Automating Hint Generation with Solution Space Path Construction

  • Kelly Rivers
  • Kenneth R. Koedinger
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8474)


Developing intelligent tutoring systems from student solution data is a promising approach to facilitating more widespread application of tutors. In principle, tutor feedback can be generated by matching student solution attempts to stored intermediate solution states, and next-step hints can be generated by finding a path from a student’s current state to a correct solution state. However, exact matching of states and paths does not work for many domains, like programming, where the number of solution states and paths is too large to cover with data. It has previously been demonstrated that the state space can be substantially reduced using canonicalizing operations that abstract states. In this paper, we show how solution paths can be constructed from these abstract states that go beyond the paths directly observed in the data. We describe a domain-independent algorithm that can automate hint generation through use of these paths. Through path construction, less data is needed for more complete hint generation. We provide examples of hints generated by this algorithm in the domain of programming.


automatic hint generation feedback learning path construction solution space programming tutor 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Barnes, T., Stamper, J.: Toward automatic hint generation for logic proof tutoring using historical student data. In: Woolf, B.P., Aïmeur, E., Nkambou, R., Lajoie, S. (eds.) ITS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5091, pp. 373–382. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blikstein, P.: Using learning analytics to assess students’ behavior in open-ended programming tasks. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, pp. 110–116 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gross, S., Mokbel, B., Hammer, B., Pinkwart, N.: Feedback Provision Strategies in Intelligent Tutoring Systems Based on Clustered Solution Spaces. In: DeLFI 2012: Die 10. e-Learning Fachtagung Informatik, pp. 27–38 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huang, J., Piech, C., Nguyen, A., Guibas, L.: Syntactic and Functional Variability of a Million Code Submissions in a Machine Learning MOOC. In: AIED 2013 Workshops Proceedings Volume, pp. 25–32 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mokbel, B., Gross, S., Paassen, B., Pinkwart, N., Hammer, B.: Domain-Independent Proximity Measures in Intelligent Tutoring Systems. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM), pp. 334–335 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rivers, K., Koedinger, K.R.: A Canonicalizing Model for Building Programming Tutors. In: Cerri, S.A., Clancey, W.J., Papadourakis, G., Panourgia, K. (eds.) ITS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7315, pp. 591–593. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vanlehn, K.: The behavior of tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 16(3), 227–265 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kelly Rivers
    • 1
  • Kenneth R. Koedinger
    • 1
  1. 1.Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations