Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Student diagnosis in practice; bridging a gap

  • Published:
User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a novel framework for looking at the problem of diagnosing a student's knowledge in an Intelligent Tutoring System. It is indicated that the input and the conceptualisation of the student model are significant for the choice of modeling technique. The framework regards student diagnosis as the process of bridging the gap between the student's input to the tutoring system, and the system's conception and representation of correct knowledge. The process of bridging the gap can be subdivided into three phases, data acquisition, transformation and evaluation, which are studied further. A number of published student modeling techniques are studied with respect to how they bridge the gap.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersen, J., Boyle, C., Corbett, A., and Lewis, M.: 1990, ‘Cognitive modeling and intelligent tutoring’. Artificial Intelligence42, 7–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baffes, P. and Mooney, R.: 1992, ‘Using theory revision to model students and acquire stereotypical errors’. In:Proc. of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Bloomington, IN: pp. 617–622.

  • Baffes, P. T.: 1994, ‘Automatic Student Modeling and Bug Library Construction using Theory Refinement’. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baril, D., Greer, J. E., and McCalla, G. I.: 1991, ‘Student modeling with confluences’. Technical report 91-3, ARIES, Dept. of Computational Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhuiyan, S. H., Greer, J. E., and McCalla, G. I.: 1991, ‘Characterizing, rationalising and reifying mental models of recursion’. Technical Report 91-4, ARIES, Dept. of Computational Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Burton, R., and de Kleer, J.: 1982, ‘Pedagogical, natural language and knowledge engineering techniques in SOPHIE I, II, and III.’ In: Sleeman, D. and Brown, J. S. (eds.):Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Academic Press, Chapter 11, pp. 227–282.

  • Burton, R. R.: 1982, ‘Diagnosing bugs in a simple procedural skill’. In: Sleeman, D. and Brown, J. S. (eds.):Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Academic Press, Chapter 8, pp. 157–183.

  • Chan, T.-W. and Baskin, A. B.: 1988, ‘“Studying with the prince” the computer as a learning companion.’ In:Proceedings of ITS'88, pp. 194–200, Montreal, Canada.

  • Clancey, W. J.: 1982, ‘Tutoring rules for guiding a case method dialogue’. In: Sleeman, D. and Brown, J. S. (eds.):Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Academic Press, pp. 201–225.

  • Corbett, A. T. and Anderson, J. R.: 1992, ‘LISP Intelligent Tutoring System: research in skill acquisition’. In: Larkin, J. H. and Chabay, R. W. (eds.):Computer Assisted Instruction and Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Shared goals and Complementary Approaches, Technology in Education Series. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Chapter 3, pp. 73–109.

  • del Soldato, T.: 1992, ‘Detecting and reacting to the learners motivational state’. In:Proceeding of ITS'92, pp. 567–574. Springer-Verlag.

  • Derry, S., Hawkes, L., Kegelmann, H., and Holmes, D.: 1989, ‘Fuzzy remedies to problems in diagnostic modeling’. In: Bierman, D., Breuker, J., and Sandberg, J. (eds.):Proc. of the 4th International conference on AI and Education, Amsterdam, pp. 81–85. IOS, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. and Self, J.: 1992a, ‘A framework for learner modeling’.Interactive Learning Environments 2(2), 111–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. and Self, J. A.: 1992b, ‘PEOPLE POWER: A human-computer collaborative learning system’. In: Frasson, C., Gauthier, G., and McCalla, G. I. (eds.):Proceedings of ITS'92. Springer Verlag: pp. 651–660.

  • Genesereth, M. R.: 1982, ‘The role of plans in intelligent teaching systems’. In: Sleeman, D. and Brown, J. S. (eds.):Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Academic Press, Chapter 7, pp. 137–155.

  • Goodyear, P. and Tait, K.: 1991, ‘Learning with computer-based simulations: Tutoring and student modelling requirements for an intelligent learning advisor’. In:Learning and instruction: European research in an international context, pp. 463–481. Proceedings of the 3rd conference of the European Assoc. for Research on Learning and Instruction, 1989.

  • Greer, J., Mark, M., and McCalla, G.: 1989, ‘Incorporating granularity-based recognition into SCENT’. In: Bierman, D., Breuker, J., and Sandberg, J. (eds.):Proc. of the 4th International Conference on AI and Education, pp. 107–115, Amsterdam.

  • Holt, P., Dubs, S., Jones, M., and Greer, J.: 1994, ‘The state of student modelling’. In: Greer, J. E. and McCalla, G. I. (eds.):Student Modelling: The Key to Individualized Knowledge-Based Instruction, NATO-ASI Series F, pp. 3–35. Springer-Verlag.

  • Katz, S., Lesgold, A., Eggan, G., and Gordin, M.: 1992, ‘Modelling the student in Sherlock II’.Artificial Intelligence in Education 3(4), 495–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koegel, J., Lakshmipathy, N., and Schlesinger, J. D.: 1989, ‘A tutoring system with incomplete domain expertise’. In: Bierman, D., Breuker, J., and Sandberg, J. (eds.):Proc. of the 4th International Conference on AI and Education, pp. 123–128, Amsterdam.

  • Kono, Y., Ikeda, M., and Mizoguchi, R.: 1993, ‘A modeling method for students with contradictions’. In: Brna, P., Ohlsson, S., and Pain, H. (eds.):Proc. of AI in Education (AI-ED 93), pp. 481–488, Edinburgh, Scotland.

