Combining Cognitive and Generative AI for Self-explanation in Interactive AI Agents

The Virtual Experimental Research Assistant (VERA) is an inquiry-based learning environment that empowers a learner to build conceptual models of complex ecological systems and experiment with agent-based simulations of the models. This study investigates the convergence of cognitive AI and generative AI for self-explanation in interactive AI agents such as VERA. From a cognitive AI viewpoint, we endow VERA with a functional model of its own design, knowledge, and reasoning represented in the Task--Method--Knowledge (TMK) language. From the perspective of generative AI, we use ChatGPT, LangChain, and Chain-of-Thought to answer user questions based on the VERA TMK model. Thus, we combine cognitive and generative AI to generate explanations about how VERA works and produces its answers. The preliminary evaluation of the generation of explanations in VERA on a bank of 66 questions derived from earlier work appears promising.

Using Analytics on Student Created Data to Content Validate Pedagogical Tools

Conceptual and simulation models can function as useful pedagogical tools, however it is important to categorize different outcomes when evaluating them in order to more meaningfully interpret results. VERA is a ecology-based conceptual modeling software that enables users to simulate interactions between biotics and abiotics in an ecosystem, allowing users to form and then verify hypothesis through observing a time series of the species populations. In this paper, we classify this time series into common patterns found in the domain of ecological modeling through two methods, hierarchical clustering and curve fitting, illustrating a general methodology for showing content validity when combining different pedagogical tools. When applied to a diverse sample of 263 models containing 971 time series collected from three different VERA user categories: a Georgia Tech (GATECH), North Georgia Technical College (NGTC), and ``Self Directed Learners'', results showed agreement between both classification methods on 89.38\% of the sample curves in the test set. This serves as a good indication that our methodology for determining content validity was successful.