CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

In Software and Web Development (SWD) education, the increasing student enrollments over

the past few years have posed significant challenges (Singer, 2019). As a result, providing high-

quality and individualized learning support, particularly for novice students, has become

increasingly difficult (Zhang, et.al, 2022 and Mirshosseni, et. al, 2023). Mirhosseini et al. (2023)

recently conducted an interview study with SWD instructors to identify their most pressing

concerns. Among other issues, they found that SWD instructors struggle with limited or no

Teaching Assistant (TA) support and the time-consuming task of providing student feedback and

grading assignments. Thus, automating tutoring activities to assist TAs in their responsibilities

would be highly beneficial.

Another major challenge in SWD education is the implementation of software development

projects. Software development is a core course in the university curriculum for SWD students,

often accompanied by practical development projects. These projects allow students to gain

hands-on experience in software development within a team, going beyond simple programming

exercises. However, they present inherent challenges, such as acquiring industry partners and

dealing with under- or over-specified project requirements. Additionally, these projects are often

one-time efforts within a single team or course, preventing students from experiencing the long-

term evolution of a software system.

This research aims to address these two fundamental challenges in software and web

development education by developing an Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS) designed to assist

students and instructors. The proposed ITS will combine SWD teaching and programming
instruction through a long-term, practical, self-sustained software system that can be deployed in

SWD courses with programming assignments. Specifically, recent advancement in automated

program repair will be leverage (APR) to generate precise corrections for students' incorrect

solutions. Furthermore, we will integrate the natural language inference capabilities of large

language models (LLMs) to transform low-level program patches into conceptual-level

feedback. This approach aims to enhance the learning experience, reduce the teaching burden,

and improve students’ understanding of SWD concepts

1.2 Problem Statement

The increasing student enrollments in Software and Web Development (SWD) education have

led to challenges in providing personalized learning support, particularly due to limited

instructional resources, lack of Teaching Assistants (TAs), and time-consuming grading

processes. Additionally, software development projects often face issues like poorly defined

requirements, lack of industry partnerships, and limited exposure to the full software lifecycle.

Existing Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) show potential but lack adaptability, contextual

understanding, and integration with modern SWD courses.

1.3 Aim of the study

This research aims to design and implement an Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS) for Software

and Web Development (SWD) education at Oyo State College of Agriculture and Technology,

Igboora. The system will enhance personalized learning, automated feedback generation, and

grading efficiency. This will address challenges such as limited instructional resources, delayed

feedback, and difficulties in project-based learning.

Objectives

The objectives of this research are:

  To identify the challenges faced by SWD students and instructors at Oyo State College of

Agriculture and Technology, Igboora, particularly in personalized learning, feedback

delays, and project-based learning.

 To design and implement an Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS) that leverages Automated

Program Repair (APR) and Large Language Models (LLMs) to provide real-time

feedback and grading automation.

 To evaluate the effectiveness of the ITS in enhancing student learning outcomes,

instructor efficiency, and overall academic performance at the institution.

 To recommend improvements for integrating the ITS into the college’s curriculum,

ensuring scalability and long-term sustainability.

1.4 Significance of the Study

This research contributes to the educational technology field by enhancing learning experiences

through ITS. It provides instructors with data-driven insights into student performance, allowing

for improved curriculum design. Additionally, it benefits students by offering customized

learning paths and support.

1.5 Scope of the Study

The research focuses on the design and implementation of an ITS specifically for the Software

and Web Development Department of Oyo State College of Agriculture and Technology. It

includes adaptive learning techniques, automated assessments, and interactive learning modules.

However, the study does not cover broader educational fields or non-technical disciplines.

1.7 Limitations of the Study

 Limited dataset availability for training AI models.

 Possible resistance to adopting new educational technologies by instructors and students.

 Constraints in integrating advanced AI techniques due to computational resource

limitations.
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

The integration of innovative technologies has led to the advancement of personalized or

adaptive learning. In the early 1970s, researchers utilized an Artificial Intelligence (AI) approach

to address the issue of designing learning environments (Clancey & Soloway, 2021).

Personalized and interactive learning depends on adapting learning models to the learner’s

knowledge, emotions, and actions. AI has played a major impact in enhancing tutoring systems.

