Personalized learning in iSTART: Past modifications and future design

References

• Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2013). Knowledge component (KC) approaches to learner modeling. Design Recommendations for Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 1, 165–182.
   Google Scholar
• Aleven, V., McLaughlin, E. A., Glenn, R. A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2016). Instruction based on adaptive learning technologies. Handbook of research on learning and instruction. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, L. K., McNamara, D. S., & McCrudden, M. T. (2015). Change your mind: Investigating the effects of self-explanation in the resolution of misconceptions. In D. C. Noelle, R. Dale, A. S. Warlaumont, J. Yoshimi, T. Matlock, C. D. Jennings, & P. Maglio, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 78–83). Pasadena, CA: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, L. K., Snow, E. L., & McNamara, D. S. (2015, March). Are you reading my mind?: Modeling students' reading comprehension skills with natural language processing technique In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 246-254). New York, NY: Poughkeepsie. ACM. doi:10.1145/2723576.2723617
   Google Scholar
• Arroyo, I., Woolf, B. P., Burelson, W., Muldner, K., Rai, D., & Tai, M. (2014). A multimedia adaptive tutoring system for mathematics that addresses cognition, metacognition and affect. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 24(4), 387–426. doi:10.1007/s40593-014-0023-y
   Google Scholar
• Azevedo, R., Witherspoon, A., Graesser, A.C., McNamara, D.S., Chauncey, A., Siler, E., … Lintean, M. (2009). MetaTutor: Analyzing self-regulated learning in a tutoring system for biology. In V. Dimitrova, R. Mizoguchi, B. du Boulay, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education; Building learning systems that care; From knowledge representation to affective modeling (pp. 635–637). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Balyan, R., McCarthy, K. S., & McNamara, D. S. (2018). Comparing machine learning classification approaches for predicting expository text difficulty. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society (FLAIRS-31). Melbourne, FL: AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Begeny, J. C., & Greene, D. J. (2014). Can readability formulas be used to successfully gauge difficulty of reading materials? Psychology in the Schools, 51(2), 198–215. doi:10.1002/pits.21740
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, C., & McNamara, D.S. (2007). Integrating iSTART into a high school curriculum. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 809–814). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Biancarosa, G. & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
   Google Scholar
• Bisra, K., Liu, Q., Nesbit, J. C., Salimi, F., & Winne, P. H. (2018). Inducing self-explanation: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 703–725.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: Developing appreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 75–85. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3402_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1803_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coté, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25(1), 1–53. doi:10.1080/01638539809545019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Developing component scores from natural language processing tools to assess human ratings of essay quality. In W. Eberle & C. Boonthum-Denecke (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society (FLAIRS) Conference (pp. 381–386). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• D’Mello, S. K., Lehman, B., & Graesser, A. (2011). A motivationally supportive affect-sensitive autotutor. In New perspectives on affect and learning technologies (pp. 113–126). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2008). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Duran, N., Bellissens, C., Taylor, R., & McNamara, D. (2007). Qualifying text difficulty with automated indices of cohesion and semantics. In D. S. McNamara & G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 233–238). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, S. R., Snow, C., & Vaughn, S. (2016). Common themes in teaching reading for understanding: Lessons from three projects. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(3), 255–264. doi:10.1002/jaal.586
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 193–202. doi:10.3758/BF03195564
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Graham, S., Capizzi, A., Harris, K. R., Hebert, M., & Morphy, P. (2014). Teaching writing to middle school students: A national survey. Reading and Writing, 27(6), 1015–1042. doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9495-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horning, A. S. (2007). Reading across the curriculum as the key to student success. Across the Disciplines, 4, 1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, G. T., Boonthum, C., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). iSTART-ME: Situating extended learning within a game-based environment. In H. C. Lane, A. Ogan, & V. Shute (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Educational Games at the 14th Annual Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 59–68). Brighton, UK: AIED.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, G. T., Boonthum, C., & McNamara, D. S. (2010, June). The efficacy of iSTART extended practice: Low ability students catch up. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 349–351). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, G. T., Davis, N. L., Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Students’ enjoyment of a game-based tutoring system. In G. Biswas, S. Bull, J. Kay, & A. Mitrovic (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 475–477). Auckland, New Zealand: AIED.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, G. T., Guess, R. H., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Assessing cognitively complex strategy use in an untrained domain. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(1), 127–137. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01068.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, G. T., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Motivational impacts of a game-based intelligent tutoring system. In R. C. Murray & P. M. McCarthy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society (FLAIRS) Conference (pp. 519–524). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, G. T., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Motivation and performance in a game-based intelligent tutoring system. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1036–1049. doi:10.1037/a0032580
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacovina, M., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). Intelligent tutoring systems for literacy: Existing technologies and continuing challenges. In R. Atkinson (Ed.), Intelligent tutoring systems: Structure, applications and challenges. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Jacovina, M. E., Snow, E. L., Dai, J., & McNamara, D. S. (2015). Authoring tools for ill-defined domains in intelligent tutoring systems: Flexibility and stealth assessment. Design Recommendations for Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 3, 109–121.
