Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T02:59:10.074Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Cognitive Tutors

Technology Bringing Learning Sciences to the Classroom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Kenneth R. Koedinger  and
Albert Corbett
Edited by
R. Keith Sawyer
Kenneth R. Koedinger
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University
Albert Corbett
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University
R. Keith Sawyer
Affiliation:
Washington University, St Louis
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Individual tutoring is perhaps the first instructional method. It dates back at least to Socrates and the Socratic method. Although one-to-one tutoring by expert human tutors has been shown to be much more effective than typical one-to-many classroom instruction (Bloom, 1984), it has not been economical to provide every child with an individual tutor. Lectures and books became pervasive in education to spread knowledge at lower cost. However, increasing capabilities of computer hardware and software have been creating new opportunities to bring one-to-one tutoring to more students. Furthermore, computer technology provides an opportunity to systematically incorporate advances in learning sciences into the classroom, to test associated principles of learning, and to best adapt them to the needs of students and teachers.

Early attempts to use computers for instruction included Computer-Aided Instruction (Eberts, 1997) and Intelligent Computer-Aided Instruction or Intelligent Tutoring Systems (Corbett, Koedinger, & Anderson, 1997; Sleeman & Brown, 1982; Wenger, 1987). Computer-based instruction has been shown to be effective in increasing student learning beyond normal classroom instruction (e.g., Kulik & Kulik, 1991), however, not to the level of human tutors (Bloom, 1984). Early attempts at Intelligent Tutoring Systems included mimicking Socratic dialog in teaching electronics trouble-shooting, adding intelligent questioning to an existing Computer-Aided Instruction system for learning South American geography, adding tutoring strategies to an existing “expert system” for medical diagnosis, and adding tutoring strategies to an existing educational game for mathematics (Sleeman & Brown, 1982).

