Advertisement

User Modeling pp 327-337 | Cite as

Inspectable User Models for Just-In-Time Workplace Training

  • Jason A. Collins
  • Jim E. Greer
  • Vive S. Kumar
  • Gordon I. McCalla
  • Paul Meagher
  • Ray Tkatch
Part of the International Centre for Mechanical Sciences book series (CISM, volume 383)

Abstract

Workplace training is most effective when the training happens just in time as part of a worker’s regular job activities. We are developing a just-in-time training system called PHelpS (Peer Help System) which can select peer helpers with whom the worker can interact. User modelling is central in the PHelpS system. For each worker, a user model is kept containing several kinds of information about the worker, in particular a knowledge profile of how well they can carry out various specific tasks. These user models permit the system to select a knowledgeable, available, and appropriate set of helpers if a worker signals that he or she needs help in carrying out a particular task. Many interesting user modelling issues arise in this work, most importantly employing the same user model in multiple ways, making the user models inspectable by a variety of users, doing knowledge-based matching and retrieval, and maintaining the accuracy of the user model over time. There are several social issues that this research has also exposed.

Keywords

User Model Constraint Solver Student Modelling Task Step Reciprocal Teaching 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bull, S., Brna, P., and Pain, H. (1995). Extending the scope of the student model. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 5:45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Constant, D., Sproull, L., and Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science 7(2): 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Corbett, A. T., and Anderson, J. R. (1995). Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 4:253–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., and O’Malley, C. (1995). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In Reimann, P., and Spada, H., eds., Learning in Humans and Machines. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  5. Greer, J. E., and McCalla, G. I. (1994). Student Modelling. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Grosz, B. J., and Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Journal of Computational Linguistics 175–204.Google Scholar
  7. Hoppe, H. U. (1995). The use of multiple student modeling to parameterize group learning. In Artificial Intelligence in Education: Proceedings of AI-ED 95, AACE, 234–241.Google Scholar
  8. Huang, X., McCalla, G. I., Greer, J. E., and Neufeld, E. (1991). Revising deductive knowledge and stereotypical knowledge in a student model. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 1(1):87–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kobsa, A., and Wahlster, W. (1989). User Models in Dialog Systems. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. McCalla, G. I., and Greer, J. E. (1994). Granularity-based reasoning and belief revision in student models. In Student Modelling. 39–62.Google Scholar
  11. Paiva, A., Self, J., and Hartley, R. (1994). On the dynamics of learner models. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 163–167.Google Scholar
  12. Paiva, A., Self, J., and Hartley, R. (1995). Externalising learner models. In Artificial Intelligence in Education: Proceedings of Al-ED 95, AACE, 509–516.Google Scholar
  13. Palincsar, A. S., and Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1(2): 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Self, J. A. (1990). Bypassing the intractable problem of student modelling. In Frasson, C., and Gauthier, G., eds., Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 107–123.Google Scholar
  15. Shepherd, A. (1995). Task analysis. In Monk, A. F., and Gilbert, G. N., eds., Perspectives on HCI: Diverse Approaches. London: Academic Press. 145–174.Google Scholar
  16. Vassileva, J. (1996). A task-centered approach for user modeling in a hypermedia office documentation system. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 6:185–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jason A. Collins
    • 1
  • Jim E. Greer
    • 1
  • Vive S. Kumar
    • 1
  • Gordon I. McCalla
    • 1
  • Paul Meagher
    • 1
  • Ray Tkatch
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  2. 2.Regional Psychiatric Centre (Prairies)Correctional Services CanadaSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations