Involving the Learner in Diagnosis – Potentials and Problems

A crucial issue in building adaptive systems is maintaining models of users, which allows computers to tailor their behaviour to the needs of particular individuals. When a computer system has educational goals, modelling a learner’s cognitive capacity is essential for the system to provide individualised instruction and adaptive interaction (Self, 1999). Allowing the user to have some control over the diagnostic component and to inspect the model which the system has made of him has been suggested as one of the potential techniques in user modelling (Kobsa, 1990) and building adaptive systems (Brusilovsky, 1996). In the area of student modelling, such an approach is favourable not only because it allows modelling of the dynamics of student behaviour (Self, 1990) but also because it has potential educational gains in providing means for reflective learning (Bull 1997). A recent trend in student modelling focuses on building open and inspectable student models (see Morales, Pain, Bull and Kay, 1999). These projects reveal new computational aspects that need further investigation, such as maintaining a diagnostic interaction with/between human agents, externalising portions of the learner model and maintaining different views about the learner model. The aim of this paper is to present a comparative study of learner modelling systems that involve the learner in diagnosis and open the learner model for inspection, change and discussion. We outline potentials of this approach and refer to some problems that need further investigation. As far as the interactive diagnosis concerns student modelling in intelligent educational systems, this issue is briefly outlined in section 2. The following section discusses the approach where diagnostic systems involve learners in diagnosis. A review of research projects that apply this approach is presented in section 4. Finally, a summary that discusses some achievements and open issues is given.

[1]  John Self.  Bypassing the intractable problem of student modelling , 1988 .

[2]  Raymund Sison,et al.  Student Modeling and Machine Learning , 1998 .

[3]  Paul Brna,et al.  Maintaining a Jointly Constructed Student Model , 2000, AIMSA.

[4]  J. Dewey.  How we think : a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process , 1934 .

[5]  Paul Brna,et al.  The Missing Peer , Artificial Peers and the Enhancement of Human-Human Collaborative Student Modelling , 1999 .

[6]  Diana Laurillard,et al.  Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology , 1993 .

[7]  Julita Vassileva,et al.  Supporting Peer Help and Collaboration in Distributed Workplace Environments , 1998 .

[8]  A. E. Blandford.  Intelligent help: Communicating with knowledge-based systems , 1993 .

[9]  Bert Bredeweg,et al.  Student Modelling: The Key to Individualized Knowledge-Based Instruction , 2010, NATO ASI Series.

[10]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  Designing Human-Computer Collaborative Learning , 1995 .

[11]  Allan Collins,et al.  Design Issues for Learning Environments. , 1993 .

[12]  R. Pilkington.  Analysing Educational Dialogue Interaction: Towards Models that Support Learning , 2001 .

[13]  Paul Brna,et al.  Supporting the use of external representation in problem solving: the need for flexible learning environments , 1995 .

[14]  Paul Brna,et al.  Clarissa: A Laboratory for the Modelling of Collaboration , 2000 .

[15]  John Self,et al.  The defining characteristics of intelligent tutoring systems research: ITSs care, precisely , 1998 .

[16]  Alfred Kobsa,et al.  Computational Models of Mixed-Initiative Interaction , 2007, Springer Netherlands.

[17]  G. Cumming,et al.  Learner Models in Collaborative Intelligent Educational Systems , 1991 .

[18]  Carlo Tasso,et al.  Truth maintenance techniques for modelling student's behavior , 1995 .

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

[20]  Johanna D. Moore.  Participating in explanatory dialogues , 1994 .

[21]  M. Baker,et al.  Teachers' collaborative interpretations of students' computer-mediated collaborative problem-solving interactions , 1999 .

[22]  M. Baker.  A model for negotiation in teaching-learning dialogues , 1994 .

[23]  John A. Self,et al.  Using Meta-cognitive Conflicts to Support Group Problem Solving , 2000, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[24]  D. Dunn,et al.  Experiential Learning , 2019, High Impact Teaching for Sport and Exercise Psychology Educators.

[25]  Judy Kay,et al.  Learner Know Thyself: Student Models to Give Learner Control and Responsibility , 1997 .

[26]  Vania Dimitrov,et al.  The Interactive Maintenance of Open Learner Models , 1999 .

[27]  Susan Bull,et al.  A Pair of Student Models to Encourage Collaboration , 1997 .

[28]  Anthony Jameson,et al.  User-adaptive systems: An integrative overview , 1999 .

[29]  James A. Moore,et al.  Dialogue-Games: Metacommunication Structures for Natural Language Interaction , 1977, Cogn. Sci..

[30]  Susanne P. Lajoie,et al.  Artificial Intelligence in Education: Open Learning Environments: New Computational Technologies to Support Learning , 1999 .

[31]  Pierre Dillenbourg.  Some technical implications of distributed cognition on the design of interactive learning environments , 1996 .

[32]  J. Frederiksen,et al.  Enabling Students to Construct Theories of Collaborative Inquiry and Reflective Learning: Computer Support for Metacognitive Development , 1999 .

[33]  Yvonne Barnard,et al.  Self-explanations: do we get them from our students , 1996 .

[34]  Susan Bull,et al.  'Do It Yourself' Student Models for Collaborative Student Modelling and Peer Interaction , 1998, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[35]  Carol B. MacKnight,et al.  International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments , 1996, J. Comput. High. Educ..

[36]  Susan Bull.  Collaborative student modelling in foreign language learning , 1996 .