We used Sharable Knowledge Objects (SKOs) to create an Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS) grounded in Fuzzy-Trace Theory to teach women about obesity prevention: GistFit, getting the gist of healthy eating and exercise. The theory predicts that reliance on gist mental representations (as opposed to verbatim) is more effective in reducing health risks and improving decision making (e.g., Reyna & Lloyd, 2006; Reyna & Mills, 2014). Technical information was translated into decision-relevant gist representations and gist principles (i.e., healthy values). The SKO was hypothesized to facilitate extracting these gist representations and principles by engaging women in dialogue, “understanding” their responses, and replying appropriately to prompt additional engagement. Participants were randomly assigned to either the obesity prevention tutorial (GistFit) or a control tutorial containing different content using the same technology. Participants were administered assessments of knowledge about nutrition and exercise, gist comprehension, gist principles, behavioral intentions and self-reported behavior. An analysis of engagement in tutorial dialogues and responses to multiple-choice questions to check understanding throughout the tutorial revealed significant correlations between these conversations and scores on subsequent knowledge tests and gist comprehension. Knowledge and comprehension measures correlated with healthier behavior and greater intentions to perform healthy behavior. Differences between Gistfit and control tutorials were greater for participants who engaged more fully. Thus, results are consistent with the hypothesis that active engagement with a new gist-based ITS, rather than a passive memorization of verbatim details, was associated with an array of known psychosocial mediators of preventive health decisions, such as knowledge acquisition, and gist comprehension.

The intelligent tutoring system (ITS) BRCA Gist is a Web-based tutor developed using the Shareable Knowledge Objects (SKO) platform that uses latent semantic analysis to engage women in natural-language dialogues to teach about breast cancer risk. BRCA Gist appears to be the first ITS designed to assist patients' health decision making. Two studies provide fine-grained analyses of the verbal interactions between BRCA Gist and women responding to five questions pertaining to breast cancer and genetic risk. We examined how Bgist explanations^generated by participants during naturallanguage dialogues related to outcomes. Using reliable rubrics, scripts of the participants' verbal interactions with BRCA Gist were rated for content and for the appropriateness of the tutor's responses. Human researchers' scores for the content covered by the participants were strongly correlated with the coverage scores generated by BRCA Gist, indicating that BRCA Gist accurately assesses the extent to which people respond appropriately. In Study 1, participants' performance during the dialogues was consistently associated with learning outcomes about breast cancer risk. Study 2 was a field study with a more diverse population. Participants with an undergraduate degree or less education who were randomly assigned to BRCA Gist scored higher on tests of knowledge than those assigned to the National Cancer Institute website or than a control group. We replicated findings that the more expected content that participants included in their gist explanations, the better they performed on outcome measures. As fuzzy-trace theory suggests, encouraging people to develop and elaborate upon gist explanations appears to improve learning, comprehension, and decision making.

The BRCA Gist Intelligent Tutoring System helps women understand and make decisions about genetic testing for breast cancer risk. BRCA Gist is guided by Fuzzy-Trace Theory, (FTT) and built using AutoTutor Lite. It responds differently to participants depending on what they say. Seven tutorial dialogues requiring explanation and argumentation are guided by three FTT concepts: forming gist explanations in one’s own words, emphasizing decision-relevant information, and deliberating the consequences of decision alternatives. Participants were randomly assigned to BRCA Gist, a control, or impoverished BRCA Gist conditions removing gist explanation dialogues, argumentation dialogues, or FTT images. All BRCA Gist conditions performed significantly better than controls on knowledge, comprehension, and risk assessment. Significant differences in knowledge, comprehension, and fine-grained dialogue analyses demonstrate the efficacy of gist explanation dialogues. FTT images significantly increased knowledge. Providing more elements in arguments against testing correlated with increased knowledge and comprehension.

BRCA Gist is an Intelligent Tutoring System that helps women understand issues related to genetic testing and breast cancer risk. In two laboratory experiments and a field experiment with community and web-based samples, an avatar asked 120 participants to produce arguments for and against genetic testing for breast cancer risk. Two raters assessed the number of argumentation elements (claim, reason, backing, etc.) found in response to prompts soliciting arguments for and against genetic testing for breast cancer risk (IRR=.85). When asked to argue for genetic testing, 53.3 % failed to meet the minimum operational definition of making an argument, a claim supported by one or more reasons. When asked to argue against genetic testing, 59.3 % failed to do so. Of those who failed to generate arguments most simply listed disconnected reasons. However, participants who provided arguments against testing (40.7 %) performed significantly higher on a posttest of declarative knowledge. In each study we found positive correlations between the quality of arguments against genetic testing (i.e., number of argumentation elements) and genetic risk categorization scores. Although most interactions did not contain two or more argument elements, when more elements of arguments were included in the argument against genetic testing interaction, participants had greater learning outcomes. Apparently, many participants lack skills in making coherent arguments. These results suggest an association between argumentation ability (knowing how to make complex arguments) and subsequent learning. Better education in developing arguments may be necessary for people to learn from generating arguments within Intelligent Tutoring Systems and other settings.

No abstract