Educational data mining is essential for comprehending the learning process and learner

behaviour, which enhances research on the effectiveness of personalized systems (Vandewaetere

and Clarebout, 2020). In addition, to the importance of the content being suggested, AI can also

personalize and adapt the content courses based on the identified skill level and speed of the

learner. These intelligent systems will engage with the learner like an online personal tutor, thus

known as Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) that utilize AI methods for adaptive teaching.

Education is currently moving toward personalized learning methods to meet learners’ different

requirements and preferences. ITS uses technology and data to create personalized learning

experiences. Integrating CBR and MAS in ITS can improve personalized learning. ITS are

computer-based learning environments resulting from Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) and

are designed to adapt to individual learner’s needs through personalized AI systems. This

innovation addresses the restrictions of CAI by offering more adaptable and engaging platforms

that evaluate and address each learner’s challenges to offer suitable support (Buche, C., 2021).

ITS is mainly utilized as a platform for solving problems or practicing exercises. They facilitate

learning within a particular subject area by directing and supporting the learner (Bourdeau et. al.,
2020). Personalizing learning with ITS allows for unique learning paths to be created for each

learner based on their needs, interests, and skill level. These systems use learner data, such as

assessment results learning preferences, and interactions with content, to adapt content and

learning activities in real-time. This allows for a more effective and engaging learning

experience for learners, as they receive content that matches their skill level and assists them in

achieving their learning objectives. CBR utilizes previous knowledge for problem-solving while

MAS involves multiple independent agents collaborating to achieve a common objective (Saliu

et.; 2023). The merging of CBR and MAS provides synergistic potential for the adaptation and

personalization of learning activities, enabling ITS to dynamically adapt to learners’ unique

profiles, preferences, and performance.

2.2 Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS)

An intelligent tutoring system (ITS) is a computer system that imitates human tutors and aims to

provide immediate and customized instruction or feedback to learners,(Joseph and Sharon, 1998)

usually without requiring intervention from a human teacher. Arnau et. al, (2023) ITSs have the

common goal of enabling learning in a meaningful and effective manner by using a variety of

computing technologies. There are many examples of ITSs being used in both formal education

and professional settings in which they have demonstrated their capabilities and limitations.

There is a close relationship between intelligent tutoring, cognitive learning theories and design;

and there is ongoing research to improve the effectiveness of ITS. An ITS typically aims to

replicate the demonstrated benefits of one-to-one, personalized tutoring, in contexts where

students would otherwise have access to one-to-many instruction from a single teacher (e.g.,

classroom lectures), or no teacher at all (e.g., online homework).VanLehn, (2020) ITSs are often

designed with the goal of providing access to high quality education to each and every student.
2.2.1 Microcomputers and intelligent systems

The microcomputer revolution in the late 1970s and early 1980s helped to revive CAI

development and jumpstart development of ITS systems. Personal computers such as the Apple

II, Commodore PET, and TRS-80 reduced the resources required to own computers and by 1981,

50% of US schools were using computers (Chambers & Sprecher, 1983). Several CAI projects

utilized the Apple 2 as a system to deliver CAI programs in high schools and universities

including the British Columbia Project and California State University Project in 1981.

The early 1980s would also see Intelligent Computer-Assisted Instruction (ICAI) and ITS goals

diverge from their roots in CAI. As CAI became increasingly focused on deeper interactions

with content created for a specific area of interest, ITS sought to create systems that focused on

knowledge of the task and the ability to generalize that knowledge in non-specific ways (Larkin

& Chabay, 2019). The key goals set out for ITS were to be able to teach a task as well as perform

it, adapting dynamically to its situation. In the transition from CAI to ICAI systems, the

computer would have to distinguish not only between the correct and incorrect response but the

type of incorrect response to adjust the type of instruction. Research in Artificial Intelligence and

Cognitive Psychology fueled the new principles of ITS. Psychologists considered how a

computer could solve problems and perform 'intelligent' activities. An ITS programme would

have to be able to represent, store and retrieve knowledge and even search its own database to

derive its own new knowledge to respond to learner's questions. Basically, early specifications

for ITS or (ICAI) require it to "diagnose errors and tailor remediation based on the diagnosis"

