Operationalizing the Contingent Scaffolding of Human Tutors in an Intelligent Tutoring System
Sandra Katz, Patricia Albacete, Pamela Jordan, Dennis Lusetich, Irene-Angelica Chounta, and Bruce M. McLaren
Corresponding Author: email@example.com
Studies of human tutoring and teacher guidance of small group work in the classroom have shown that the extent to which instructor support is contingent upon (i.e., tailored to) students’ understanding and performance predicts student learning. This research, and efforts to guide teacher training and the design and development of adaptive tutoring systems, require operationalization of “contingent scaffolding”—that is, specification of what it means to provide the right level of support (LOS) to a student at just the right time. We review prior research that has proposed various frameworks to describe the levels of support observed during human tutoring and teacher-led discussions of peer group work and describe how these frameworks enabled us to specify decision rules to drive contingent scaffolding in Rimac, a natural-language tutoring system that we developed and are extending to support high school students’ understanding of physics concepts.
Keywords: human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, natural-language dialogue systems, scaffolding, student modeling, physics education
APA citation information
Katz, S., Albacete, P., Jordan, P., Lusetich, D., Chounta, I., & McLaren, B. M. (2018). Framework for the design of accessible intelligent tutoring systems. In S. D. Craig (Ed.). Operationalizing the contingent scaffolding of human tutors in an intelligent tutoring system (pp. 187-220). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Albacete, P., Jordan, P., Lusetich, D., Chounta, I., Katz, S., & McLaren, B. M. (in press). Providing proactive scaffolding during tutorial dialogue using guidance from student model predictions. In C. P. Rosé, R. Martinez-Maldonado & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer.
Albacete, P., Jordan, P., & Katz, S. (2015). Is a dialogue-based tutoring system that emulates helpful co-constructed relations during human tutoring effective? In C. Conati & N. Heffernan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 3-12). Springer.
Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2000). Limitations of student control: Do students know when they need help? In G. Gauthier, C. Frasson, & K. VanLehn (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 292-303). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Baker, R. S. D., Gowda, S. M., Wixon, M., Kalka, J., Wagner, A. Z., Salvi, A.,…Rossi, L. (2012). Towards sensor-free affect detection in Cognitive Tutor Algebra. In K. Yacef, O. Zaïane, H. Hershkovitz, M. Yudelson, & J. Stamper (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Educational Data Mining (126-133).
Beed, P. L., Hawkins, E. M., & Roller, C. M. (1991). Moving learners toward independence: The power of scaffolded instruction. The Reading Teacher, 44(9), 648-655.
Belland, B. R. (2017). Instructional scaffolding: Foundations and evolving definition. In Instructional Scaffolding in STEM Education (pp. 17-53). Cham: Springer.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: The Cognitive Domain. New York: McKay.
Brownfield, K. S. (2016). Scaffolding in literacy learning and teaching: The impact of teacher responsiveness during writing on first grade students’ literacy learning (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1461144877&disposition=inline
Chen, C. H. (2014). An adaptive scaffolding e-learning system for middle school students’ physics learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 342-355.
Chounta, I. A., Albacete, P., Jordan, P., Katz, S., & McLaren, B. M. (2017). The “Grey Area”: A computational approach to model the Zone of Proximal Development. In É. Lavoué & H. Drachsler (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twelfth European Conference on Technology-Enhanced Learning (pp. 3-16). Cham: Springer.
Chounta, I. A., McLaren, B. M., Albacete, P., Jordan, P., & Katz, S. (2017). Modeling the zone of proximal development with a computational approach. In X. Hu, T. Barnes, A. Hershkovitz, & L. Paquette (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 56-57). Educational Data Mining Society.
D’Mello, S. K., Craig, S. D., Witherspoon, A., Mcdaniel, B., & Graesser, A. (2008). Automatic detection of learner’s affect from conversational cues. User Modeling and User-adapted Interaction, 18(1-2), 45-80.
Evens, M., & Michael, J. (2006). One-on-one tutoring by humans and computers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Graesser, A. C., Lu, S., Jackson, G. T., Mitchell, H. H., Ventura, M., Olney, A., & Louwerse, M. M. (2004). AutoTutor: A tutor with dialogue in natural language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 180-192.
Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 104-137.
Hermkes, R., Mach, H., & Minnameier, G. (2017). Interaction-based coding of scaffolding processes. Learning and Instruction, 54, 147-155.
Hume, G., Michael, J., Rovick, A., & Evens, M. (1996). Hinting as a tactic in one-on-one tutoring. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(1), 23-47.
