<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Enhancing a Web-based Language Tutoring System with Learning Analytics</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Björn Rudzewitz, Ramon Ziai, Florian Nuxoll, Kordula De Kuthy, Detmar Meurers ICALL Research Group &amp; SFB 833 &amp; LEAD University of Tübingen</institution>
          ,
          <country country="DE">Germany</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>This paper develops learning analytics and educational data mining perspectives for the FeedBook, an Intelligent Language Tutoring System that was fully integrated as a homework platform into 14 regular 7th grade English classes in German secondary schools during a full-year study ([12]). We demonstrate how di erent perspectives on learner and interaction data supported by di erent user interfaces of the system can help address demands of students, teachers, and material designers. The interfaces o ers perspectives on individual students in the form of an open learner model, on classes and their typical errors to inform teachers, and on general learner performance to provide insights into the effectiveness of exercises for material designers.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>For students, the key di erence when working digitally
compared to on paper is the nature of the interaction with the
material. They can work from anywhere at any time on any
material and, depending on system functionality, can receive
immediate feedback on their output. Such interaction can
lead to students revising misconceptions and producing
answers that often contain fewer errors compared to homework
done on paper. At the same time, teachers need information
about common misconceptions of their students in order to
be able to prepare their classroom teaching. They need some
insights into the process of the interaction of their students,
the steps performed while working on an exercise,
individually or in aggregated form. The collection of this type of
data creates large quantities of learner data that would be
unavailable without digitalization.</p>
      <p>
        To deal with the increased amount of data in a digital
learning context potentially allowing an increased distance
between teachers and students, it is necessary to develop and
provide pedagogically informed methods and tools that use
the available data and provide interfaces addressing real-life
needs for all stakeholders in the educational context.
Learning Analytics (LA) as \the measurement, collection,
analysis and reporting of data about learners and their contexts,
for purposes of understanding and optimizing learning and
the environments in which it occurs" ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref21">21</xref>
        ]) and Educational
Data Mining (EDM) \developing methods for exploring the
unique types of data that come from educational settings,
using those methods to better understand students, and the
settings which they learn in" ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]) can help address this need
for pedagogically informed methods for the analysis of
educational data. LA and EDM methods presuppose the
availability of learning process and product data that can be
analyzed. While such data can in principle be collected in
any context, most commonly they originate from web-based
learning platforms given that in such a setup, all data can
readily be collected in real-time, stored centrally on a server,
and be presented in di erent ways to di erent users of the
system at any time.
      </p>
      <p>
        Extensive research has been conducted on developing
tutoring systems in the mathematical domain (cf., e.g., [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref20">20</xref>
        ]). In
such formal domains, there is a one-to-one correspondence
between the form and the meaning of student productions.
      </p>
      <p>
        On the other hand, language learning (and the use of
language in support of content learning) is sometimes
characterized as an \ill-de ned domain" ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref22 ref9">9, 22</xref>
        ]), where it is di cult to
systematically characterize when an answer is an acceptable
solution given that language supports a substantial number
of well-formed paraphrases and ill-formed variability,
requiring dedicated natural language processing techniques and an
understanding of language learning to support valid
interpretations of learner utterances ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11 ref13">11, 13</xref>
        ]).
      </p>
      <p>Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research attempts to
characterize the nature of the language learning process.</p>
      <p>
        Interactionist approaches in SLA emphasize that for
language learning, not only input is necessary, but also
interaction ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ]) given a speci c social con guration ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref23">23</xref>
        ]).
      </p>
      <p>
        Such interaction in an educational context typically involves
peer learners and teachers. In Computer-Assisted Language
Learning (CALL), digital tutoring systems may also support
dyadic interaction, with some SLA studies showing
comparable learning gains for human-computer as for
humanhuman interaction (e.g., [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>
        ]). When learners do not
successfully complete a task, the teacher or system can provide
corrective feedback. The reaction to corrective feedback by
learners is typically referred to as uptake ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ]). Uptake is
considered successful if the learner manages to implement
the speci c feedback provided by the teacher, i.e., when the
learner answer is correct or does not contain this particular
error anymore. Explicit meta-linguistic corrective feedback
has been shown to be an e ective form of feedback
supporting successful uptake (cf., e.g., [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ]).
