning at Scale 2015, 111--120. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Kulik, J.A. and Fletcher, J.D. 2015. Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems. Rev. Ed. Res.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. https://www.imsglobal.org/activity/learning-tools-interoperabilityGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ma, W., Adesope, O.O., Nesbit, J.C., and Liu, Q. 2014. Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. 106, 4, 901.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Mitros P. and Sun F. 2014 Creating educational resources at scale. Proc. ICALT 2014, 16--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. https://www.oppia.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Pane, J.F., Griffin, B.A., McCaffrey, D.F., and Karam, R. 2014. Effectiveness of Cognitive Tutor Algebra I at scale. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 36, 2, 127--144.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. https://schoolyourself.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Steenbergen-Hu, S. and Cooper, H. 2014. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students' academic learning. Journal of Educational. Psychology. 106, 2, 331--347.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Strader, R. 2015 OLI and edX Collaborate on New Feedback Mechanisms for Learners. Open edX blog. https://open.edx.org/blog/oli-and-edx-collaborate-new-feedback-mechanisms-learnersGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. VanLehn, K. 2011. The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational. Psychologist. 46, 4, 197--221.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Bringing Non-programmer Authoring of Intelligent Tutors to MOOCs

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      L@S '16: Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale
      April 2016
      446 pages
      ISBN:9781450337267
      DOI:10.1145/2876034

      Copyright © 2016 Owner/Author

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 25 April 2016

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Work in Progress

      Acceptance Rates

      L@S '16 Paper Acceptance Rate18of79submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate117of440submissions,27%

      Upcoming Conference

      L@S '24
      Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale
      July 18 - 20, 2024
      Atlanta , GA , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader