Intelligent Tutoring Systems for Ill-Defined Domains - Philippe ...

Recommendations

Info

5 Discussion Using Expert Decision Maps 78 The experimental group was able to view and interact with the expert decision maps with minimal instruction and was better able than the control group to arrive at the correct diagnosis. It should be noted, however, that the experimental group outperformed the control group for Case 1 (before viewing any of the maps). It is thus not clear how much of their superior performance can be directly attributed to their interactions with the maps. Use of the maps did however seem to be associated with increased confidence in a correct diagnosis. For correct diagnoses, the experimental group became more confident over time, while the control group was less confident for Case 3 than for Case 2. There was only one incorrect diagnosis from an experimental group student for either Cases 2 or 3, which was submitted with low confidence (.40), while there were 4 incorrect diagnoses from the control group for these two cases. These 4 diagnoses were submitted with relatively high average confidence levels (.75 for Case 2 and .72 for Case 3), suggesting that the control group students were less able to assess their own performance. Further analysis of how often students who submitted the 'incorrect' diagnosis updated their confidence levels may assist us in identifying specific misconceptions, which can then be addressed by providing appropriate feedback in the context of the activity. The case questionnaire responses demonstrated a great deal of variability in the students' baseline reflection and self-assessment abilities. Previous research has shown that it is difficult for students to reliably assess their current level of knowledge and skill [37, 38], but also that these capabilities can be developed with appropriate training [39]. In general, the response to the case questionnaire after Cases 2 and 3 show less evidence of reflective comments than the Case 1 questionnaire. We suspect that the combination of solving three cases and completing three case questionnaires was overly ambitious within a two hour time period. Additionally, minimal instruction was provided to the students as to what types of self-reflective comments were expected. This issue is confounded, however, by the fact that Cases 2 and 3 were perceived by both groups as markedly less difficult than Case 1. Perhaps these students were not as motivated to perform self-reflection activities when they were more confident in their performance. Further analysis of the relationship between confidence, performance and quality of self-assessment may help us to untangle these issues, as well as streamline our experimental design for future studies. The visual representations seemed to make some students in the experimental group more aware of diagnostic reasoning as a process rather than an outcome. Though there were number of non-responses to this question, this may be attributed to the fact that the interaction with the expert decision maps was an additional task that the experimental group performed, as compared to the control group. This task took both additional time and required additional cognitive resources, both of which may have impacted on the group's ability to provide evidence of ‘deep’ reflection within the case questionnaire. In addition to communicating expectations to both groups about the amount and level of reflection expected, future studies will need to ensure that tasks for both conditions are designed to be equivalent in terms of both time and difficulty. Further studies can then investigate how self-assessment and reflection can be better scaffolded within the environment itself.
79 Gauthier, Naismith, Lajoie, & Wiseman References 1. Gauthier, G., Lajoie, S.P., Richard, S.: Mapping and validating case specific cognitive models. AIED, Los Angeles, CA (2007) 2. Lundeberg, M.A., Levin, B.B., Harrington, H.L.: Who learns what from cases and how: The research base for teaching and learning with cases. