The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Large‐Scale Evaluation of an Intelligent Discovery World: Smithtown
Abstract
Smithtown is an intelligent tutoring system designed to enhance an individual's scientific inquiry skills as well as to provide an environment for learning principles of basic microeconomics. It was hypothesized that computer instruction on applying effective interrogative skills (e.g., changing one variable at a time while holding all else constant) would ultimately lead to the acquisition of the specific subject matter. This paper presents an evaluation of Smithtown in two studies of individual differences in learning. Experiment 1, an exploratory study, demonstrated that Smithtown fared very well when compared to traditional instruction on economics and delineated the performance indicators which separated better from worse learners in this discovery environment. Experiment 2 extended the findings from the exploratory study using a large sample of subjects (N = 530) from a different population interacting with Smithtown and showed that the performance indicators relating to hypothesis generation and testing were the most predictive of successful learning in Smithtown, accounting for considerably more of the variance in our learning criterion than a measure of general intelligence. Overall, the system performed as expected. Tutoring on scientific inquiry skills resulted in increased knowledge of microeconomics. The differentiating behaviors between more and less successful subjects were in agreement with specific behaviors relating to individual differences found in general studies on problem solving and concept formation. From an instructional perspective, the behaviors we have denoted can serve as a focal point for relevant intervention studies. From a design perspective, findings from these studies suggest modifications to intelligent tutoring systems so they may be more like the individualized teaching systems they have the potential to be.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Dual space search during scientific reasoning
Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1 · Cited by 1,058
Cited by
VanLEHN, K. (2011) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.611369 · Cited by 2,323
Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains
De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543068002179 · Cited by 1,593
A META‐ANALYTIC EXAMINATION OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OF COMPUTER‐BASED SIMULATION GAMES
SITZMANN, T. (2011) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01190.x · Cited by 882
Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A meta-analysis
Ma, W., Adesope, O. O., Nesbit, J. C., & Liu, Q. (2014) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0037123 · Cited by 840
Using Bayesian Networks to Manage Uncertainty in Student Modeling
Conati, C., Gertner, A., & VanLehn, K. (2002) · User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction · doi:10.1023/a:1021258506583 · Cited by 493
Metadata
- Authors
- Shute, V. J., & Glaser, R.
- Venue
- Interactive Learning Environments
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1990-03
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 51-77
- ISSN
- 1049-4820 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-5191
- OpenAlex
- W1977646294
- Cited by
- 279
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Large‐Scale Evaluation of an Intelligent Discovery World: Smithtown. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/1049482900010104
- The paper
- Shute, V. J., & Glaser, R. (1990). A Large‐Scale Evaluation of an Intelligent Discovery World: Smithtown. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/1049482900010104
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.