(Shute & Psotka, 2022). The idea of diagnosis and remediation is still in use today when

programming ITS.
A key breakthrough in ITS research was the creation of The LISP Tutor, a program that

implemented ITS principles in a practical way and showed promising effects increasing student

performance. The LISP Tutor was developed and researched in 1983 as an ITS system for

teaching students the LISP programming language (Corbett & Anderson, 2022). The LISP Tutor

could identify mistakes and provide constructive feedback to students while they were

performing the exercise. The system was found to decrease the time required to complete the

exercises while improving student test scores (Corbett & Anderson, 2022). Other ITS systems

beginning to develop around this time include TUTOR created by Logica in 1984 as a general

instructional tool (Ford L.A, 2018) and PARNASSUS created in Carnegie Mellon University in

1989 for language instruction.

2.2.2 Modern Intelligent Tutoring System

After the implementation of initial ITS, more researchers created a number of ITS for different

students. In the late 20th century, Intelligent Tutoring Tools (ITTs) was developed by the

Byzantium project, which involved six universities. The ITTs were general purpose tutoring

system builders and many institutions had positive feedback while using them. (Kinshuk, 2016)

This builder, ITT, would produce an Intelligent Tutoring Applet (ITA) for different subject areas.

Different teachers created the ITAs and built up a large inventory of knowledge that was

accessible by others through the Internet. Once an ITS was created, teachers could copy it and

modify it for future use. This system was efficient and flexible. However, Kinshuk and Patel

believed that the ITS was not designed from an educational point of view and was not developed

based on the actual needs of students and teachers (Kinshuk and Patel, 2017). Recent work has

employed ethnographic and design research methods (Kinshuk and Patel, 2017) to examine the

ways ITSs are actually used by students (Ogan et. al, 2012) and teachers (Holstein et. al, 2017)
across a range of contexts, often revealing unanticipated needs that they meet, fail to meet, or in

some cases, even create.

Modern day ITSs typically try to replicate the role of a teacher or a teaching assistant, and

increasingly automate pedagogical functions such as problem generation, problem selection, and

feedback generation. However, given a current shift towards blended learning models, recent

work on ITSs has begun focusing on ways these systems can effectively leverage the

complementary strengths of human-led instruction from a teacher (Miller et. al, 2015) or peer,

(Diziol, et. al, 2010) when used in co-located classrooms or other social contexts.(Baker, 2016)

There were three ITS projects that functioned based on conversational dialogue: AutoTutor,

Atlas (Freedman, 1999), and Why2. The idea behind these projects was that since students learn

best by constructing knowledge themselves, the programs would begin with leading questions

for the students and would give out answers as a last resort. AutoTutor's students focused on

answering questions about computer technology, Atlas's students focused on solving quantitative

problems, and Why2's students focused on explaining physical systems qualitatively. (Graesser,

VanLehn, and others, 2021). Other similar tutoring systems such as Andes (Gertner, Conati, and

VanLehn, 1998) tend to provide hints and immediate feedback for students when students have

trouble answering the questions. They could guess their answers and have correct answers

without deep understanding of the concepts. Research was done with a small group of students

using Atlas and Andes respectively. The results showed that students using Atlas made

significant improvements compared with students who used Andes.(Shelby et. al, 2011)

However, since the above systems require analysis of students' dialogues, improvement is yet to

be made so that more complicated dialogues can be managed.

2.2.3 Basic Component of Intelligent Tutoring System

Intelligent tutoring systems (ITSs) consist of four basic components based on a general

consensus amongst researchers (Nkambou et al., 2010):

 The Domain model

 The Student model

 The Tutoring model, and

 The User interface model

2.2.3.1 The Domain Model

The domain model (also known as the cognitive model or expert knowledge model) is built on a

theory of learning, such as the ACT-R theory which tries to take into account all the possible

steps required to solve a problem. More specifically, this model "contains the concepts, rules,

and problem-solving strategies of the domain to be learned. It can fulfill several roles: as a

source of expert knowledge, a standard for evaluating the student's performance or for detecting

errors, etc." (Nkambou et al., 2010). Another approach for developing domain models is based

on Stellan Ohlsson's Theory of Learning from performance errors,[30] known as constraint-

based modelling (CBM).In this case, the domain model is presented as a set of constraints on

correct solutions.