   Google Scholar
• Jha, S., & Bhattacharyya, S. S. (2013). Learning orientation and performance orientation: Scale development and its relationship with performance. Global Business Review, 14(1), 43–54. doi:10.1177/0972150912466443
   Google Scholar
• Joseph, L. M., Alber-Morgan, S., Cullen, J., & Rouse, C. (2016). The effects of self-questioning on reading comprehension: A literature review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 32(2), 152–173. doi:10.1080/10573569.2014.891449
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning science to the classroom. In Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of: The learning sciences (p. 61–77). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kulik, J. A., & Fletcher, J. D. (2016). Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 42–78. doi:10.3102/0034654315581420
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Likens, A. D., McCarthy, K. S., Allen, L. K., & McNamara, D. S. (2018). Recurrence Quantification Analysis as a method for studying text comprehension dynamics. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK’18). Sydney, Australia. doi:10.1145/3170358.3170407
   Google Scholar
• Lovett, M., Meyer, O., & Thille, C. (2008). The open learning initiative: Measuring the Effectiveness of the OLI statistics course in accelerating student learning. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2008(1), 13. doi:10.5334/2008-14
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, C., Ashley, K., Aleven, V., & Pinkwart, N. (2006). Defining ill-defined domains; a literature survey. In V. Aleven, K. Ashley, C. Lynch, & N. Pinkwart (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Tutoring Systems for Ill-Defined Domains at the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2008) (pp. 1–10). Jhongli: National Central University.
   Google Scholar
• Ma, W., Adesope, O. O., Nesbit, J. C., & Liu, Q. (2014). Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 901–918. doi:10.1037/a0037123
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacGinitie, W. H., & MacGinitie, R. K. (1989). Gates–MacGinitie reading tests (3rd ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside.
   Google Scholar
• Magliano, J. P., Todaro, S., Millis, K., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Kim, H. J., & McNamara, D. S. (2005). Changes in reading strategies as a function of reading training: A comparison of live and computerized training. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 185–208. doi:10.2190/1LN8-7BQE-8TN0-M91L
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy, K. S., Likens, A. D., Johnson, A. M., Guerrero, T. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2018b). Metacognitive Overload!: Positive and negative effects of metacognitive prompts in an intelligent tutoring system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 28(3), 420–438. doi:10.1007/s40593-018-0164-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy, K. S., Likens, A. D., Kopp, K. J., Watanabe, M., Perret., & McNamara, D. S. (2018a). The “LO”-down on grit: Non-cognitive trait assessments fail to predict learning gains in iSTART and W-Pal. In Companion Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK’18). Sydney, Australia. doi:10.1145/3170358.3170407
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S. (2011). Measuring deep, reflective comprehension and learning strategies: Challenges and successes. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 1–11. doi:10.1007/s11409-011-9082-8
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S. (2017). Self-Explanation and Reading Strategy Training (SERT) Improves low-knowledge students’ science course performance. Discourse Processes, 54(7), 479–492. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2015.1101328
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D.S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38(1), 1–30. doi:10.1207/s15326950dp3801_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., Boonthum, C., Levinstein, I. B., & Millis, K. (2007). Evaluating self-explanations in iSTART: Comparing word-based and LSA algorithms. In T. Landauer, D. S. McNamara, S. Dennis, & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp. 227–241). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., Jackson, G. T., & Graesser, A. C. (2009). Intelligent tutoring and games (iTaG. ). In H. C. Lane, A. Ogan, & V. Shute (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Educational Games at the 14th Annual Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 1–10). Brighton, UK: AIED.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., Levinstein, I. B., & Boonthum, C. (2004). iSTART: Interactive strategy trainer for active reading and thinking. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 222–233. doi:10.3758/BF03195567
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., O’Reilly, T., Rowe, M., Boonthum, C., & Levinstein, I. B. (2007). iSTART: A web-based tutor that teaches self-explanation and metacognitive reading strategies. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 397–420). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., O'Reilly, T. P., Best, R. M., & Ozuru, Y. (2006). Improving adolescent students’ reading comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 147–171.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, B. J., & Ray, M. N. (2017). Structure strategy interventions: Increasing reading comprehension of expository text. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 127–152.
