• Blog Home
  • About Us
  • “Spotlight”
  • Non-Public Schools
    • Charter Schools
    • Private Schools
    • Home Schooling
  • SWW School Districts
    • School Boards
      • Evergreen
      • Vancouver
      • Battle Ground
        • BG School Board
      • Ridgefield
      • LaCenter
      • Camas
      • Green Mountain
      • Hockinson
      • Washougal
  • Legislation
    • WA State Legislation
    • Federal Legislation
    • Other Legislation
  • General
    • Common Core
      • ELA
      • Math
      • Testing
      • Opt-Out
      • References
      • CC Groups & Organizations
    • WAKids
    • ESSA/ESEA
    • Privacy & Data
    • Social Emotional Learning (S.E.L.)
    • PBIS
  • Archives
    • 2020 OSPI Election Archive
      • 2020 OSPI Race
        • Maia Espinoza
        • Chris Reykdal
      • Ron Higgins
      • David Spring – Superintendent of Public School Candidate 2020
    • Washington State School Funding – Post McCleary
    • 2018 Elections
      • 3rd Congressional
      • 17th Legislative
      • 18th Legislative
      • 49th Legislative
    • 2017 School Board Elections – SWW
      • Woodland School Board
      • Washougal School Board
      • Camas School Board
      • Evergreen School Board
      • Vancouver School Board
      • Hockinson School Board
      • Battle Ground School Board
      • Green Mountain School Board
      • LaCenter School Board
      • Ridgefield School Board
    • WA 2016 Elections
      • Education Questions for 2016 Election
      • WA State Superintendent of Public Instruction
      • Governor
      • WA State Lt. Governor
      • WA State House – District 17
      • WA State Senate – District 17
      • WA State House – District 18
      • WA State Senate – District 18
      • WA State House – District 49
      • WA State Senate – District 49
      • US House – 3rd District
      • US Senate – Washington
    • Battle Ground Bond – April 24, 2018
    • Feb 2018 Battle Ground Capital Bond
    • Evergreen Feb 2018 Capital Bond
  • Resources
  • Polls
  • Contact

Southwest Washington Education (K-12)

"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth." - George Orwell

You are here: Home / Technology / Are Tutor Computers The Future of Algebra and Grammar Lessons?

May 5, 2020 By Admin1 Leave a Comment

Are Tutor Computers The Future of Algebra and Grammar Lessons?

You may have read some of our articles speculating about future computer teachers, wearable devices and more. Today we bring you an article published at Technology Networks based on the original story at Carnegie Mellon.

Give it a read and share. Look at some of our other articles: https://swweducation.org?cat=947   


Intelligent tutoring systems have been shown to be effective in helping to teach certain subjects, such as algebra or grammar, but creating these computerized systems is difficult and laborious. Now, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University have shown they can rapidly build them by, in effect, teaching the computer to teach.

Using a new method that employs artificial intelligence, a teacher can teach the computer by demonstrating several ways to solve problems in a topic, such as multicolumn addition, and correcting the computer if it responds incorrectly.

Notably, the computer system learns to not only solve the problems in the ways it was taught, but also to generalize to solve all other problems in the topic, and do so in ways that might differ from those of the teacher, said Daniel Weitekamp III, a Ph.D. student in CMU’s Human-Computer Interaction Institute (HCII).

“A student might learn one way to do a problem and that would be sufficient,” Weitekamp explained. “But a tutoring system needs to learn every kind of way to solve a problem.” It needs to learn how to teach problem solving, not just how to solve problems.

That challenge has been a continuing problem for developers creating AI-based tutoring systems, said Ken Koedinger, professor of human-computer interaction and psychology. Intelligent tutoring systems are designed to continuously track student progress, provide next-step hints and pick practice problems that help students learn new skills.

When Koedinger and others began building the first intelligent tutors, they programmed production rules by hand — a process, he said, that took about 200 hours of development for each hour of tutored instruction. Later, they would develop a shortcut, in which they would attempt to demonstrate all possible ways of solving a problem. That cut development time to 40 or 50 hours, he noted, but for many topics, it is practically impossible to demonstrate all possible solution paths for all possible problems, which reduces the shortcut’s applicability.

The new method may enable a teacher to create a 30-minute lesson in about 30 minutes, which Koedinger termed “a grand vision” among developers of intelligent tutors.

“The only way to get to the full intelligent tutor up to now has been to write these AI rules,” Koedinger said. “But now the system is writing those rules.”

A paper describing the method, authored by Weitekamp, Koedinger and HCII System Scientist Erik Harpstead, was accepted by the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2020), which was scheduled for this month but canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The paper has now been published in the conference proceedings in the Association for Computing Machinery’s Digital Library.

The new method makes use of a machine learning program that simulates how students learn. Weitekamp developed a teaching interface for this machine learning engine that is user friendly and employs a “show-and-correct” process that’s much easier than programming.