2.2.3.2 The Student Model

The student model can be thought of as an overlay on the domain model. It is considered as the

core component of an ITS paying special attention to student's cognitive and affective states and

their evolution as the learning process advances. As the student works step-by-step through their

problem solving process, an ITS engages in a process called model tracing. Anytime the student

model deviates from the domain model, the system identifies, or flags, that an error has occurred.

On the other hand, in constraint-based tutors the student model is represented as an overlay on
the constraint set. Constraint-based tutors (Mitrovic, 2010) evaluate the student's solution against

the constraint set, and identify satisfied and violated constraints. If there are any violated

constraints, the student's solution is incorrect, and the ITS provides feedback on those

constraints. Constraint-based tutors provide negative feedback (i.e. feedback on errors) and also

positive feedback.(Zakharov et. al, 2013)

2.2.3.3 The Tutor Model

The tutor model accepts information from the domain and student models and makes choices

about tutoring strategies and actions. At any point in the problem-solving process the learner

may request guidance on what to do next, relative to their current location in the model. In

addition, the system recognizes when the learner has deviated from the production rules of the

model and provides timely feedback for the learner, resulting in a shorter period of time to reach

proficiency with the targeted skills. The tutor model may contain several hundred production

rules that can be said to exist in one of two states, learned or unlearned. Every time a student

successfully applies a rule to a problem, the system updates a probability estimate that the

student has learned the rule. The system continues to drill students on exercises that require

effective application of a rule until the probability that the rule has been learned reaches at least

95% probability.

Knowledge tracing tracks the learner's progress from problem to problem and builds a profile of

strengths and weaknesses relative to the production rules. The cognitive tutoring system

developed by John Anderson at Carnegie Mellon University presents information from

knowledge tracing as a skillometer, a visual graph of the learner's success in each of the

monitored skills related to solving algebra problems. When a learner requests a hint, or an error

is flagged, the knowledge tracing data and the skillometer are updated in real-time.
2.2.3.4 The User Interface Component

The user interface component "integrates three types of information that are needed in carrying

out a dialogue: knowledge about patterns of interpretation (to understand a speaker) and action

(to generate utterances) within dialogues; domain knowledge needed for communicating content;

and knowledge needed for communicating intent" (Padayachee, 2022).

Nkambou et al. (2010) make mention of Nwana's (2020) review of different architectures

underlining a strong link between architecture and paradigm (or philosophy). Nwana (2020)

declares, "[I]t is almost a rarity to find two ITSs based on the same architecture [which] results

from the experimental nature of the work in the area" (258). He further explains that differing

tutoring philosophies emphasize different components of the learning process (i.e., domain,

student or tutor). The architectural design of an ITS reflects this emphasis, and this leads to a

variety of architectures, none of which, individually, can support all tutoring strategies (Nwana,

2020, as cited in Nkambou et al., 2010). Moreover, ITS projects may vary according to the

relative level of intelligence of the components. As an example, a project highlighting

intelligence in the domain model may generate solutions to complex and novel problems so that

students can always have new problems to work on, but it might only have simple methods for

teaching those problems, while a system that concentrates on multiple or novel ways of teaching

a particular topic might find a less sophisticated representation of that content sufficient.

2.3 Intelligent Tutoring System in Software and Web Development Education

The application of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) in Software and Web Development (SWD)

education plays a crucial role in addressing the challenges of teaching complex programming

concepts and skills. Traditional teaching approaches often struggle to cater to individual learning

needs, leading to difficulties in grasping abstract programming concepts, debugging errors, and
understanding real-world software development practices. However, with ITS, learning

experiences in SWD can be enhanced through adaptive learning, personalized feedback, and

automation of routine instructional tasks.

Personalized Learning in SWD Education

A 2020 study introduced an ITS framework specifically designed for real-time personalized

learning guidance and resource recommendations in education

(https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9238052) . This framework employs Artificial Intelligence

(AI) techniques to:

- Monitor student progress and identify areas where they struggle.

- Adapt instructional content in real-time based on student performance.

- Recommend relevant learning resources such as documentation, code snippets, or

interactive exercises.

The study found that students who engaged with an ITS-based learning system demonstrated

higher efficiency and comprehension compared to those using conventional teaching methods.

By analyzing coding errors and providing contextualized hints, the system enabled students to

debug their code more effectively** and reinforced learning by offering step-by-step

explanations.

Automating Instructional Tasks with ITS

Beyond providing personalized learning, ITS significantly reduces the workload of instructors by

automating time-consuming tasks such as grading, feedback generation, and student progress

tracking. Traditionally, instructors spend hours manually reviewing assignments, providing

feedback, and evaluating students’ understanding. Research has shown that ITS can automate

these tasks, allowing instructors to:

 - Focus more on facilitating higher-order problem-solving skills rather than routine

grading.

- Provide instant feedback on coding assignments, helping students quickly identify and

correct their mistakes.

- Track individual student progress through learning analytics and intervention strategies.

An ITS-powered automated grading system can assess programming assignments by analyzing

code logic, execution results, and structure. It can detect syntax errors, runtime issues, and

inefficient code implementations while offering constructive feedback. This automation is

particularly beneficial in large classes where one-on-one feedback is challenging to maintain.

Enhancing Engagement and Collaboration

Another aspect of ITS in SWD education is its ability to promote collaborative learning. Some

modern ITS systems integrate features that allow students to work on coding projects in teams,

engage in peer learning, and receive AI-assisted guidance on group assignments. Such systems

support code review processes, where students can learn from each other’s mistakes while the

ITS provides insights on best coding practices.

Furthermore, ITS platforms can simulate real-world software development scenarios, guiding

students through software engineering principles such as version control, debugging, testing, and

deployment. These hands-on experiences ensure that students develop practical programming

skills aligned with industry expectations.

2.4 Learning Theories

Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) are underpinned by various learning theories that enhance

their effectiveness in educational settings. These theories provide frameworks for understanding

how learners acquire knowledge and skills, guiding the design of ITS to foster engagement and

promote deeper learning. The following sections outline key learning theories that support the

development and implementation of ITS.

Behaviorism

Focuses on observable behaviors and the relationship between stimuli and responses.

Reinforcement strategies are often employed in ITS to encourage desired behaviors and learning

outcomes(Aliakbari et al., 2014). Examples include immediate feedback mechanisms that

reinforce correct answers and guide learners through mistakes.

Cognitivism

Emphasizes internal processes such as thinking, understanding, and memory.

ITS can utilize cognitive strategies to help learners organize and retain information, enhancing

problem-solving skills(Dilshad, 2017).

Techniques like scaffolding and metacognitive prompts are integrated to support learners'

strategic engagement("Theories of Learning", 2023).

Constructivism

Advocates for active learning where learners construct knowledge through experiences.

ITS can facilitate problem-based learning scenarios, allowing students to engage in meaningful

tasks that connect concepts to real-world contexts("Learning Theories", 2023).

Collaborative features in ITS promote social interaction, aligning with Vygotsky's theories on

learning through social engagement("Theories of Learning", 2023).

While these theories provide a robust foundation for ITS, it is essential to consider the limitations

of each approach. For instance, an over-reliance on behaviorist techniques may neglect the

importance of fostering critical thinking and creativity in learners. Balancing these theories can

lead to more holistic educational experiences

2.6 Related work

Several recent studies have explored the development of ITS aimed at personalizing learning

activities. These systems have presented a positive impact on personalized learning, contributing

to improving learner performance and better time management. For instance, Duque Mendez ´et

al. (2018) designed a personal intelligent assistant to help users select educational materials from

repositories of learning objects. They implemented a recommendation system based on the

artificial intelligence technique known as CBR, which leverages past outcomes of similar

learners to enhance the relevance of materials for each individual [6].

Similarly, Mamcenk et al. (2019) examined the use of CBR to provide relevant

recommendations in online learning contexts. They explored educational data and utilized case

based reasoning to profile learners and design a personalized intelligent learning system, aiming

to assist learners in creating learning units that suit them [7].

In 2020, Yasar Akyuz evaluated the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems in facilitating

personalized learning, covering various aspects such as architecture, future role, methodology,

and the importance of ITS [8].