   Google Scholar
• Murray, T., & Arroyo, I. (2002, June). Toward measuring and maintaining the zone of proximal development in adaptive instructional systems. In S. A. Cerri, G. Gouardères, & F. Paraguaçu (Eds.) International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 749–758). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2015). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics and Reading at Grade 12. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_g12_2015/#reading (Accessed August 13, 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Nagle, A., Novak, D., Wolf, P., & Riener, R. (2014, May). The effect of different difficulty adaptation strategies on enjoyment and performance in a serious game for memory training. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health (pp. 1–8), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
   Google Scholar
• Ness, M. K. (2016). Reading comprehension strategies in secondary content area classrooms: Teacher use of and attitudes towards reading comprehension instruction. Reading Horizons, 49(2), 5.
   Google Scholar
• Ozuru, Y., Briner, S., Kurby, C. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Comparing text comprehension measured by multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 67(3), 215–227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
   Google Scholar
• Passonneau, R. J., McNamara, D., Muresan, S., & Perin, D. (2017). Preface: Special issue on multidisciplinary approaches to AI and education for reading and writing. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 27(4), 665–670. doi:10.1007/s40593-017-0158-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson, P. D., & Billman, A. (2016). Reading to learn science: A right that extends to every reader. In Z. Babaci-Wilhite (Ed.), Human rights in STEM education (pp. 17–34). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Perret, C. A., Johnson, A. M., McCarthy, K. S., Guerrero, T. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2017). StairStepper: An adaptive remedial iSTART module. In B. Boulay, R. Baker & E. Andre (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED), (pp. 557–560). Wuhan, China: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P., Osmond, W. C., & Maynard, A. M. (2002). Relative reading achievement: A longitudinal study of 187 children from first through sixth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 3–13. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Snow, E. L., Allen, L. K., Jacovina, M. E., & McNamara, D. S. (2015). Does agency matter?: Exploring the impact of controlled behaviors within a game-based environment. Computers & Education, 26, 378–392. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.011
   Google Scholar
• Snow, E. L., Likens, A., Jackson, G. T., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Students’ walk through tutoring: Using a random walk analysis to profile students. In S. K. D’Mello, R. A. Calvo, & A. Olney (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 276–279). Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Stamper, J. C., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011, June). Human-machine student model discovery and improvement using DataShop. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 353–360). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 2(4), 360–407. doi:10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2014). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students’ academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 331–347. doi:10.1037/a0034752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone, M., Kent, K. M., Roscoe, R. D., Corley, K. M., Allen, L. K., & McNamara, D. S. (2018). The design implementation framework: Iterative design from the lab to the classroom. In R. Roscoe, S. D. Craig, & I. Douglas (Eds.) End-user considerations in educational technology design (pp.76–98). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Strobl, C., Ailhaud, E., Benetos, K., Devitt, A., Kruse, O., Proske, A., & Rapp, C. (2019). Digital support for academic writing: A review of technologies and pedagogies. Computers & Education, 131, 33–48. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Technology. http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Future Ready Learning: Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Technology. http://tech.ed.gov/files/2015/12/NETP16.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• VanLehn, K. (2006). The behavior of tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16(3), 227–265.
   Google Scholar
• VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.611369
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VanLehn, K. (2016). Regulative loops, step loops and task loops. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 107–112. doi:10.1007/s40593-015-0056-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The instrumental method in psychology. In J. V Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 134–144). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Walkington, C. A., & Bernacki, M. L. (2014). Motivating students by “personalizing” learning around individual interests: A consideration of theory, design, and implementation issues. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 18, 139–176. doi:10.1108/S0749-742320140000018004
   Google Scholar
• Wolfe, M. B., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents' text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 467–502. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2304_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar