MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767051907 · doi:10.1007/s40593-017-0157-9

Authoring Tools for Designing Intelligent Tutoring Systems: a Systematic Review of the Literature

2017· review· en· W2767051907 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsComputer scienceMultimediaEducational technologySystematic reviewHuman–computer interactionMathematics educationPsychologyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Authoring tools have been broadly used to design Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS). However, ITS community still lacks a current understanding of how authoring tools are used by non-programmer authors to design ITS. Hence, the objective of this work is to review how authoring tools have been supporting ITS design for non-programmer authors. In order to meet our goal, we conduct a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) to identify the primary studies on the use of ITS authoring tools, following a pre-defined review protocol. Among the 4622 papers retrieved from seven digital libraries published from 2009 to June 2016, 33 papers are finally included after applying our exclusion and inclusion criteria. We then identify the main ITS components authored, the ITS types designed, the features used to facilitate the authoring process, the technologies used to develop authoring tools and the time at which authoring occurs. We also look for evidence of the benefits of ITS authoring tools. In summary, the main findings of this work are: (1) there is empirical evidence of the benefits (i.e., mainly in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, quality of authored artifacts, and usability) of using ITS authoring tools for non-programmer authors, specially to aid authoring of learning content and to support authoring of model-tracing/cognitive and example-tracing tutors; 2) domain and pedagogical models have been much more targeted by authoring tools; (3) several ITS types have been authored, with an emphasis on model-tracing/cognitive and example-tracing tutors; (4) besides providing features for authoring all four ITS components, current authoring tools are also presenting general features (e.g., view learners’ statistics and reuse tutor design) to create broader authoring tools; (5) a great diversity of technologies, which include AI techniques, software solutions and distributed technologies, are used to develop ITS authoring tools; and (6) authoring tools have been mainly targeting ITS design before students’ instruction, but works are also addressing authoring during and/or post-instruction relying both on human and artificial intelligence. We conclude this work by showing several promising research opportunities that are quite important and interesting but underexplored in current research and practice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0050.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it