Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||The Use of Hints by Human and Computer Tutors: The Consequences of the Tutoring Protocol|
|Publisher:||Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)|
|Citation:||Hume, G., Michael, J., Rovick, A., & Evens, M. (1996). The Use of Hints by Human and Computer Tutors: The Consequences of the Tutoring Protocol. In Edelson, D. C. & Domeshek, E. A. (Eds.), International Conference on the Learning Sciences, 1996 (pp. 135-142). Evanston, IL, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).|
|Abstract:||Our study of two expert human tutors reveals that, while they employ many tactics, they (virtually) always try hinting to remedy problems. Hints are occasionally mentioned in the Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS) literature but there has been no systematic study of this phenomenon. Our ITS, CIRCSIM-Tutor (CST), is designed to assist first year medical students to learn to reason about blood pressure regulation. Our study of human tutoring sessions is the basis for the design of CST. Our protocol (both human and computer tutoring sessions) begins with an explanation of a problem (a disturbance to the circulatory system). The student then makes predictions about the ensuing qualitative causal effects. This is followed by an interactive dialogue. This protocol allows for the student to ask questions, although this rarely happens. Other ITSs and automated training systems require that the student work on a problem and explicitly ask for help. The ITS literature has examples of how other systems differ in tutoring protocol, knowledge domain and student population. How do these differences affect the use of hints?|
|Appears in Collections:||ICLS 1996|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.