No abstract

The field of Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) has undergone significant developments over the last twenty-five years. As we reflect on our past and shape our future, we ask two main questions: What are our major strengths? And, what new opportunities lay on the horizon? We analyse 47 papers from three years in the history of the Journal of AIED (1994, 2004, and 2014) to identify the foci and typical scenarios that occupy the field of AIED. We use those results to suggest two parallel strands of research that need to take place in order to impact education in the next 25 years: One is an evolutionary process, focusing on current classroom practices, collaborating with teachers, and diversifying technologies and domains. The other is a revolutionary process where we argue for embedding our technologies within students' everyday lives, supporting their cultures, practices, goals, and communities. Keywords Artificial intelligence in education. Intelligent tutoring systems. Interactive learning environments. Education revolution "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."-Henry Ford For much of the last 25 years, the Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) community has been focusing, to a large degree, on solving the two-sigma problem by creating systems that are as effective as human one-on-one tutoring (VanLehn, 2011). Over the years, we have made many significant advances towards that goal. To

ICAP is a theory of active learning that differentiates students' engagement based on their behaviors. ICAP postulates that Interactive engagement, demonstrated by co-generative collaborative behaviors, is superior for learning to Constructive engagement, indicated by generative behaviors. Both kinds of engagement exceed the benefits of Active or Passive engagement, marked by manipulative and attentive behaviors, respectively. This paper discusses a 5-year project that attempted to translate ICAP into a theory of instruction using five successive measures: (a) teachers' understanding of ICAP after completing an online module, (b) their success at designing lesson plans using different ICAP modes, (c) fidelity of teachers' classroom implementation, (d) modes of students' enacted behaviors, and (e) students' learning outcomes. Although teachers had minimal success in designing Constructive and Interactive activities, students nevertheless learned significantly more in the context of Constructive than Active activities. We discuss reasons for teachers' overall difficulty in designing and eliciting Interactive engagement.

No abstract

No abstract