Artificial Intelligence Review

, Volume 7, Issue 3–4, pp 227–240 | Cite as

Student modelling in intelligent tutoring systems

  • Mark Elsom-Cook


Student modelling is a special type of user modelling which is relevant to the adaptability of intelligent tutoring systems. This paper reviews the basic techniques which have been used in student modelling and discusses issues and approaches of current interest. The role of a student model in a tutoring system and methods for representing information about students are discussed. The paper concludes with an overview of some unresolved issues and problems in student modelling.

Key Words

adaptive systems student models intelligent tutoring systems knowledge representation learner based modelling 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, J. R. (1983).The Architecture of Cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  2. Beard, M. H., Lorton, P. V., Searle, B. W. and Atkinson, R. C. (1973). Comparison of Student Performance and Attitude under Three Lesson Selection Strategies in Computer Assisted Instruction. Tech. report 222. Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  3. Bellack, A., Kliebard, H., Hyman, R. and Smith, F. (1966).The Language of the Classroom. Teachers College Press, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, J. S. and Van Lehn, K. (1980). Repair Theory: A Generative Theory of Bugs in Procedural Skills.Cognitive Science 4, 379–426.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, J. S., Burton, R. R., Hausman, C. L., Goldstein, I. P., Huggins, B. and Miller, M. L. (1977). Aspects of a Theory of Automated Student Modelling. Technical report 3549. Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, J. S. and Burton, R. R. (1978). Diagnostic Models for Procedural Bugs in Mathematical Skills.Cognitive Science 2, 155–192.Google Scholar
  7. Burton, R. R. (1982). Diagnosing Bugs in a Simple Procedural Skill. In Sleeman, D. H. and Brown, J. S. (Eds.),Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  8. Burton, R. R. and Brown, J. S. (1976). A Tutoring and Student Modelling Paradigm for Gaming Environments. ACM SIGCUE topics, Vol. 2.Google Scholar
  9. Carbonell, J. R. (1970). Mixed-initiative Man-computer Instructional Dialogues. Tech. report No. 1971. Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. Carr, B. and Goldstein, I. P. (1977). Overlays: A Theory of Modelling for Computer-aided instruction. AI lab memo 406. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  11. Cerri, S., Elsom-Cook, M. T. and Leoncini, M. (1990). TRILL: The Rather Intelligent Little Lisper.Intelligent Tutoring Media 1(1).Google Scholar
  12. Clancey, W. J. (1986). Qualitative Student Models. In Traub, J. al. (Eds.),Annual Review of Computer Science 1, 381–450.Google Scholar
  13. Cumming, G. D. and Self, J. A. (1991). Learner Models in Collaborative Intelligent Educational Systems. In Goodyear, P. (Ed.),Teaching Knowledge and Intelligent Tutoring. Ablex.Google Scholar
  14. Elsom-Cook, M. T. (1988). Guided Discovery Tutoring and Bounded User Modelling. In Self, J. A. (Ed.),Artificial Intelligence and Human Learning. Capman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  15. Elsom-Cook, M. T. (1990). Belief-based Bounded User Modelling. InLearning Technology in the European Communities. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  16. Evertsz, R. and Elsom-Cook, M. T. (1990). Generating Critical Problems in Student Modelling. In Elsom-Cook, M. T. (Ed.),Guided Discovery Tutoring. Paul Chapman, London.Google Scholar
  17. Gilmour, D. and Self, J. (1988). The Application of Machine Learning to Intelligent Tutoring Systems. In Self, J. (Ed.),Artificial Intelligence and Human Learning. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  18. Goldstein, I. P. (1982). The Genetic Graph: A Representation for the Evolution of Procedural Knowledge. In Sleeman, D. H. and Brown, J. S. (Eds.),Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Academic Press, London. Also inInternational Journal of Man-Machine Studies 11, 51–77.Google Scholar
  19. Hennessy, S. (1990). Why Bugs Are Not Enough. In Elsom-Cook, M. (Ed.),Guided Discovery Tutoring. Paul Chapman, London.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, W. L. (1986).Intention-Based Diagnosis of Novices Programming Errors. Pitman, London.Google Scholar
  21. Laird, J. E., Newell, A. and Rosenbloom, P. S. (1987). SOAR: An Architecture for General Intelligence.Artificial Intelligence 33.Google Scholar
  22. Langley, P. and Ohlsson, S. (1984). Automated Cognitive Modelling. InProceedings of AAAI — 84, pp. 193–197.Google Scholar
