SMART: Student modeling approach for responsive tutoring

This paper describes a new student modeling paradigm called SMART. The premise is that a single, principled approach to student modeling, involving both theoretical and empirical methods, can render automated instruction more efficacious across a broad array of instructional domains. After defining key terms and discussing limitations to previous student modeling paradigms, I describe the SMART approach, as embedded within a statistics tutor called Stat Lady (Shute and Gluck, 1994). SMART works in conjunction with a tutor design where low-level knowledge and skills (i.e., curricular elements) are identified and separated into three main outcome types. Throughout the tutor, curricular elements with values below a pre-set mastery criterion are instructed, evaluated, and remediated, if necessary. The diagnostic part of the student model is driven by a series of regression equations based on the level of assistance the computer gives each person, per curriculum element. Remediation on a given element occurs when a subject fails to achieve mastery during assessment, which follows instruction. Remediation is precise because each element knows its location within the tutor where it is instructed and assessed. I end with a summary of results from two controlled evaluations of SMART examining the following research issues: (a) diagnostic validity, (b) individual differences in learning from Stat Lady, (c) affective perceptions of the tutorial experience, and (d) contributions of mastery and remediation to learning outcome and efficiency. Comments about related and future research with this paradigm are offered.

[1]  Valerie J. Shute,et al.  Taxonomy of Learning Skills , 1988 .

[2]  Lisa A. Gawlick-Grendell,et al.  An experiential system for learning probability: Stat Lady description and evaluation , 1996 .

[3]  V. Shute,et al.  Cognitive Approaches To Automated Instruction , 1992 .

[4]  Valerie J. Shute,et al.  Learning Processes and Learning Outcomes. , 1992 .

[5]  Allen Munro Authoring Interactive Graphical Models for Instruction , 1993 .

[6]  Dan J. Woltz,et al.  An investigation of the role of working memory in procedural skill acquisition. , 1988 .

[7]  Barbara Y. White,et al.  Qualitative models and intelligent learning environments , 1987 .

[8]  Patrick C. Kyllonen,et al.  Individual differences in associative learning and forgetting , 1988 .

[9]  L. Cronbach,et al.  Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions , 1977 .

[10]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  A Framework for Learner Modelling , 1992, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[11]  Patrick C. Kyllonen,et al.  Cognitive Modeling of Learning Abilities: A Status Report of LAMP (Learning Abilities Measurement Program). , 1988 .

[12]  R. Glaser Education and Thinking: The Role of Knowledge. , 1984 .

[13]  Derek Sleeman,et al.  Pixie: a shell for developing intelligent tutoring systems , 1987 .

[14]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Rules of the Mind , 1993 .

[15]  Valerie J. Shute,et al.  What does the computer contribute to learning , 1994 .

[16]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and Automatic Human Information Processing: 1. Detection, Search, and Attention. , 1977 .

[17]  Valerie J. Shute,et al.  Modeling Individual Differences in Programming Skill Acquisition , 1990 .

[18]  Judith D. Wilson,et al.  Artificial Intelligence and Tutoring Systems , 1990 .

[19]  William J. Clancey Intelligent Tutoring Systerns: A Tutorial Survey , 1986 .

[20]  Douglas M. Towne Teaching and Learning Diagnostic Skills in a Simulation Environment , 1993 .

[21]  P. Ackerman Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: Cognitive abilities and information processing. , 1988 .

[22]  Valerie J. Shute,et al.  Who is Likely to Acquire Programming Skills? , 1991 .

[23]  Richard A. Carlson,et al.  Practice Schedules and the Use of Component Skills in Problem Solving , 1990 .

[24]  R. Snow Toward Assessment of Cognitive and Conative Structures in Learning , 1989 .

[25]  Valerie J. Shute,et al.  A Comparison of Learning Environments: All That Glitters , 1992 .

[26]  P. Ackerman Predicting individual differences in complex skill acquisition: dynamics of ability determinants. , 1992, The Journal of applied psychology.

[27]  P. Alexander,et al.  The Interaction of Domain-Specific and Strategic Knowledge in Academic Performance , 1988 .

[28]  Chen-Lin C. Kulik,et al.  Effectiveness of Computer-Based Education in Secondary Schools. , 1985 .

[29]  K. VanLehn Mind Bugs: The Origins of Procedural Misconceptions , 1990 .

[30]  Valerie J. Shute,et al.  Principles for Evaluating Intelligent Tutoring Systems. , 1993 .

[31]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Skill Acquisition : Compilation of Weak-Method Problem Solutions , 2004 .

[32]  Anthony E. Kelly,et al.  Studies of Diagnosis and Remediation with High School Algebra Students , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[33]  Lowe Bryan William,et al.  Studies on the telegraphic language: The acquisition of a hierarchy of habits. , 1899 .