      </p>
      <p>Bringing together research on SLA and CALL with real-life
contexts of teaching and learning, we would like to argue
that LA is essential to address the real-life needs of
students, teachers, and material designers. In this paper, we
substantiate this perspective by rst introducing the
intelligent web-based tutoring system FeedBook, which we used
in a yearlong study in an authentic secondary school
context, before turning to the LA interfaces and insights this
supports in section 3.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>2. THE BASIS FOR DATA COLLECTION</title>
      <p>In order to collect data for LA and EDM, two components
are necessary: an instrument to collect data with, and users
who interact with this instrument, ideally in an authentic
learning context to support ecologically valid, generalizable
interpretations. In the following, we will rst describe the
instrument (a web-based tutoring system) and then the study
we conducted in a real-life school context to generate the
data underlying the work presented in this article.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>2.1 The FeedBook System</title>
      <p>
        The FeedBook ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14 ref18 ref24">18, 24, 14</xref>
        ]) is a web-based tutoring system
for 7th grade learners of English. The system o ers a
digital version of 230 exercises from the paper-based Camden
Town 3 workbook, and 154 exercises in three di culty levels
as additional material, discussed more in section 3.1. The
FeedBook follows the paper workbook in its design, splitting
the curriculum into six themes. Each theme has a speci c
topic, builds up to functional language tasks in the spirit
of Task-Based Language Teaching ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]), and covers two to
three grammar constructs. For each of the grammar
constructs in the curriculum, the system o ers immediate
interactive meta-linguistic formative sca olding feedback to
students ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">19</xref>
        ]). While students are working on an exercise,
the system checks an answer immediately after it has been
typed in and provides feedback on whether it is correct or
why it is incorrect. As spelled out in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">19</xref>
        ], generation of the
feedback combines computational linguistic analysis of
exercise speci cations with explicit modeling of the language
constructs in the curriculum and potential misconceptions of
language learners connected to these constructs. The
FeedBook models 188 di erent error types and thereby covers
all grammar topics in the curriculum of 7th grade English.
Figure 1 shows an example for grammar feedback displayed
to a learner, informing the learner about the type of error, a
strategy to repair it, and the location of the error (which is
displayed after clicking the magnifying glass in the
bottomleft corner of the feedback window). We here focus on the
perspective of the student { for teachers, the system also
offers functions to inspect and correct the submissions of their
students. We describe LA-related functions of the FeedBook
in section 3.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>2.2 Effectiveness Study</title>
      <p>
        The FeedBook system has been used as a drop-in
replacement for the printed workbook in fourteen 7th grade school
classes since the beginning of this school year in September
2018 as part of a yearlong study ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ]). The goal of this study
is to test the e ectiveness of interactive sca olding feedback
targeting speci c grammar constructs. As part of the study,
the students in each class were randomly assigned to one of
two groups. Both groups receive feedback on meaning,
orthography, and default feedback (which asks the user to try
again in case no known misconception was detected). The
grammar constructions covered by the curriculum are
divided into two, with students in one group receiving speci c
grammar feedback on one half of the grammar constructions
in the curriculum, and the other on the other half. In
practice, each group is associated with a blacklist of grammatical
constructions. When a learner makes a grammar error that
is associated with the learner's blacklist, the system does not
display the speci c grammar error. The only change to the
classes was the introduction of the FeedBook in place of the
printed workbook, and a request to the teachers to assign
at least two to three homework exercises for each grammar
topic they covered. For all students, including those where
feedback is disabled for a speci c grammar topic, teachers
were also able to provide manual feedback in the system (like
in a traditional paper-based setup).
