The Central Importance of Student Modelling to Intelligent Tutoring

Intelligent tutoring systems can be individualized if they are designed to take into account differences between students. The process of doing this is called student modelling. Unfortunately, student modelling is hard, and increasingly researchers are trying to avoid the need. The idea of one-on-one tutoring is taking a back seat to new ideas like collaborative learning, negotiated tutoring, guided discovery tutoring, and situated learning, as well as old ideas like discovery learning. In this paper I will argue two things: first, that Sie new approaches have, if anything, even more need for student modelling than does a one-on-one tutor; and second, that traditional idea of designing for individualized one-on-one interaction is still. I will then consider various ways of tackling the “intractable” student modelling problem, and will conclude with some optimism for the future of student modelling and one-on-one tutoring.

[1]  David A. McAllester.  Truth Maintenance , 1990, AAAI.

[2]  C. Raymond Perrault,et al.  Analyzing Intention in Utterances , 1986, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Tom M. Mitchell,et al.  Generalization as Search , 2002 .

[4]  Gordon I. McCalla,et al.  UMRAO: A Chess Endgame Tutor , 1991, IJCAI.

[5]  Johan de Kleer,et al.  A Qualitative Physics Based on Confluences , 1984, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Barbara Jane Brecht,et al.  Determining the focus of instruction: content planning for intelligent tutoring systems , 1992 .

[7]  Martha C. Polson,et al.  Foundations of intelligent tutoring systems , 1988 .

[8]  Harold Abelson,et al.  Boxer: a reconstructible computational medium , 1986, CACM.

[9]  Mark Elsom-Cook.  Guided discovery tutoring : a framework for ICAI research , 1990 .

[10]  João P. Martins.  Computational issues in belief revision , 1989, The Logic of Theory Change.

[11]  S. Ramani,et al.  Knowledge Based Computer Systems , 1990, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[12]  William J. Clancey,et al.  Qualitative student models , 1986 .

[13]  John R. Anderson,et al.  The Geometry Tutor , 1985, IJCAI.

[14]  C. Raymond Perrault,et al.  Analyzing Intention in Dialogues , 1978 .

[15]  B. Bloom,et al.  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , 1966 .

[16]  Thomas J. Shuell,et al.  Designing Instructional Computing Systems for Meaningful Learning , 1992 .

[17]  Elliot Soloway,et al.  PROUST: An automatic debugger for Pascal programs , 1985 .

[18]  Gordon I. McCalla,et al.  The design of the SCENT automated advisor , 1986, Comput. Intell..

[19]  John Seely Brown,et al.  Process versus Product: A Perspective on Tools for Communal and Informal Electronic Learning , 1985 .

[20]  Valerie J. Shute,et al.  A Large-Scale Evaluation of an Intelligent Discovery World: Smithtown , 1990, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[21]  SH Bhuiyan,et al.  Mental Models of Recursion and Their Use in the SCENT Programming Advisor , 1989, KBCS.

[22]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Dynamic Student Modelling in an Intelligent Tutor for LISP Programming , 1985, IJCAI.

[23]  William S. Havens,et al.  Structuring Domain Knowledge For Visual Perception , 1981, IJCAI.

[24]  Angus McIntyre,et al.  Nobile: User Model Acquisition in a Natural Laboratory , 1992 .

[25]  B. Bloom.  The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring , 1984 .

[26]  John Seely Brown,et al.  An Investigation of Computer Coaching for Informal Learning Activities. , 1978 .

[27]  Seymour Papert,et al.  Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas , 1981 .

[28]  Gordon I. McCalla,et al.  A Computational Framework for Granularity and its Application to Educational Diagnosis , 1989, IJCAI.

[29]  Johan de Kleer,et al.  An Assumption-Based TMS , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[30]  John R. Anderson.  The Architecture of Cognition , 1983 .

[31]  J. Dekleer.  An assumption-based TMS , 1986 .

[32]  Kurt VanLehn,et al.  Repair Theory: A Generative Theory of Bugs in Procedural Skills , 1980, Cogn. Sci..

[33]  John Self.  Artificial Intelligence and Human Learning: Intelligent Computer-Aided Instruction , 1988 .

[34]  Valerie J. Shute,et al.  Rose garden promises of intelligent tutoring systems: Blossom or thorn , 1991 .

[35]  Joseph Psotka,et al.  Intelligent tutoring systems : lessons learned , 1988 .

[36]  Philip H. Winne,et al.  Theories of Instruction and of Intelligence for Designing Artificially Intelligent Tutoring Systems , 1989 .

[37]  Ira P. Goldstein,et al.  The genetic graph: a representation for the evolution of procedural knowledge , 1979 .

[38]  John Seely Brown,et al.  Diagnostic Models for Procedural Bugs in Basic Mathematical Skills , 1978, Cogn. Sci..

[39]  Kurt VanLehn,et al.  Learning one Subprocedure per Lesson , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[40]  Jack A. Chambers,et al.  Computer assisted instruction: current trends and critical issues , 1980, CACM.

[41]  Claude Frasson,et al.  Intelligent Tutoring Systems: At the Crossroads of Artificial Intelligence and Education , 1990 .

[42]  John A. Self,et al.  Student Models in Computer-Aided Instruction , 1974, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..