Search results

As demand for access to colleges and universities prompts higher education systems for creative and efficient solutions, we examine technology-centric approaches to education delivery and their implications for policy, student outcomes, and resource allocation. Our work is framed by Kingdon’s adapted multiple streams theory of national policymaking. However, the real elephant in the room may be the skyrocketing costs of administration that may need wrangling before resources can be directed to the future potential savings obtained through developing infrastructure for, and delivery of, tech-centric teaching approaches. We provide examples and strategies, policy implications, and recommendations for research and practice.

This chapter describes five disciplinary domains of research or lenses that contribute to the design of a team tutor. We focus on four significant challenges in developing Intelligent Team Tutoring Systems (ITTSs), and explore how the five lenses can offer guidance for these challenges. The four challenges arise in the design of team member interactions, performance metrics and skill development, feedback, and tutor authoring. The five lenses or research domains that we apply to these four challenges are Tutor Engineering, Learning Sciences, Science of Teams, Data Analyst, and Human–Computer Interaction. This matrix of applications from each perspective offers a framework to guide designers in creating ITTSs.

Pew and Mavor (1998) called for an integrative representation of human behavior for use in models of individual combatants and organizations. Models with integrated representation of behavior have only been achieved at rudimentary levels according to those performing the studies (e.g. Pew & Mavor, 1998; Tulving, 2002) and those building the models (e.g. Warwick et al., 2002). This chapter will address aspects of cognitive performance that are important to incorporate into models of combat based on acceptance of theory, strength of empirical data, or for other reasons such as to bridge gaps where incomplete knowledge exists about cognitive behavior and performance. As a starting point, this chapter will assess which of Pew and Mavor’s recommendations are still appropriate as determined by a review of selected literature on cognition and its representation. We will also provide some review and extensions of key literature on cognition and modeling and suggest a way ahead to close the remaining gaps. Different aspects of cognition are described with recent findings, and most are followed by an example of how they have been represented in computer models or a discussion of challenges to their representation in modeling.

This chapter focuses on the state-of-the-art modeling approaches used in Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITSs) and the frameworks for researching and operationalizing individual and group models of performance, knowledge, and interaction. We adapt several ITS methodologies to model team performance as well as individuals’ performance of the team members. We briefly describe the point processes proposed by von Davier and Halpin (2013), and we also introduce the Competency Architecture for Learning in teaMs (CALM) framework, an extension of the Generalized Intelligent Framework for Tutoring (GIFT) (Sottilare, Brawner, Goldberg, & Holden, 2012) to be used for team settings.