In parallel, Ciloglugil et al. (2021) proposed a multipleagent-based adaptive online learning

system that supports customization based on learning styles. With the rise of distance learning,

particularly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the goal is to provide an adaptive online learning
system solution that offers more effective learning experiences by considering individual

differences in learning processes.

The Felder and Silverman learning style model was used to represent these differences [9].

These studies have established the basis for an integrated approach to personalized learning

activities, in which intelligent tutoring systems make use of both prior knowledge. In this

approach, we have combined all the key points for our working methodology to propose adaptive

and personalized solutions. This paragraph emphasizes the critical significance of personalized

pedagogical activities in learning systems. Adapting educational content and resources to

learners’ individual preferences and abilities is crucial for enhancing motivation, improving

learning efficiency, and creating a more engaging educational experience. Additionally,

understanding learners’ preferences and learning styles is essential for successful personalized

learning in e-learning environments, requiring knowledge of their unique learning needs and

information assimilation methods.

 REFERENCES

Anderson, H.; Koedinger, M. (2017). "Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the Big City".
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 8: 30–43.

Arnau-González, Pablo; Arevalillo-Herráez, Miguel; Luise, Romina Albornoz-De; Arnau,

David (2023). "A methodological approach to enable natural language interaction in an
Intelligent Tutoring System". Computer Speech & Language. 81: 101516.
doi:10.1016/j.csl.2023.101516. ISSN 0885-2308.

Bailin, A & Levin, L. Introduction: Intelligent Computer Assisted Language Instruction (2019)
Computers and the Humanities, 23, 3-11

Baker, R. S. (2016). Stupid tutoring systems, intelligent humans. International Journal of

Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 600-614.

Bourdeau, J., Pelleu-Tchetagni, J. and Psych, V. (2020). ´ e, “Le domaine des ´environnements
d’apprentissage a base de connaissances,” ` Editions ´ T´el´e-Universit´e, 2020.

Buchanan, B. (2016). A (Very) Brief History of Artificial Intelligence. AI Magazine 26(4).

pp.53-60.

Buche, C. (2021) “Un systeme tutoriel intelligent et adaptatif pour ` l’apprentissage de

competences en environnement virtuel de formation,” Ph.D. dissertation, Universite de
Bretagne occidentale-Brest, ´ 2021.

Carbonell, Jaime R (2020). "AI in CAI: An artificial-intelligence approach to computer-assisted

instruction". IEEE Transactions on Man-Machine Systems. 11 (4): 190–202.
doi:10.1109/TMMS.1970.299942.

Chambers, J., & Sprecher, J. (2023). Computer-Assisted Instruction: Its Use in the Classroom.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Clancey, W. J. and Soloway, E. (2021). Artificial intelligence and learning environments. MIT
press, 2020.

Corbett, A.T., & Anderson, J. R. (1992). LISP Intelligent Tutoring System Research in Skill
Acquisition. In Larkin, J. & Chabay, R. (Eds.) Computer assisted instruction and
intelligent tutoring systems: shared goals and complementary approaches (pp.73-110)
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Corbett, Albert T. and Anderson, John R., "Student Modeling and Mastery Learning in a
Computer-Based Programming Tutor" (2018). Department of Psychology. Paper 18.
http://repository.cmu.edu/psychology/18
Diziol, D., Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (2020). Using intelligent tutor
technology to implement adaptive support for student collaboration. Educational
Psychology Review, 22(1), 89-102.

Ford, L. A New Intelligent Tutoring System (2018) British Journal of Educational Technology,
39(2), 311-318

Freedman, R (2000). "What is an intelligent tutoring system?". Intelligence. 11 (3): 15–16.

doi:10.1145/350752.350756. S2CID 5281543.

Freedman, R. 1999. Atlas: A Plan Manager for Mixed-Initiative, Multimodal Dialogue. (1999)
AAAI Workshop on Mixed-Initiative Intelligence

Graesser, Arthur C., Kurt VanLehn, Carolyn P. Rose, Pamela W. Jordan, and Derek Harter.
(2021) Intelligent Tutoring Systems with Conversational Dialogue. Al Magazine 22.4,
39-52.

Holstein, K., McLaren, B. M., & Aleven, V. (2017, March). Intelligent tutors as teachers' aides:
exploring teacher needs for real-time analytics in blended classrooms. In Proceedings of
the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (pp. 257-266).
ACM.