      </p>
      <p>
        Given that every theme is associated with two to three
grammar constructs, which are assigned to the same group, it
becomes possible to test the impact of the speci c grammar
feedback before and after each theme. The rst complete
analysis we conducted ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ]) is based on the performance
of 205 students working through the second theme of the
workbook, using a pretest/posttest design. The grammar
topics focused on in that theme are comparatives,
conditional clauses, and relative clauses. The analysis shows that
the learners who received the speci c sca olded feedback by
the system for those grammar topics improved signi cantly
more on the posttest, learning 62% more, compared to those
who did not (Cohen's d = 0.56). The study thus supports
the e ectiveness of a computer-based interactive sca olding
system for language learning with substantial ecological
validity given the fully authentic school setting.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>3. LEARNING ANALYTICS IN FEEDBOOK</title>
      <p>
        The primary goal of LA is to enable humans to make
informed decisions when presented with educational data ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref21">21</xref>
        ]).
Visualization plays an important role in making data
interpretable. For this reason, we describe a subset of the LA
functionality implemented in the FeedBook and currently in
use by students, teachers, and material designers. We
motivate the implementation of each interface by stating which
questions the interface answers for the respective user group.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>3.1 Student Perspective on Learner Model</title>
      <p>
        For students, the most important questions in the
educational context are: What have I learned? How well have
I mastered a concept? Where should I go next to
overcome misconceptions, address gaps in knowledge, or progress
through new material?
In order to address these needs, we implemented an open
learner model. The learner model is accessible to students
from the start page of the system and provides
information about the progress on each of the grammar topics to
be acquired according to the 7th grade curriculum. Open
learner models, in contrast to closed learner models, present
to learners the learning-related information the system has
collected about them. Reasons for opening learner models
up to the learner are that this fosters the meta-cognition of
learners. It gives learners insights into their learning
process, supports them in diagnosing areas requiring additional
practice, allows individualized navigation in the learning
system via suggestions of material, and implements the right of
users to know what a system knows about them ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2 ref3">2, 3</xref>
        ]).
In order to not overwhelm the user with information, the
learner model is organized in a hierarchical way. On the top
level, it presents the grammar categories from the
curriculum, such as present tense or conditionals. Upon clicking
on such a category, the system displays a wind rose chart
that, for every speci c grammar construction in the selected
category, plots the number of times the student used the
construction correctly in green and the number of times it
was not correctly used but demanded by the task in red.
Figure 2 illustrates this. For every prompt, we know from
the computational linguistic analysis of the task speci cation
used in the feedback generation mechanism which grammar
construct has to be mastered, in order to answer the prompt
correctly. So we can count the number of times a student
used a speci c grammar construct correctly by looking at
which prompts they answered correctly, either at rst try,
after feedback, or when submitting it to the teacher. For
errors, we know which form served as the basis for
generating an erroneous form, thus we know the linguistic nature of
the correct target form for each error and can link an error
to a speci c target concept. With this graph, students at a
glance can identify their diagnosed strengths and weaknesses
for a target construct.
      </p>
      <p>
        If they want to receive more detailed information, they can
scroll down and for each of the speci c topics displayed in
the wind rose chart, they can request more details. As can
be seen in the lower half of Figure 2, for each competence
displayed in the wind rose chart, there is a node that the
learner can unfold. In addition to a more ne-grained
coloring (green, yellow, red), this competence indicator also
shows a 3-way star rating indicating the proportion of
uptake that resulted in the correction of a diagnosed error,
compared to those cases where a student did not show
successful uptake for this construct. Uptake in this scenario is
de ned according to Lyster and Ranta ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ]): if the learner
in an attempted repair manages to correct the error
targeted by the feedback message, this interaction is counted
as successful uptake, independent of whether the answer still
contains other errors. It thus serves as a measure of how well
this student is able to make use of speci c feedback
regarding this target construct.
      </p>
      <p>The focus of the screen shot in Figure 3 illustrates further
information that can be requested for each construct. In
the top half, students can see how their correct usage and
errors developed over time, with each value on the x-axis
corresponding to one day since the rst time they used the
speci c construct. In this display, the colors indicate
different uptake metrics. Green here indicates attempts for
this target construct where the correct answer was given at
rst try. Yellow represents interaction sequences that
ultimately resulted in the correct answer but required feedback
to reach this state. Red data points are observations where
the learner did not reach the correct answer for prompts
expecting this target construct to be realized.</p>
      <p>In the lower part of Figure 3, students see a bar chart that
informs them about the frequency of the misconceptions they
exhibited for the target construct. For one grammar
construct to be acquired, it is possible to make di erent errors,
i.e., linguistically di erent ways of getting the target form
wrong. Students with this perspective have the ability to see
their typical/frequent errors for a speci c grammar topic.
The learner model that is accessible through the FeedBook
interface also supports construct-speci c, pro
ciency-dependent sequencing of exercises. As discussed above in the
context of Figure 2, each speci c grammar concept is visualized
as a node that is colored using the usual tra c light color
system. The user can unfold the information on this concept
further by clicking on the function \suggestions for exercises"
below the concept node. In Figure 4, the student did this
for the simple present concept, which was shown in green,
showing already good mastery. The system now proposes
exercises to the student that target the speci c linguistic
construct the student selected and are appropriate to the
student's current level of pro ciency as modelled by the
system. In the concrete example, the learner has shown high
pro ciency in using the simple present, therefore the system
suggests exercises at the highest di culty level (as indicated
by the su x \3" in the exercise titles). Where a learner has
demonstrated medium competence (yellow node), the
system suggests exercises of level 2, and exercises at level 1 for
low competence (red node).</p>
      <p>
        The goal of this approach is to present students with
exercises in their Zone of Proximal Development ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref23">23</xref>
        ]). The
system o ers 158 exercises at three di culty levels each that
form the basis for this system-recommended automatic
sequencing. The classi cation of the exercises in the three
difculty levels is taken from the publisher's materials. With
the help of EDM, based on the performance data from the
study, we plan to empirically validate the externally assigned
labels of di culty and revise them were necessary. In the
future, this should also make it possible to develop a more
general, parametrizable model of task di culty to support
the manual or even automatic generation of tasks at di erent
levels, in the spirit of dynamic di culty adaptation ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ]).
In the literature, di erent approaches have been proposed
that extend frequency-based (re)presentations of learner data
([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ]). The proposals range from user stereotype models
to which learners are assigned, via automatic clustering of
learners into groups, fuzzy approaches modeling uncertainty,
growth models weighting information di erently over time,
to Bayesian approaches with probabilistic dependencies. For
these models the complexity lies in the data aggregation
techniques employed. In the approach we are presenting
here, a substantial part of the complexity of the learner
model in essence is outsourced to the feedback generation
method. The information grounded in the complex feedback
generation process integrating language, language learning
and curriculum expertise ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19 ref24">19, 24</xref>
        ]) supports a comparatively
simple frequency-based approach to learner modeling.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>3.2 Teacher Perspective on the Class</title>
      <p>For teachers, the most important questions in the
educational context are: Where are my students in terms of
prociency? What are the constructs they are having problems
with, across and in speci c exercises?
While aggregated versions of the learner model described in
the previous section can address the question regarding the
language pro ciency, the second question regarding typical
errors is starting to be answered in the FeedBook using an
interface that allows teachers to see how the students
performed on each prompt of an exercise. In the task eld
performance interface, the teacher can select an exercise and
click on any input eld, which results in a popup window
appearing, such as the one shown in Figure 5. At the top,
the teacher is presented with a pie chart that lists the
different types of errors were committed by their students for
this input eld. In the concrete example, the teacher can
see at a glance that the students had most di culty with
the past progressive. Below the pie chart, a teacher can
then, for each slice of the pie, see the concrete number of
times this error was made (here: 393 times). Upon clicking
on the element, they can see the types of student answers
that led to this feedback, ranked by decreasing frequency
(shown in brackets). The data used as the basis for these
visualizations consist of intermediate log data collected while
students were working on the exercise. Note that without
this interface teachers would be limited in their insights into
misconceptions of their students since this interface uses the
learning process data, whereas in the submitted exercises
the teachers only see the nal answer the student
submitted after having reacted to the system feedback. Without
having to grade homework themselves, this perspective thus
allows the teacher to obtain an informed overview of the
typical problems student faced while working on the homework,
which can serve as basis for discussion in the next class.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>3.3 Material Designer Perspective on Tasks</title>
      <p>For material designers, the most important questions in the
educational context are: Do the learners work with an
exercise? Is the exercise designed in a way that learners actually
bene t from doing the exercise? Is an exercise
understandable, too easy, or too hard?
