CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why interactive learning environments can have it all: resolving design conflicts between competing goals

Rau, Martina A., Aleven, Vincent, Rummel, Nikol, Rohrbach, Stacie·2013·Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/2470654.2470670
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Designing interactive learning environments (ILEs; e.g., intelligent tutoring systems, educational games, etc.) is a challenging interdisciplinary process that needs to satisfy multiple stakeholders. ILEs need to function in real educational settings (e.g., schools) in which a number of goals interact. Several instructional design methodologies exist to help developers address these goals. However, they often lead to conflicting recommendations. Due to the lack of an established methodology to resolve such conflicts, developers of ILEs have to rely on ad-hoc solutions. We present a principled methodology to resolve such conflicts. We build on a well-established design process for creating Cognitive Tutors, a highly effective type of ILE. We extend this process by integrating methods from multiple disciplines to resolve design conflicts. We illustrate our methodology's effectiveness by describing the iterative development of the Fractions Tutor, which has proven to be effective in classroom studies with 3,000 4th-6th graders.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2470654.2470670

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Problems such as mismatches in goals, assumptions, practices, and understandings were pictured in our work, but did not turn out to be critical issues hindering the project.

    “However, the already acknowledged problems characterizing multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary research and practice, such as mismatches in goals, assumptions, practices, and understandings (cf. Adamczyk and Twidale, 2007; Murer et al., 2014; Rau et al., 2013) pictured also in our work, even if those did not turn out to be critical issues hindering our project.”

    From Educational Participatory Design in the Crossroads of Histories and Practices – Aiming for Digital Transformation in Language Pedagogy (2023) · cites this paper as Rau et al., 2013

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. 10.1145/238386.238476 · DOI
  2. Design, 2003, An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry, Educational Researcher, 32, 1
  3. Bereiter C., 2003, Powerful learning environment
  4. 10.1145/274644.274672 · DOI
  5. Koedinger K. R., 2002, Proc. PME/NA XXXII
  6. 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00016-6 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Koedinger K., 2006, Cognitive Tutors: Technology bringing learning science to the classroom
  8. 10.1145/332040.332412 · DOI
  9. Corbett A. T., 2001, Cognitive tutors: From the research classroom to all classrooms
  10. 10.1016/B978-044481862-1.50103-5 · DOI
  11. 10.1007/978-3-642-30950-2_23 · DOI
  12. 10.1145/1357054.1357081 · DOI
  13. 10.2190/EC.42.2.e · DOI
  14. 10.3758/BF03194060 · DOI
  15. Siegler R. S., 2010, Dept. of Education
  16. Foundations, 2008, Government Printing Office
  17. Principles, 2000, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
  18. 10.4324/9781410605795 · DOI
  19. Baker R. S. J. d., 2007, The difficulty factors approach to the design of lessons in intelligent tutor curricula, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 17, 4
  20. Aleven V., 2009, A new paradigm for intelligent tutoring systems, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19, 2
  21. 10.1007/s10649-006-9036-2 · DOI
  22. Beyer H., 1998, K
  23. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.001 · DOI
  24. 10.5951/MTMS.7.3.0164 · DOI
  25. Reed J., 1987, A structure-mapping model for word problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13
  26. Thußbas C, 2001, Beeinflussen Cover Stories mathematischer Texaufgaben analogen Transfer in der Mathematik?, Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 48, 4
  27. 10.3758/BF03197102 · DOI
  28. Thorndike E. L., 1922, The psychology of arithmetic, 10.1037/11080-000 · DOI
  29. 10.1007/BF02300423 · DOI
  30. 10.1080/00220671.1994.9944823 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., Rummel, N., & Rohrbach, S.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2013-04-27
Pages
109-118
DOI
10.1145/2470654.2470670
OpenAlex
W2120908977
Cited by
21
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.72
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
interactive learning environment, intelligent tutoring systems, game-based learning, instructional design methodology, design conflict resolution, cognitive tutors, interdisciplinary design process, stakeholder needs, elementary mathematics education

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