TL;DR: In this article, the authors compared student learning under three conditions of instruction: 1. Conventional, 2. Mastery Learning, and 3. Tutoring, and concluded that the need for corrective work under tutoring is very small.
Abstract: T w o University of Chicago doctoral students in education, Anania (1982, 1983) and Burke (1984), completed dissertations in which they compared student learning under the following three conditions of instruction: 1. Conventional. Students learn the subject matter in a class with about 30 students per teacher. Tests are given periodically for marking the students. 2. Mastery Learning. Students learn the subject matter in a class with about 30 students per teacher. The instruction is the same as in the conventional class (usually with the same teacher). Formative tests (the same tests used with the conventional group) are given for feedback followed by corrective procedures and parallel formative tests to determine the extent to which the students have mastered the subject matter. 3. Tutoring. Students learn the subject matter with a good tutor for each student (or for two or three students simultaneously). This tutoring instruction is followed periodically by formative tests, feedback-corrective procedures, and parallel formative tests as in the mastery learning classes. It should be pointed out that the need for corrective work under tutoring is very small.
TL;DR: An effort to model students' changing knowledge state during skill acquisition and a series of studies is reviewed that examine the empirical validity of knowledge tracing and has led to modifications in the process.
Abstract: This paper describes an effort to model students' changing knowledge state during skill acquisition. Students in this research are learning to write short programs with the ACT Programming Tutor (APT). APT is constructed around a production rule cognitive model of programming knowledge, called theideal student model. This model allows the tutor to solve exercises along with the student and provide assistance as necessary. As the student works, the tutor also maintains an estimate of the probability that the student has learned each of the rules in the ideal model, in a process calledknowledge tracing. The tutor presents an individualized sequence of exercises to the student based on these probability estimates until the student has ‘mastered’ each rule. The programming tutor, cognitive model and learning and performance assumptions are described. A series of studies is reviewed that examine the empirical validity of knowledge tracing and has led to modifications in the process. Currently the model is quite successful in predicting test performance. Further modifications in the modeling process are discussed that may improve performance levels.
TL;DR: The 10-year history of tutor development based on the advanced computer tutoring (ACT) theory is reviewed, finding that a new system for developing and deploying tutors is being built to achieve the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) standards for high-school mathematics in an urban setting.
Abstract: This paper review the 10-year history of tutor development based on the ACT theory (Anderson, 1983,1993). We developed production system models in ACT ofhow students solved problems in LISP, geometry, and algebra. Computer tutors were developed around these cognitive models. Construction ofthese tutors was guided by a set of eight principles loosely based on the ACT theory. Early evaluations of these tutors usually but not always showed significant achievement gains. Best-case evaluations showed that students could achieve at least the same level of proficiency as conventional instruction in one third the time. Empirical studies showed that students were learning skills in production-rule units and that the best tutorial interaction style was one in which the tutor provides immediate feedback, consisting of short and directed error messages. The tutors appear to work better if they present themselves to students as nonhuman tools to assist learning rather than as emulations of human tutors. Students working with these tutors display transfer to other environments to the degree that they can map the tutor environment into the test environment. These experiences have coalesced into a new system for developing and deploying tutors. This system involves first selecting a problem-solving interface, then constructing a curriculum under the guidance of a domain expert, then designing a cognitive model for solving problems in that environment, then building instruction around the productions in that model, and finally deploying the tutor in the classroom. New tutors are being built in this system to achieve the NCTM standards for high school mathematics in an urban setting. (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA312246)
TL;DR: This study provides further evidence that laboratory tutoring systems can be scaled up and made to work, both technically and pedagogically, in real and unforgiving settings like urban high schools.
Abstract: This paper reports on a large-scale experiment introducing and evaluating intelligent tutoring in an urban High School setting. Critical to the success of this project has been a client-centered design approach that has matched our client's expertise in curricular objectives and classroom teaching with our expertise in artificial inte lligence and cognitive psychology. The Pittsburgh Urban Mathematics Project (PUMP) has produced an algebra curriculum that is centrally focused on mathematical analysis of real world situations and the use of computational tools. We have built an intelligent tutor, called PAT, that su pports this curriculum and has been made a regular part of 9th grade Algebra in 3 Pittsburgh schools. In the 1993-94 school year, we evaluated the effect of the PUMP curriculum and PAT tutor use. On average the 470 students in experimental classes outperformed students in comparison classes by 15% on standardized tests and 100% on tests targeting the PUMP objectives. This study provides further evidence that laboratory tutoring systems can be scaled up and made to work, both technically and pedagogically, in real and unforgiving settings like urban high schools.
TL;DR: A rapid review of the literature aims to enrich our understanding of ChatGPT's capabilities across subject domains, how it can be used in education, and potential issues raised by researchers during the first three months of its release as mentioned in this paper .
Abstract: An artificial intelligence-based chatbot, ChatGPT, was launched in November 2022 and is capable of generating cohesive and informative human-like responses to user input. This rapid review of the literature aims to enrich our understanding of ChatGPT’s capabilities across subject domains, how it can be used in education, and potential issues raised by researchers during the first three months of its release (i.e., December 2022 to February 2023). A search of the relevant databases and Google Scholar yielded 50 articles for content analysis (i.e., open coding, axial coding, and selective coding). The findings of this review suggest that ChatGPT’s performance varied across subject domains, ranging from outstanding (e.g., economics) and satisfactory (e.g., programming) to unsatisfactory (e.g., mathematics). Although ChatGPT has the potential to serve as an assistant for instructors (e.g., to generate course materials and provide suggestions) and a virtual tutor for students (e.g., to answer questions and facilitate collaboration), there were challenges associated with its use (e.g., generating incorrect or fake information and bypassing plagiarism detectors). Immediate action should be taken to update the assessment methods and institutional policies in schools and universities. Instructor training and student education are also essential to respond to the impact of ChatGPT on the educational environment.