Automated Disengagement Tracking within an Intelligent Tutoring System.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes a new automated disengagement tracking system (DTS) that detects learners' maladaptive behaviors, e.g. mind-wandering and impetuous responding, in an intelligent tutoring system (ITS), called AutoTutor. AutoTutor is a conversation-based intelligent tutoring system designed to help adult literacy learners improve their reading comprehension skills. Learners interact with two computer agents in natural language in 30 lessons focusing on word knowledge, sentence processing, text comprehension, and digital literacy. Each lesson has one to three dozen questions to assess and enhance learning. DTS automatically retrieves and aggregates a learner's response accuracies and time on the first three to five questions in a lesson, as a baseline performance for the lesson when they are presumably engaged, and then detects disengagement by observing if the learner's following performance significantly deviates from the baseline. DTS is computed with an unsupervised learning method and thus does not rely on any self-reports of disengagement. We analyzed the response time and accuracy of 252 adult literacy learners who completed lessons in AutoTutor. Our results show that items that the detector identified as the learner being disengaged had a performance accuracy of 18.5%, in contrast to 71.8% for engaged items. Moreover, the three post-test reading comprehension scores from Woodcock Johnson III, RISE, and RAPID had a significant association with the accuracy of engaged items, but not disengaged items.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".