Modeling Students’ Natural Language Explanations

  • Albert Corbett
  • Angela Wagner
  • Sharon Lesgold
  • Harry Ulrich
  • Scott Stevens
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4511)


Intelligent tutoring systems have achieved demonstrable success in supporting formal problem solving. More recently such systems have begun incorporating student explanations of problem solutions. Typically, these natural language explanations are entered with menus, but some ITSs accept open-ended typed inputs. Typed inputs require more work by both developers and students and evaluations of the added value for learning outcomes has been mixed. This paper examines whether typed input can yield more accurate student modeling than menu-based input. This paper examines the application of Knowledge Tracing student modeling to natural language inputs and examines the standard Knowledge Tracing definition of errors. The analyses indicate that typed explanations can yield more predictive models of student test performance than menu-based explanations and that focusing on semantic errors can further improve predictive accuracy.


Symbolic Model Student Modeling Semantic Error Cognitive Tutor Student Explanation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Anderson, J.R., Corbett, A.T., Koedinger, K.R., Pelletier, R.: Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 4, 167–207 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Koedinger, K., Anderson, J., Hadley, W., Mark, M.: Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 8, 30–43 (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    VanLehn, K., Lynch, C., Schulze, K., Shapiro, J.A., Shelby, R., Taylor, L., Treacy, D., Weinstein, A., Wintersfill, M.: The Andes Physics Tutoring System: Five years of evaluations. In: Proceedings of AIED 2005: The 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education, pp. 678–685 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atkinson, R., Derry, S., Renkl, A., Worthman, D.: Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research 70, 181–214 (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chi, M.T.H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., Glaser, R.: Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science 13, 145–182 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conati, C., VanLehn, K.: Toward computer-based support for meta-cognitive skills: A computational framework to coach self-explanation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 11, 398–415 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aleven, V.A., Koedinger, K.R.: An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor. Cognitive Science 26, 147–179 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Graesser, A.C., Person, N., Harter, D.: Teaching tactics and dialog in AutoTutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 12, 257–279 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rose, C.P., Jordan, P.W., Ringenberg, M., Siler, S., Vanlehn, K., Weinstein, A.: Interactive conceptual tutoring in Atlas-Andes. In: Proceedings of AIED 2001: The 10th International Conference on Aritifical Intelligence and Education, pp. 256–266 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khuwaja, R.A., Evens, M.W., Michael, J.A., Rovick, A.A.: Architecture of CIRCSIM-tutor. In: Proceedings of the 7th Annual IEEE Computer-Based Medical Systems Symposium, vol. 3, pp. 158–163 (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zinn, C., Moore, J., Core, M.: A three-tier planning architecture for managing tutorial dialogue. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Intelligent Tutoring Systems Conference, pp. 574–584 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aleven, V., Koedinger, K.R., Popescu, O.: A tutorial dialogue system to support self-explanation: Evaluation and open questions. In: Proceedings of AIED 2003: The 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education, pp. 39–46 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arroyo, I., Woolf, B.P.: Inferring learning and attitudes from a Bayesian Network of log file data. In: Proceedings of AIED 2005: The 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education, pp. 33–40 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Conati, C., Gertner, A., VanLehn, K.: Using Bayesian networks to manage uncertainly in student modeling. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 12(4), 371–417 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Corbett, A.T., Anderson, J.R.: Knowledge Tracing: Modeling the Acquisition of Procedural Knowledge. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 4, 253–278 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shute, V.: SMART Evaluation: Cognitive diagnosis, mastery learning & remediation. In: Proceedings of AIED 1995: The 7th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education, pp. 125–130 (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Corbett, A., Wagner, A., Raspat, J.: The Impact of analysing example solutions on problem solving in a pre-algebra tutor. In: Proceedings of AIED 2003: The 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education, pp.133–140 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Corbett, A.T., Wagner, A., Lesgold, S., Ulrich, H., Stevens, S.: The impact on learning of generating vs. selecting descriptions in analyzing algebra example solutions. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, pp. 99–105 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Albert Corbett
    • 1
  • Angela Wagner
    • 1
  • Sharon Lesgold
    • 1
  • Harry Ulrich
    • 1
  • Scott Stevens
    • 1
  1. 1.Human-Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PAUSA

Personalised recommendations