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 61 - 78
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective meta-cognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor. Cognitive Science, 26, 147–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aleven, V., McLaren, B., Roll, I., & Koedinger, K. R. (2004). Toward tutoring help seeking. In Lester, , Vicari, , & Parguacu, (Eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 227–239. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aleven, V., Popescu, O., & Koedinger, K. R. (2003). A tutorial dialog system to support self-explanation: Evaluation and open questions. In Hoppe, U., Verdejo, F., & Kay, J. (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education: Shaping the Future of Learning through Intelligent Technologies, Proceedings of AI-ED 2003 (pp. 39–46). Amsterdam, IOS Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Boyle, C. F., & Reiser, B. J. (1985). Intelligent tutoring systems. Science, 228, 456–468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R., & Jeffries, R. (1988). Novice LISP errors: Undetected losses of information from working memory. Human-Computer Interaction, 1, 107–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Berry, D. C., & Dienes, Z. (1993). Implicit learning: Theoretical and empirical issues. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L, & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). e-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In Resnick, L. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Corbett, A. T. (2001). Cognitive computer tutors: Solving the two-sigma problem. User Modeling: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference, UM 2001, 137–147.Google Scholar
Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (1995). Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User modeling and user-adapted interaction, 4, 253–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Locus of feedback control in computer-based tutoring: Impact on learning rate, achievement and attitudes. Proceedings of ACM CHI 2001 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 245–252.Google Scholar
Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1997). Intelligent tutoring systems. In Helander, M. G., Landauer, T. K., & Prabhu, P. V., (Eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (pp. 849–874). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Hadley, W. H. (2001). Cognitive Tutors: From the research classroom to all classrooms. In Goodman, P. S. (Ed.), Technology-enhanced learning: Opportunities for change (pp. 235–263). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Corbett, A. T., MacLaren, B., Kauffman, L., Wagner, A., Jones, E., & Koedinger, K. R. (2005). Evaluating a genetics cognitive tutor: Modeling and supporting a pedigree analysis task. Carnegie Mellon University Technical Report.
Corbett, A. T., & Trask, H. (2000). Instructional interventions in computer-based tutoring: Differential impact on learning time and accuracy. Proceedings of ACM CHI 2000 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 97–104.Google Scholar
Eberts, R. E. (1997). Computer-based instruction. In Helander, M. G., Landauer, T. K., & Prabhu, P. V. (Eds.) Handbook of human-computer interaction (pp. 825–847). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B. V.Google Scholar
Fox, B. (1991). Cognitive and interactional aspects of correction in tutoring. In Goodyear, P. (Ed.) Teaching knowledge and intelligent tutoring (pp. 149–172). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
Jordan, P. W., Rosé, C. P., & VanLehn, K. (2001). Tools for authoring tutorial dialogue knowledge. In Moore, J. D., Redfield, C. L., & Johnson, W. L. (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education: AI-ED in the Wired and Wireless Future, Proceedings of AI-ED 2001. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Koedinger, K. R. (2002). Toward evidence for instructional design principles: Examples from Cognitive Tutor Math 6. In Proceedings of PME-NA XXXIII (The North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education).
Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1993). Effective use of intelligent software in high school math classrooms. In Brna, P., Ohlsson, S. and Pain, H. (Eds.) Proceedings of AIED 93 World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, 241–248. Chesapeake, VA: Associate for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Google Scholar
Koedinger, K. R., Anderson, J. R., Hadley, W. H., & Mark, M. A. (1997). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8, 30–43.Google Scholar
Koedinger, K. R., & Nathan, M. J. (2004). The real story behind story problems: Effects of representations on quantitative reasoning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (2), 129–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulik, C. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lave, J., Murtaugh, M., & de la Rocha, O. (1984). The dialectic of arithmetic in grocery shopping. In Rogoff, B. & Lave, J. (Eds.), Everyday Cognition (pp. 67–94). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lepper, M. R., Aspinwall, L., Mumme, D., & Chabay, R. W. (1990). Self-perception and social perception processes in tutoring: Subtle social control strategies of expert tutors. In Olson, J. & Zanna, M. (Eds.) Self inference processes: The sixth Ontario symposium in social psychology (pp. 217–237). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Littman, D. (1991). Tutorial planning schemas. In Goodyear, P. (Ed.) Teaching knowledge and intelligent tutoring, 107–122. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
Mathan, S., & Koedinger, K. R. (2003). Recasting the feedback debate: Benefits of tutoring error detection and correction skills. In Hoppe, Verdejo , & Kay, (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education, Proceedings of AI-ED 2003 (pp. 13–18). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Matz, M. (1982). Towards a process model for high school algebra errors. In Sleeman, D. and Brown, J. S. (Eds.) Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 25–50). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McArthur, D., Stasz, C., & Zmuidzinas, M. (1990). Tutoring techniques in algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 197–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, D. C., Reiser, B. J., Ranney, M., & Trafton, G. J. (1992). Effective tutoring techniques: A comparison of human tutors and intelligent tutoring systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 277–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, P., & Ritter, S. (2002). An experimental study of the effects of Cognitive Tutor® Algebra I on student knowledge and attitude. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Learning Inc. Retrieved April 14, 2005, from http://www.carnegielearning.com/wwc/originalstudy.pdf.Google Scholar
Nathan, M. J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2000). An investigation of teachers' beliefs of students' algebra development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 207–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nathan, M. J., Long, S. D., & Alibali, M. W. (2002). Symbol precedence in mathematics textbooks: A corpus analysis. Discourse Processes, 33, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20.Google Scholar
Ritter, S., & Anderson, J. R. (1995). Calculation and strategy in the equation solving tutor. In Moore, J. D. & Lehman, J. F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 413–418). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Scheines, R., & Sieg, W. (1994). Computer environments for proof construction. Interactive Learning Environments, 4, 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schofield, J. W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. New York: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schofield, J. W., Evans-Rhodes, D., & Huber, B. (1990). Artificial intelligence in the classroom. Social Science Computer Review, 8(1), 24–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singley, M. K. (1990). The reification of goal structures in a calculus tutor: Effects on problem solving performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 102–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). Transfer of cognitive skill. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Sleeman, D. H., & Brown, J. S. (1982). Intelligent tutoring systems. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (1987). Artificial intelligence and tutoring systems: Computational and cognitive approaches to the communication of knowledge. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Wertheimer, R. (1990). The geometry proof tutor: An “intelligent” computer-based tutor in the classroom. Mathematics Teacher, 83(4), 308–317.Google Scholar
Wiemer-Hastings, P., Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Improving an intelligent tutor's comprehension of students with latent semantic analysis. In Lajoie, S. P. and Vivet, M. eds. Artificial Intelligence in Education, Open Learning Environments: New Computational Technologies to Support Learning, Exploration, and Collaboration, Proceedings of AIED-99, 535–542. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×