  • Langley, P. and Ohlsson, S.: 1984, ‘Automated cognitive modeling’. In:Proc. of the American Association of Artificial Intelligence, Los Altos, CA, pp. 193–197. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurillard, D.: 1993, ‘From learning need to teaching strategy: What is the nature of the link’. In: Brna, P., Ohlsson, S., and Pain, H. (eds.):Proc. of AI in Education (AI-ED 93), pp. 12–14, Edinburgh, Scotland.

  • Lesgold, A., Ivill-Friel, J., and Bonar, J.: 1989, ‘Toward intelligent systems for testing’. In: Resnick, L. B. (ed.):Knowing, Learning and Instruction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates publishers, Chapter 11, pp. 337–360.

  • Martin, J. D. and VanLehn, K.: 1993, ‘OLAE: Progress toward a multi-activity, Bayesian student modeller’. In: Brna, P., Ohlsson, S., and Pain, H. (eds.):Proc. of AI in Education (AI-ED 93), pp. 410–417, Edinburgh, Scotland.

  • Murray, W.: 1991, ‘An endorsement-based approach to student modeling for planner-controlled tutors’. In: Proc. of International Joint Conference on AI, (IJCAI'91), Sydney, Australia, pp. 1100–1106.

  • Nwana, H. S.: 1991, ‘User modelling and user adapted interaction in an intelligent tutoring system’. User Modelling and User-Adapted Interaction1(1), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohlsson, S. and Langley, P.: 1985, ‘Identifying solution paths in cognitive diagnosis’. Technical Report CMU-RI-TR-84-7, Robotic institute, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrushin, V. A. and Sinitsa, K. M.: 1993, ‘Using probabilistic reasoning techniques for learner modelling’. In: Brna, P., Ohlsson, S., and Pain, H. (eds.):Proc. of AI in Education (AI-ED 93), pp. 418–425, Edinburgh, Scotland.

  • Ragnemalm, E. L.: 1994, ‘Simulator-based training using a learning companion’. In: Brouwer-Janse, M. and Harrington, T. (eds.):Human-Machine Communication for Educational Systems Design, NATO-ASI Series F, pp. 207–212. Springer-Verlag. Proceedings from the 1993 NATO-ASI in Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

  • Ragnemalm, E. L.: 1995, ‘Towards student modelling through collaborative dialogue with a learning companion’. Licentiate thesis Thesis No 482, Linköping University.

  • Rich, E.: 1983, ‘Users are individuals: individualizing user models’.Int. J. of Man-Machine Studies 18, 199–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Self, J.: 1986, ‘The application of machine learning to student modelling’.Instructional Science 14, 327–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Self, J.: 1988, ‘Bypassing the intractable problem of student modelling’. In:Proceedings of ITS'88, pp. 18–24, Montreal, Canada.

  • Self, J. A.: 1994, ‘Formal approaches to student modelling’. In: Greer, J. E. and McCalla, G. I. (eds.):Student Modelling: The Key to Individualized Knowledge-Based Instruction, NATO-ASI Series F, pp. 295–352. Springer-Verlag.

  • Shulman, L. S.: 1986, ‘Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching’.Educational researcher 15(2), 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sime, J.-A.: 1993, ‘Modelling a learner's multiple models with Bayesian belief networks’. In: Brna, P., Ohlsson, S., and Pain, H. (eds.):Proc. of AI in Education (AI-ED 93), pp. 426–432, Edinburgh, Scotland.

  • Sleeman, D.: 1985, ‘UMFE: A user modelling front-end subsystem’.Int. J. Man-Machine Studies 23, 71–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twidale, M.: 1989, ‘Intermediate representations for student error diagnosis and support’. In: Bierman, D., Breuker, J., and Sandberg, J. (eds.):Proc. of the 4th International conference on AI and Education, pp. 298–306, Amsterdam. IOS, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K.: 1988, ‘Student modelling’. In: Polson, M. C. and Richardson, J. J. (eds.):Foundations of Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associate publishers, Chapter 3, pp. 55–78.

  • Vassileva, J.: 1991, ‘A classification and synthesis of student modelling techniques in intelligent computer-assisted instruction’. In: Norrie, D. H. and Six, H.-W. (eds.):Computer Assisted Learning, volume 438 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 202–213. Springer-Verlag.

  • Verdejo, M. F.: 1994, ‘Building a student model for an intelligent tutoring system’. In: Greer, J. E. and McCalla, G. I. (eds.):Student Modelling: The Key to Individualized Knowledge-Based Instruction, NATO-ASI Series F, pp. 147–163. Springer-Verlag.

  • Villano, M.: 1992, ‘Probabilistic student models: Bayesian belief networks and knowledge space theory’. In: Frasson, C., Gauthier, G., and McCalla, G. I. (eds.):Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer-Verlag, pp. 491–498.

  • Wasson, B. J.: 1990, ‘Determining the Focus of Instruction: Content Planning for Intelligent Tutoring Systems’. PhD thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Dept. of Computational Science.

  • Wenger, E.: 1987,Artificial Intelligence and Tutoring Systems; Computational and Cognitive Approaches to the Communication of Knowledge. Morgan Kaufmann publishers Inc.

  • Wilson, S. M., Schulman, L. S., and Richert, A. E.: 1987, ‘“150 different ways” of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching’. In: Calderhead, J. (ed.):Exploring Teacher's Thinking, pp. 104–124. Cassel.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, S-581 83, Linköping, Sweden

    Eva L. Ragnemalm

Authors
  1. Eva L. Ragnemalm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ragnemalm, E.L. Student diagnosis in practice; bridging a gap. User Model User-Adap Inter 5, 93–116 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01099757

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01099757

Key words

Search

Navigation