Cognitive Tutors

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816833.006

5 - Cognitive Tutors

Technology Bringing Learning Sciences to the Classroom

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012

Kenneth R. Koedinger and

Albert Corbett

Edited by

R. Keith Sawyer

Show author details

Kenneth R. Koedinger: Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University
Albert Corbett: Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University
R. Keith Sawyer: Affiliation:
Washington University, St Louis

Book contents

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

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833.006 [Opens in a new window]

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R., & Jeffries, R. (1988). Novice LISP errors: Undetected losses of information from working memory. Human-Computer Interaction, 1, 107–131.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kulik, C. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75–95.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Nathan, M. J., Long, S. D., & Alibali, M. W. (2002). Symbol precedence in mathematics textbooks: A corpus analysis. Discourse Processes, 33, 1–21.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schofield, J. W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. New York: Cambridge.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schofield, J. W., Evans-Rhodes, D., & Huber, B. (1990). Artificial intelligence in the classroom. Social Science Computer Review, 8(1), 24–41.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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