Talk:Cognitive tutor

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I don't believe that this article fits into the WikiProject Computing project. Please review. --Cpkondas (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)A cognitive tutor is someone who understands what they are teaching[reply]

No I definitely think that a cognitive tutor falls under the computing project. As opposed to a human tutor, the cognitive tutor that is referred to here is a computer system that uses a computational model of human cognition to give students personalized feedback ^[1]

I like the Cmaclell edits. Wondering if the results of the new RAND study should be summarized and added as well. The point against doing so is that the paper is not yet peer reviewed. The point in favor is that Carnegie Learning is already issuing a press release (or so someone from RAND told me). Also, the results are from the largest study of this software to date. Here's a link to the working paper. Thoughts? Davidalso (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this would definitely be a good addition and a full report is now available here.

The following statement is out of date (as indicated by one reference being from 1995!): "At this time, creating a Cognitive Tutor® for all subject areas is not practical or economical. Cognitive Tutor® has been used successfully but is still limited to tutoring algebra, computer programming and geometry because these subject areas have an optimal balance of production rules, complexity and maximum benefit to the learner.[1][19]" Many Cognitive Tutors have been developed using the Cognitive Tutor Authoring Tools for a wide variety of subject areas, including Genetics, Chemistry, middle school math, Statistics, Computer Science, French culture, Chinese symbols, English grammar, etc.. Koedinger (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This out-of-date sentence is still here, seven years later! Here are couple of more recent papers that provide sources for the much greater variety: Reflecting on Twelve Years of ITS Authoring Tools Research with CTAT and Bringing non-programmer authoring of intelligent tutors to MOOCs Koedinger (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Koedinger, K. R., Anderson, J. R., Hadley, W. H., & Mark, M. A. (1997). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), 8, 30-43.

[1] Koedinger, K. R., Anderson, J. R., Hadley, W. H., & Mark, M. A. (1997). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), 8, 30-43.

[1]