In order to address these questions, we provide perspectives
for material designers in FeedBook. For each exercise,
material designers can view di erent metrics aggregating the
performance of all users in the system. Figure 6 illustrates
the functionality. In the graph at the top, material
designers can see the number of interactions on the x-axis against
description
number of instances students lled in a
correct answer at their rst attempt
number of diagnosed errors
number of answers submitted to teacher with
errors
number of answers submitted to teacher
without errors
total number of interactions with feedback
mechanism
number of submission to teachers by students
number of gaps lled out
average time taken by learners for exercise
number of prompts where feedback led to
correct solution (uptake)
learner answers with no associated diagnosis
diagnosed missing or additional information
diagnosed grammatical misconceptions
diagnosed misspellings
maximum number of steps for prompt
interpretation
previous knowledge
misconceptions
cases where the system was unable to lead to
a correct solution
previous knowledge or successful uptake
number of times learners requested feedback
size of data set underlying visualization
coverage of learner submission for task
time on task
number of cases where system feedback was
e ective
lack of coverage of speci c system feedback
semantic misunderstandings
morphological or syntactic
misunderstandings
orthographic misunderstandings
perseverance of learners for reaching correct
answers
the number of submissions on the y-axis. Each data point
thus represents how many students submitted an exercise
after that many interactions. Furthermore, each point is
either green or red. Green indicates that the submission only
contained correct answers, whereas red means that one or
more learner answers contained a form that was not
identical to a target answer. The vertical grey bar in the gure
indicates the number of answers required to complete this
exercise. To the left of the grey bar, there are only red data
points since it is not possible to submit an exercise
without having lled all answer slots. To the right of the grey
line, the graph for this exercise shows the green line
generally above the red line. This indicates that this exercise is
well-designed for this learner population in that learners do
not get it right immediately, but after interacting with the
system more learners succeed in submitting correct answers
than incorrect ones.</p>
      <p>Below the interaction performance line chart in Figure 6,
material designers can see a bar chart displaying uptake
analytics. The diagram visualizes the metrics characterized
in Table 1 for the selected exercise. These metrics describe
the proportion of di erent types of errors
(grammar/meaning/spelling/other) as well as the e ectiveness of feedback
as re ected in uptake (i.e., whether learners were able to
reach a correct answers after feedback). Other measures
provide insights into learner motivation, as re ected in the
longest interaction sequence or the average time on task. As
a next step, we plan to use such data as input to educational
data mining algorithms clustering exercises by learner
performance, and to cluster learners into learner groups based
on the pro les extracted for individual learners.
In addition to the performance line chart and the uptake
analytics, material designers have access to a pie chart with
typical errors (cf. Figure 5), but with data from all users (in
anonymous form), rather than those in a speci c class.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-9">
      <title>4. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK</title>
      <p>We illustrated how di erent perspectives on learner and
interaction data made accessible by di erent user interfaces
can help address demands of students (with a learner model),
teachers (with a view of typical errors), and material
designers (with a view on general user performance). The LA
functions provide insights into the learning process based
on interaction data representing incremental learner steps.
