As training researchers and developers, we strive to understand and produce effective and efficient training. Research suggests the most effective form of instruction is individualized human tutoring. Yet this is rarely the most efficient form of instruction monetarily or in instructor time. Technological advances and a vision of effective, yet more efficient, computer based tutors has led to the development of sophisticated new training technologies such as Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITSs). These systems have yet to reach their full forecast potential. In this paper we theorize that issues key to successful advancement of ITSs are human factors issues. Primary of these issues is determining how technology mediation impacts not only cognition, but also other key learning issues such as affect, emotions, motivation, and trust.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AistG.KortB.ReillyR.MostowJ.PicardR. (2002). Experimentally Augmenting an Intelligent Tutoring System with Human-Supplied Capabilities: Adding Human-Provided Emotional Scaffolding to an Automated Reading Tutor that Listens. Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI1902), (483–490). Pittsburgh, PA.
2.
BausellR. B.MoodyW. B.WalzlF. N. (1972). A factorial study of tutoring versus classroom instruction. American Educational Research Journal9(4), 591–597.
3.
BloomB. S. (1984). The 2 Sigma Problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher13(6), 4–16.
4.
CohenP. A.KulikJ. A.KulikC. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal19(2), 237–248.
5.
DonaldJ. G. (1999). Motivation for higher-order learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 78, 27–35.
6.
EvansM.MichaelJ. (2006). One-on-one tutoring by humans and computers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
7.
GraesserA. C.JeonM.DuftyD. (2008). Agent Technologies Designed to Facilitate Interactive Knowledge Construction. Discourse Processes, 45, 298–322.
8.
GraesserA. C.PersonN. K.MaglianoJ. P. (1995). Collaborative dialogue patterns in naturalistic one-to-one tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 495–522.
9.
GraesserA. C.VanLehnK.RoseC. P.JordanP. W.HarterD. (2001). Intelligent tutoring systems with conversational dialogue. AI Magazine, 39–51.
10.
HindsP. J.BaileyD. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of synch: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science, 14(6), pp. 615–632.
11.
JernstedtG. C. (1976). The relative effectiveness of individualized and traditional instruction methods. The Journal of Educational Research, 69(6), 211–218.
12.
KatzS.AllbrittonD.ConnellyJ. (2003). Going Beyond the Problem Given: How Human Tutors Use Post-Solution Discussions to Support Transfer. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education13, 79–116.
13.
KellerJ. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning. Distance Education29(2), 175–185.
14.
KlausmeierH. J. (1980). Tutoring to increase achievement and motivation. Theory Into Practice, 19(1), 51–58.
15.
LitmanD. J.RoséC. P.Forbes-RileyK.VanLehnK.BhembeD.SillimanS. (2006). Spoken versus typed human and computer dialogue tutoring. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16, 145–170.
16.
MohanM. (1972). Peer tutoring as a technique for teaching the unmotivated (Research report). Fredonia, NY: State Univ. of New York at Fredonia, Teacher Education Research Center. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED061154.
17.
SarrafzadehA.AlexanderS.DadgostarF.FanC.BigdeliA. (2006). See me, teach me: Facial expression and gesture recognition for intelligent tutoring systems. Proceedings of Innovations in Information Technology, 2006, 1–5. doi: 10.1109/INNOVATIONS.2006.301981.
18.
TurnerJ. C.ThorpeP. K.MeyerD. K. (1998). Students' reports of motivation and negative affect: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology90(4), 758–711.
19.
VanLehnK.GraesserA. C.JacksonG. T.JordanP.OlneyA.RoséC. P. (2007). When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading?Cognitive Science, 31, 3–62.
20.
WalbergH. J. (1984). Improving the productivity of America's schools. Educational leadership41(8), 19–27.
21.
WaxmanH. C.WangM. C.AndersonK. A.WalbergH. J. (1985). Adaptive education and student outcomes: A quantitative synthesis. Journal of Education Research78(4), 228–236.
