Claims

ITS authoring tools have mainly targeted design before students' instruction, but works also address authoring during and/or post-instruction relying on human and artificial intelligence

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? The review reports that authoring tools have mainly targeted ITS design before students' instruction, with a smaller body of work addressing authoring during and/or post-instruction. → Diego Dermeval 2018

Evidence

Diego Dermeval 2018

Diego Dermeval, Ranilson Paiva, Ig Ibert Bittencourt, Julita Vassileva, Daniel Borges. (2018). Authoring Tools for Designing Intelligent Tutoring Systems: a Systematic Review of the Literature. Int J Artif Intell Educ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-017-0157-9

q3 · i? · review · r3

RQ5 synthesis of authoring time across the 33 included studies, classified as pre-course, during the course and post-course. The review reports that "authoring tools have been mainly targeting ITS design before students’ instruction", while a minority address during/post-instruction authoring.

"authoring tools have been mainly targeting ITS design before students’ instruction, but works are also addressing authoring during and/or post-instruction relying both on human and artificial intelligence."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-27
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.