  23. Mitchell, T. (1978). Version Spaces: An Approach to Concept Learning. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  24. Ohlsson, S. (1985). Some Principles of Intelligent Tutoring.Instructional Science 14(3–4), 293–326. Also in Lawler, R. and Yazdani, M. (Eds.),Artificial Intelligence and Education. Ablex, Norwood, N.J.Google Scholar
  25. Payne, S. J. and Squibb, H. R. (1986). Understanding Algebra Errors: The Psychological Status of Mal-Rules. Tech. report no. 43. Centre for Research on Computers and Learning, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  26. Reiser, B. J., Anderson, J. R. and Farrell, R. G. (1985). Dynamic Student Modelling in an Intelligent Tutor for Lisp Programming.Proceedings of IJCAI 1985. Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  27. Rich, E. A. (1979). User Modelling via Stereotypes.Cognitive Science 3, 329–354.Google Scholar
  28. Self, J. A. (1974). Student Models in Computer-aided Instruction.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 6, 261–276.Google Scholar
  29. Self, J. A. (1979). Student Models and Artifical Intelligence.Computers and Education 3, 309–312.Google Scholar
  30. Self, J. A. (1986). The Application of Machine Learning to Student Modelling.Instructional Science 14, 327–338.Google Scholar
  31. Self, J. A. (1987). User Modelling in Open Learning Systems. In Whiting, J. and Bell, D. (Eds.),Tutoring in Monitoring Facilities in European Open Learning. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  32. Self, J. A. (1988a). Knowledge, Belief and User Modelling. In O'Shea, T. and Sgurev, V. (Eds.),Artifical Intelligence III: Methodology, Systems, Applications. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  33. Self, J. A. (1988b). Student Models — What User Are They?. In Ercoli, P. and Lewis, R. E. (Eds.),Artifical Intelligence Tools in Education. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  34. Self, J. A. (1988c). The Use of Belief Systems for Student Modelling. Technical report. Centre for Research on Computers and Learning, University of Lancaster.Google Scholar
  35. Self, J. A. (1989). The Case for Formalizing Student Models (and Intelligent Tutoring Systems Generally).Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on AI and Education. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  36. Self, J. A. (1990). Bypassing the Intractable Problem of Student Modelling. In Frasson, C. and Gauthier, G. (Eds.),Intelligent Tutoring Systems: At the Crossroads of AI and Education. Ablex.Google Scholar
  37. Self, J. A. (1991). Formal Approaches to Student Modelling. In McCalla, G. and Greer, J. (Eds.),Student Modelling. Springer-Verlag (to appear).Google Scholar
  38. Sleeman, D. (1983). Inferring Student Models for Intelligent Computer-Aided Instruction. In Michalski, R. Carbonell, J. and Mitchell, T. (Eds.),Machine Learning. Tioga Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  39. Stevens, A. L. and Collins, A. (1979). Misconceptions in Students Understanding.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 11, 145–156. Also in Sleeman, D. and Brown, J. S. (Eds.),Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  40. Van Lehn, K. (1982). Bugs Are Not Enough: Empirical Studies of Bugs, Impasses and Repairs in Procedural Skills.Journal of Mathematical Behaviour 3, 3–72.Google Scholar
  41. Van Lehn, K. (1983a). Felicity Conditions for Human Skill Acquisition: Validating an AI-based Theory. Tech. Rep. No. C15-21. Xerox Research Center, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
  42. Van Lehn, K. (1983b). On the Representation of Procedures in Repair Theory. In Ginsburg, H. P. (Ed.),The Development of Mathematical Thinking. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  43. Van Lehn, K. (1988). Towards a Theory of Impasse-driven Learning. In Mandl, H. and Lesgold, A. (Eds.),Learning Issues for Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  44. Van Lehn, K. (1990).Mind Bugs: The Origin of Procedural Misconceptions. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  45. Van Lehn, K. (1991). Two Pseudo-students: Applications of Machine Learning to Formative Evaluation. In Lewis, R. and Otsuki, S. (Eds.),Advanced Research on Computers in Education. Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. Van Lehn, K. and Garlick, S. (1987). Cirrus: An Automated Protocol Analysis Tool.Proceedings of the Fourth Machine Learning Workshop. Morgan Kaufman, Los Altos, CA.Google Scholar
  47. Van Lehn, K., Jones, R. M. and Chi, M. T. H. (1991). Modelling the Self-explanation Effect with Cascade 3. In Hammond, K. and Gentner, D. (Eds.),Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  48. Whitehead, A. N. (1932).The Aims of Education. Benn, London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Elsom-Cook

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations