Explicit Reflection in Prolog-Tutor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes a reflection-based approach for open learner modeling (OLM). Tutoring dialogues are used by learners to explicitly reveal their own knowledge state to themselves. Dewey's theory of reflective thinking is used to create tutorial strategies which govern these dialogues. Drake's specification of critical thinking, associated to a defined set of skills, is used to define tutoring tactics implementing these strategies. The main contribution of this approach to OLM is that it provides a set of principled and reusable tutorial strategies and tactics to promote reflection, as they are based on domain independent theories. Furthermore, an evaluation of such a principled approach to OLM is straightforward in certain cases, as it refers to theories which already provide evaluation criteria. The approach is integrated in Prolog-Tutor, an existing intelligent tutoring system for Logic Programming. This paper presents a qualitative study of the resulting system, based on think-aloud protocols. A result analysis reveals that explicitly fostering reflection supports reflection based OLM and provides landmarks to explain its manifestations. However, the results also suggest that this openness may be less helpful when used by learners who have already honed a high level of proficiency in logic programming.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".