Without these functions, learners, teachers and material
designers would lack important information that is not
available when only the student submissions as nal product are
available.</p>
      <p>
        Future work planned in terms of system development
includes implementing improved pro ciency-dependent
sequencing of materials taking into account the learner's competence
for all grammar constructs rather than just the currently
focused on. We also plan to improve the interface side, where
instead of requiring learners to navigate through di erent
grammar constructs, the system could automatically
combine the evidence and simply provide a user interface
element \next exercise". We also plan to generally improve the
accessibility of the learner model. We are also considering
extending the learner model in the directions argued for in
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]. This would allow us to not only model language
misconceptions but also to what extent a learner is capable of
completing tasks requiring speci c strategies. Furthermore,
we look forward to continuing the discussion with the
teachers using the system so that the learning analytics functions
address actual real-life needs. One envisaged extension is
an aggregated perspective on the learner models of all
students in class to diagnose trends in their competence and
misconceptions across tasks.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-10">
      <title>Acknowledgments</title>
      <p>This work has been funded through a transfer project grant
by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft in connection with
the SFB 833.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Amaral</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Meurers</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>From recording linguistic competence to supporting inferences about language acquisition in context: Extending the conceptualization of student models for intelligent computer-assisted language learning</article-title>
          .
          <source>Computer-Assisted Language Learning</source>
          ,
          <volume>21</volume>
          (
          <issue>4</issue>
          ):
          <volume>323</volume>
          {
          <fpage>338</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2008</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Bull</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Kay</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Student models that invite the learner in: The SMILI open learner modelling framework</article-title>
          .
          <source>Citeseer</source>
          ,
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Bull</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Nghiem</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Helping learners to understand themselves with a learner model open to students, peers and instructors</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of workshop on individual and group modelling methods that help learners understand themselves, International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems</source>
          , volume
          <volume>2002</volume>
          , pages
          <fpage>5</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>13</fpage>
          .
          <string-name>
            <surname>Citeseer</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>2002</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <surname>K.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Chrysa adi and M. Virvou. Student modeling approaches: A literature review for the last decade</article-title>
          .
          <source>Expert Systems with Applications</source>
          ,
          <volume>40</volume>
          (
          <issue>11</issue>
          ):
          <volume>4715</volume>
          {
          <fpage>4729</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2013</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Ellis</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Task-based Language Learning and Teaching</article-title>
          . Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK,
          <year>2003</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Ferguson</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Learning analytics: drivers, developments and challenges</article-title>
          .
          <source>International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning</source>
          ,
          <volume>4</volume>
          (
          <issue>5</issue>
          /6):
          <volume>304</volume>
          {
          <fpage>317</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2012</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Heift</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL</article-title>
          . ReCALL,
          <volume>16</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ):
          <volume>416</volume>
          {
          <fpage>431</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2004</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M. H.</given-names>
            <surname>Long</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition</article-title>
          . In W. C. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia, editors,
          <source>Handbook of second language acquisition</source>
          , pages
          <volume>413</volume>
          {
          <fpage>468</fpage>
          . Academic Press, New York,
          <year>1996</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Lynch</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Ashley</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
            <surname>Aleven</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            <surname>Pinkwart</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>De ning ill-de ned domains; a literature survey</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the workshop on intelligent tutoring systems for ill-de ned domains, held during the 8th international conference on intelligent tutoring systems</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>10</fpage>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jhongli</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Taiwan,
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Lyster</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
            <surname>Ranta</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms</article-title>
          .
          <source>Studies in Second Language Acquisition</source>
          ,
          <volume>19</volume>
          n1:
          <volume>37</volume>
          {
          <fpage>66</fpage>
          ,
          <year>1997</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Meurers</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Natural language processing and language learning</article-title>
          . In C. A. Chapelle, editor,
          <source>Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics</source>
          , pages
          <volume>4193</volume>
          {
          <fpage>4205</fpage>
          . Wiley, Oxford,
          <year>2012</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Meurers</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>K. De Kuthy</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Nuxoll</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rudzewitz</surname>
            , and
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ziai</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Scaling up intervention studies to investigate real-life foreign language learning in school</article-title>
          .
          <source>Annual Review of Applied Linguistics</source>
          ,
          <volume>39</volume>
          ,
          <year>2019</year>
          . To appear.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Meurers</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Dickinson</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Evidence and interpretation in language learning research: Opportunities for collaboration with computational linguistics</article-title>
          .
