Deep Discourse Analysis for Generating Personalized Feedback in Intelligent Tutor Systems
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explore creating automated, personalized feedback in an intelligent tutoring system (ITS). Our goal is to pinpoint correct and incorrect concepts in student answers in order to achieve better student learning gains. Although automatic methods for providing personalized feedback exist, they do not explicitly inform students about which concepts in their answers are correct or incorrect. Our approach involves decomposing students answers using neural discourse segmentation and classification techniques. This decomposition yields a relational graph over all discourse units covered by the reference solutions and student answers. We use this inferred relational graph structure and a neural classifier to match student answers with reference solutions and generate personalized feedback. Although the process is completely automated and data-driven, the personalized feedback generated is highly contextual, domain-aware and effectively targets each student's misconceptions and knowledge gaps. We test our method in a dialogue-based ITS and demonstrate that our approach results in high-quality feedback and significantly improved student learning gains.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it