Jordan, P., Albacete, P., Ford, M. J., Katz, S., & Lipschultz, M. (2013). Eliciting student explanations during tutorial dialogue for the purpose of providing formative feedback. In I. Goldin, T. Martin, R. Baker, V. Aleven, & T. Barnes (Eds.), Proceedings of AIED 2013 Worshops, Volume 8: Formative Feedback in Interactive Learning Environments. Retrieved from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1009/0804.pdf
Jordan, P., Albacete, P., & Katz, S. (2015a). Exploring the effects of redundancy within a tutorial dialogue system: Restating students’ responses. In A. Koller, G. Skantze, F. Jurcicek, M. Araki, & C. P. Rosé (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue (pp. 51-59). Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Jordan, P., Albacete, P., & Katz, S. (2015b). When is it helpful to restate student responses within a tutorial dialogue system? In C. Conati & N. Heffernan (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 658-661). Cham: Springer.
Jordan, P., Albacete, P., & Katz, S. (2016). Exploring contingent step decomposition in a tutorial dialogue system. In F. Cena, M. Desmarais, D. Dicheva, & J. Zhang (Eds.), Extended Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth International Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization: Late-breaking Results, Posters, Demos, Doctoral Consortium, and Workshops. Halifax, NS, Canada: Association for Computing Machinery.
Jordan, P., Albacete, P., & Katz, S. (2017). Adapting step granularity in tutorial dialogue based on pretest scores. In E. André, R. Baker, X. Hu, M. M. T. Rodrigo, & B. du Boulay (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 137-148). Cham: Springer.
Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 239-264.
Koedinger, K. R., Corbett, A. T., & Perfetti, C. (2012). The Knowledge-Learning-Instruction framework: Bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognitive Science, 36(5), 757-798.
Many, J. E. (2002). An exhibition and analysis of verbal tapestries: Understanding how scaffolding is woven into the fabric of instructional conversations. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(4), 376-407.
Mascolo, M. F. (2005). Change processes in development: The concept of coactive scaffolding. New Ideas in Psychology, 23(3), 185-196.
Mehan, H. (1979). ‘What time is it, Denise?”: Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into Practice, 18(4), 285-294.
Nathan, M. J., & Kim, S. (2009). Regulation of teacher elicitations in the mathematics classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 27(2), 91-120.
Nielsen, R. D., Buckingham, J., Knoll, G., Marsh, B., & Palen, L. (2008). A taxonomy of questions for question generation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Question Generation Shared Task and Evaluation Challenge. Arlington, VA, USA.
Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135-198.
Pino-Pasternak, D., Whitebread, D., & Tolmie, A. (2010). A multidimensional analysis of parent–child interactions during academic tasks and their relationships with children’s self-regulated learning. Cognition and Instruction, 28(3), 219-272.
Pratt, M. W., Green, D., MacVicar, J., & Bountrogianni, M. (1992). The mathematical parent: Parental scaffolding, parenting style, and learning outcomes in long-division mathematics homework. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13(1), 17-34.
Pratt, M. W., Kerig, P., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (1988). Mothers and fathers teaching 3-year-olds: Authoritative parenting and adult scaffolding of young children’s learning. Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 832.
Pratt, M. W., & Savoy-Levine, K. M. (1998). Contingent tutoring of long-division skills in fourth and fifth graders: Experimental tests of some hypotheses about scaffolding. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19(2), 287-304.
Ranganathan, R., VanLehn, K., & van de Sande, B. (2014). What do students do when using a step-based tutoring system? Research & Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 9(2), 323-347.
Rodgers, E. M. (2004). Interactions that scaffold reading performance. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(4), 501-532.
Rosé, C. P., Jordan, P., Ringenberg, M., Siler, S., VanLehn, K., & Weinstein, A. (2001). Interactive conceptual tutoring in Atlas-Andes. In J. D. Moore (Ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artifiial Intelligence in Education (pp. 256-266). IOS Press.
van de Pol, J., & Elbers, E. (2013). Scaffolding student learning: A micro-analysis of teacher–student interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2(1), 32-41.
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2011). Patterns of contingent teaching in teacher–student interaction. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 46-57.
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2012). Promoting teacher scaffolding in small-group work: A contingency perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 193-205.
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Oort, F., & Beishuizen, J. (2014). Teacher scaffolding in small-group work: An intervention study. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 600-650.
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Oort, F., & Beishuizen, J. (2015). The effects of scaffolding in the classroom: Support contingency and student independent working time in relation to student achievement, task effort and appreciation of support. Instructional Science, 43(5), 615-641.
Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). Promoting effective helping behavior in peer-directed groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1-2), 73-97.
Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Ing, M. (2006). Small-group reflections: Parallels between teacher discourse and student behavior in peer-directed groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 63-119.
Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379-428.
Wood, D. (2003). The why? what? when? and how? of tutoring: The development of helping and tutoring skills in children. Literacy, Teaching and Learning, 7(1/2), 1-30.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.
Wood, D., & Middleton, D. (1975). A study of assisted problem‐solving. British Journal of Psychology, 66(2), 181-191.
Wood, D., & Wood, H. (1996). Vygotsky, tutoring and learning. Oxford Review of Education, 22(1), 5-16.
Wood, D., Wood, H., & Middleton, D. (1978). An experimental evaluation of four face-to-face teaching strategies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1(2), 131-147.