Joseph Psotka, Sharon A. Mutter (2018). Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Lessons Learned.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 978-0-8058-0192-7.

Kinshuk (2016). Computer aided learning for entry level Accountancy students. PhD Thesis, De
Montfort University, England, July 2016.

Kinshuk, and Ashok Patel. (2017) A Conceptual Framework for Internet Based Intelligent
Tutoring Systems. Knowledge Transfer, II, 117-24.

Larkin, J, & Chabay, R. (Eds.). (2022). Computer Assisted Instruction and Intelligent Tutoring
Systems: Shared Goals and Complementary Approaches. Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Miller, W. L., Baker, R. S., Labrum, M. J., Petsche, K., Liu, Y. H., & Wagner, A. Z. (2015,
March). Automated detection of proactive remediation by teachers in Reasoning Mind
classrooms. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics
And Knowledge (pp. 290-294). ACM.

Mitrovic, A. (2010) Fifteen years of Constraint-Based Tutors: What we have achieved and
where we are going. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 22(1-2), 39-72.

Mitrovic, A. and Ohlsson, S. (1999) Evaluation of a Constraint-Based Tutor for a Database

Language. Int. J. Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10(3-4), 238-256.
Mitrovic, A., Ohlsson, S. (2006) Constraint-Based Knowledge Representation for
Individualized Instruction. Computer Science and Information Systems, 3(1), 1-22.

Mitrovic, A., Ohlsson, S., Barrow, D. (2013) The effect of positive feedback in a constraint-
based intelligent tutoring system. Computers & Education, 60(1), 264-272.

Nkambou, R., Mizoguchi, R., & Bourdeau, J. (2010). Advances in intelligent tutoring systems.
Heidelberg: Springer.

Nwana, H. S. (2020). "Intelligent tutoring systems: An overview". Artificial Intelligence

Review. 4 (4): 251–277. doi:10.1007/bf00168958. S2CID 206771063.

Ogan, A., Walker, E., Baker, R. S., Rebolledo Mendez, G., Jimenez Castro, M., Laurentino, T.,
& De Carvalho, A. (2012, May). Collaboration in cognitive tutor use in Latin America:
Field study and design recommendations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1381-1390). ACM.

Sallu, S., Sianturi, N. M., Purwoko, B., Herliansyah, Y., and Manuhutu, M. A., (2023).
“Learning in higher education based on artificial intelligence (ai) with case based
reasoning (cbr),” Journal of Namibian Studies: History Politics Culture, vol. 34, pp.
1049–1064, 2023.

Schofield, J. W., Eurich-Fulcer, R., & Britt, C. L. (1994). Teachers, computer tutors, and
teaching: The artificially intelligent tutor as an agent for classroom change. American
Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 579-607.

Shelby, R. N.; Schulze, K. G.; Treacy, D. J.; Wintersgill, M. C.; VanLehn, K.; and Weinstein,
A. (2021) The Assessment of Andes Tutor.

Shute, V. J., & Psotka, J. (2014). Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Past, Present, and Future.
Human resources directorate manpower and personnel research division. pp. 2-52

Sidney Pressey (2023). A Brief History of Instructional Design. Archived from the original on
11 Jul 2023.

Vandewaetere, M. and Clarebout, G (2020). “Advanced technologies for personalized learning,

instruction, and performance,” Handbook of research on educational communications and
technology, pp. 425– 437, 2020.

VanLehn, K. (2021). "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. S2CID 16188384.

Singer, N., (2023) “The Hard Part of Computer Science? Getting Into Class,” January 2019,
accessed: 16-March-2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/24/
Zhang, J., Cambronero, J., Gulwani, S., Le, V., Piskac, R., Soares, G., and G. Verbruggen,
(2022) “Repairing bugs in python assignments using large language models,” arXiv
preprint arXiv:2209.14876, 2022.

Mirhosseini, S., Henley, A. Z., and Parnin, C., (2023) “What is your biggest pain point? an
investigation of cs instructor obstacles, workarounds, and desires,” in Proceedings of the
54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1, ser. SIGCSE
2023. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2023, p. 291–297.