          <source>Language Learning</source>
          ,
          <volume>67</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ),
          <year>2017</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          [14]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Meurers</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K. D.</given-names>
            <surname>Kuthy</surname>
          </string-name>
          , V. Moller,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
            <surname>Nuxoll</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Rudzewitz</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Ziai</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Digitale Di erenzierung benotigt Informationen zu Sprache, Aufgabe und Lerner. Zur Generierung von individuellem Feedback in einem interaktiven Arbeitsheft</article-title>
          .
          <source>FLuL { Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen</source>
          ,
          <volume>47</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ):
          <volume>64</volume>
          {
          <fpage>82</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2018</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          [15]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>I.</given-names>
            <surname>Pandarova</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Schmidt</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Hartig</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Boubekki</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R. D.</given-names>
            <surname>Jones</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>U.</given-names>
            <surname>Brefeld</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Predicting the di culty of exercise items for dynamic di culty adaptation in adaptive language tutoring</article-title>
          .
          <source>International Journal of Arti cial Intelligence in Education</source>
          ,
          <year>2019</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          [16]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Petersen</surname>
          </string-name>
          . Implicit Corrective Feedback in Computer-Guided Interaction: Does Mode Matter?
          <source>PhD thesis</source>
          , Georgetown University,
          <year>2010</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          [17]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Romero</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Ventura</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Educational data mining: A survey from 1995 to 2005</article-title>
          .
          <article-title>Expert systems with applications</article-title>
          ,
          <volume>33</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ):
          <volume>135</volume>
          {
          <fpage>146</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref18">
        <mixed-citation>
          [18]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Rudzewitz</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Ziai</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>K. De Kuthy</surname>
            , and
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Meurers</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Developing a web-based workbook for English supporting the interaction of students and teachers</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the Joint 6th Workshop on NLP for Computer Assisted Language Learning and 2nd Workshop on NLP for Research on Language Acquisition</source>
          ,
          <year>2017</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref19">
        <mixed-citation>
          [19]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Rudzewitz</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Ziai</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>K. De Kuthy</surname>
            , V. Moller,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Nuxoll</surname>
            , and
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Meurers</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Generating feedback for English foreign language exercises</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 13th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (BEA)</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>127</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>136</fpage>
          .
          <string-name>
            <surname>ACL</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>2018</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref20">
        <mixed-citation>
          [20]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K. E.</given-names>
            <surname>Sabo</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R. K.</given-names>
            <surname>Atkinson</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A. L.</given-names>
            <surname>Barrus</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S. S.</given-names>
            <surname>Joseph</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R. S.</given-names>
            <surname>Perez</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Searching for the two sigma advantage: Evaluating algebra intelligent tutors</article-title>
          .
          <source>Computers in Human Behavior</source>
          ,
          <volume>29</volume>
          (
          <issue>4</issue>
          ):
          <year>1833</year>
          {
          <year>1840</year>
          ,
          <year>2013</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref21">
        <mixed-citation>
          [21]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
            <surname>Siemens</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R. S.</given-names>
            <surname>Baker</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Learning analytics and educational data mining: towards communication and collaboration</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning analytics and knowledge</source>
          , pages
          <volume>252</volume>
          {
          <fpage>254</fpage>
          . ACM,
          <year>2012</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref22">
        <mixed-citation>
          [22]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
            <surname>Slavuj</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Mestrovic</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Kovacic</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Adaptivity in educational systems for language learning: a review</article-title>
          .
          <source>Computer Assisted Language Learning</source>
          ,
          <volume>30</volume>
          (
          <issue>1-2</issue>
          ):
          <volume>64</volume>
          {
          <fpage>90</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2017</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref23">
        <mixed-citation>
          [23]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L. S.</given-names>
            <surname>Vygotsky</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes</article-title>
          . Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA,
          <year>1978</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref24">
        <mixed-citation>
          [24]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Ziai</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Rudzewitz</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>K. De Kuthy</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Nuxoll</surname>
            , and
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Meurers</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Feedback strategies for form and meaning in a real-life language tutoring system</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Computer-Assisted Language Learning (NLP4CALL)</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>91</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>98</fpage>
          .
          <string-name>
            <surname>ACL</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>2018</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>