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ (1999) 3. Shulman, L.S.: Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In: Wittrock, M.C. (ed.): Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). Macmillan, New York (1986) 4. Barnett, C.: Building a case-based curriculum to enhance the pedagogical content knowledge of mathematics teachers. Journal of Teacher Education 42 (1991) 263-272 5. Cox, K.: Stories as case knowledge: case knowledge as stories. Med Educ 35 (2001) 862- 866 6. Merseth, K.K.: Cases and case methods in teacher education. In: Sikula, J. (ed.): Handbook of research on teacher education: a project of the Association of Teacher Educators. Macmillan Library Reference. , New York, NY (1996) 7. Shulman, L.: Toward a pedagogy of cases. In: Shulman, J.H. (ed.): Case methods in teacher education. Teachers College Press, New York, NY (1992) 1-30 8. Wasserman, S.: Using cases to study teaching. Phi Delta Kappan 75 (1994) 602-611 9. Pople, H.E., Jr.: Heuristic Methods for Imposing Structure on Ill-Structured Problems: The Structuring of Medical Diagnostics. In: Szolovits, P. (ed.): Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado (1982) 10. Barrows, H.S., Tamblyn, R.M.: Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education. Springer Pub. Co, New York, NY (1980) 11. Greenhalgh, T., Hurwitz, B.: Narrative based medicine: Why study narrative? BMJ 318 (1999) 48-50 12. Gauthier, G., Lajoie, S.P., Richard, S., Wiseman, J.: Mapping and Validating Diagnostic Reasoning through Interactive Case Creation. In: Bastiaens, T., Carliner, S. (eds.): E-Learn 2007: World Conference of E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, & Higher Education, Quebec city, Quebec, Canada (2007) 2553-2562 13. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (2007) 14. Merseth, K.: The Early History of Case-based Instruction: Insights for Teacher Education Today. Journal of Teacher Education 42 (1991) 243-249 15. Moje, E.B., Wade, S.E.: What case discussions reveal about teacher thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education 13 (1997) 16. Lundeberg, M.A., Yadav, A.: Assessment of Case Study Teaching: Where Do We Go From Here? Part I. Journal of College Science Teaching 35 (2006) 10-13 17. Carter, K.: What is a case? What is not a case? In: M. A. Lundeberg, B.B.L., & H. L. Harrington (ed.): Who learns what from cases and how: The research base for teaching and learning with cases. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ (1999) 18. Carter, K.: The place of story in the study of teaching and teacher education. Educational Researcher 22 (1993) 5-12 19. Aamodt, A., Plaza, E.: Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Communication 7 (1994) 39-59 20. Kolodner, J.L.: Case-based reasoning. In: Sawyer, R.K. (ed.): The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006) 225-242 21. Schank, R.C., Abelson, R.P.: Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: an Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum (1977) 22. Schank, R.C., Fano, A., Bell, B., Jona, M.: Goal-Based Scenarios. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 3 (1994) 305-345
Page 1 and 2:
Intelligent Tutoring Systems for Il
Page 3 and 4:
iii Aleven, Ashley, Lynch & Pinkwar
Page 5 and 6:
v Ashley Intelligent Tutoring Syste
Page 7 and 8:
vii Ashley Methods for Assessment a
Page 9 and 10:
Two Approaches for Providing Adapti
Page 11 and 12:
3 Walker, Ogan, Aleven & Jones 2 Ad
Page 13 and 14:
5 Walker, Ogan, Aleven & Jones 2.3
Page 15 and 16:
7 Walker, Ogan, Aleven & Jones 3 Pr
Page 17 and 18:
9 Walker, Ogan, Aleven & Jones plat
Page 19 and 20:
11 Walker, Ogan, Aleven & Jones ond
Page 21 and 22:
Interactive Narrative and Intellige
Page 23 and 24:
15 Hodhod & Kudenko components, con
Page 25 and 26:
17 Hodhod & Kudenko actions and re-
Page 27 and 28:
19 Hodhod & Kudenko dollars. That S
Page 29 and 30:
21 Hodhod & Kudenko deeper understa
Page 31 and 32:
23 Pino, Heilman, & Eskenazi with a
Page 33 and 34:
25 Pino, Heilman, & Eskenazi 2 Cloz
Page 35 and 36: 27 Pino, Heilman, & Eskenazi Fig. 1
Page 37 and 38: 29 Pino, Heilman, & Eskenazi Table
Page 39 and 40: 31 Pino, Heilman, & Eskenazi Table
Page 41 and 42: 33 Pino, Heilman, & Eskenazi opinio
Page 43 and 44: Generating and Evaluating Object-Or
Page 45 and 46: 37 Moritz & Blank using them to der
Page 47 and 48: 39 Moritz & Blank searching for phr
Page 49 and 50: 41 Moritz & Blank as a related term
Page 51 and 52: 43 Moritz & Blank to match on data
Page 53 and 54: 45 Moritz & Blank 6. Liu, H., ieber
Page 55 and 56: 47 Fournier-Viger, Nkambou, & Mephu
Page 63 and 64: 55 Sequential Pattern Mining/Partia
Page 65 and 66: 57 Lynch, Pinkwart, Ashley, & Aleve
Page 77 and 78: 69 Gauthier, Naismith, Lajoie, & Wi
Page 85: 77 Gauthier, Naismith, Lajoie, & Wi
show all

Intelligent Tutoring Systems for Ill-Defined Domains - Philippe ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?