For the CHI paper, the authors demonstrated their method on the topic of multicolumn addition, but the underlying machine learning engine has been shown to work for a variety of subjects, including equation solving, fraction addition, chemistry, English grammar and science experiment environments.

The method not only speeds the development of intelligent tutors, but promises to make it possible for teachers, rather than AI programmers, to build their own computerized lessons. Some teachers, for instance, have their own preferences on how addition is taught, or which form of notation to use in chemistry. The new interface could increase the adoption of intelligent tutors by enabling teachers to create the homework assignments they prefer for the AI tutor, Koedinger said.

Enabling teachers to build their own systems also could lead to deeper insights into learning, he added. The authoring process may help them recognize trouble spots for students that, as experts, they don’t themselves encounter.

“The machine learning system often stumbles in the same places that students do,” Koedinger explained. “As you’re teaching the computer, we can imagine a teacher may get new insights about what’s hard to learn because the machine has trouble learning it.”

Reference

Weitekamp et al. (2020). An Interaction Design for Machine Teaching to Develop AI Tutors. CHI ’20: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376226

Filed Under: Technology Tagged With: computers, instruction, machine, problem, system, teachers, tutor

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Categories

  • 4 Day School Week (1)
  • Abuse (1)
  • Addiction (4)
  • AI (3)
  • Battle Ground (24)
  • Bonds (47)
  • Book Review (4)
  • Camas School District (18)
  • Cartoons (11)
  • Censorship (1)
  • Charter Schools (18)
  • ChatGPT (2)
  • Classrooms (9)
  • Climate Change (1)
  • College (1)
  • Common Core (223)
  • Comparisons (51)
  • Competency Based Education (4)
  • Computers (24)
  • Control of Education (196)
  • Covid (9)
  • Creativity (6)
  • Critical Race Theory (10)
  • CSE (2)
  • Data (63)
  • DEI (3)
  • Deniers (2)
  • Disabilities (1)
  • Discipline (6)
  • Discrimination (11)
  • District (25)
  • DoE (1)
  • Education (198)
  • Elections (7)
  • Enrollment (1)
  • Equity and Equality (14)
  • Equity/Equality (16)
  • ESEA (7)
  • ESSA (32)
  • Evergreen SD (13)
  • Federal (17)
  • FLASH (9)
  • Funding (71)
  • Games (2)
  • Gender (25)
  • General (29)
  • Gifted (3)
  • Grading (3)
  • Grit (4)
  • Hand Writing (1)
  • Health (21)
  • Hockinson (12)
  • Homeschooling (38)
  • Humor (1)
  • Individuality (27)
  • Indoctrination (2)
  • Jobs (9)
  • Kindergarten (23)
  • KNOW (3)
  • LaCenter SD (5)
  • Laws (7)
  • Learning (85)
  • Learning Pods (1)
  • Legal (4)
  • Legislation (35)
  • Levys (55)
  • LGBTQ (5)
  • Local (16)
  • Math (35)
  • McCleary (3)
  • Mental Health (27)
  • Micro Schools (1)
  • Money (37)
  • Music (1)
  • NEA (2)
  • Nutrition (1)
  • OBE (1)
  • Opt-Out (15)
  • OSPI (38)
  • Parents (23)
  • PBIS (2)
  • PDC (1)
  • Personal Pronouns (2)
  • Phonics (1)
  • Play (2)
  • Policy (18)
  • Politics (22)
  • Poverty (1)
  • Pre-School (19)
  • Privacy (16)
  • Private Schools (6)
  • Project Based Learning (PBL) (1)
  • Pronouns (1)
  • Public Schools (50)
  • Puzzles (2)
  • Quiz (1)
  • Reading (14)
  • Recess (2)
  • Resources (2)
  • Ridgefield (29)
  • Safety (9)
  • SBAC (44)
  • School Boards (50)
  • School Budgets (3)
  • school choice (20)
  • School Data Project (1)
  • Security (7)
  • Self identity (7)
  • Sexuality (30)
  • Social Emotional (27)
  • Social Justice (10)
  • Social Warriors (4)
  • Special Ed (2)
  • State (19)
  • Students (5)
  • Survey's (3)
  • Taxes (30)
  • Teachers (78)
  • Teaching (46)
  • Technology (51)
  • Testing (132)
  • U.S.P.I.E. (1)
  • Unions (18)
  • Unschooling (2)
  • USDOE (12)
  • VanSD (15)
  • Video (9)
  • Vocational (3)
  • Vouchers (11)
  • WAKids (4)
  • Washougal (11)
  • WEA (4)
  • Wokeness (4)
  • WoodlandSD (12)
  • Writing (1)
  • WSSDA (5)

Copyright © 2026 · Education Pro Theme On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in