From Small Seeds Grow Fruitful Trees: How the PHelpS Peer Help System Stimulated a Diverse and Innovative Research Agenda over 15 Years



PHelpS was a system that helped Correctional Service Canada (CSC) workers to find appropriate helpers among their peers when they were encountering problems while interacting with the CSC database. This seemingly simple system had substantial, and surprising, ramifications. Over time it transformed each of our perspectives as to the issues facing AIED. In this paper we reflect on the influence of the PHelpS peer help system on our subsequent research agenda as well as some of the broader influences of our work. In particular, we discuss a number of research projects arising out of PHelpS directly or indirectly, including the I-Help (aka iHelp) system, a peer help system that has been widely deployed in university courses; a distributed multi-agent architecture for peer help systems that uses fragmented learner modelling to support its activities; the active user modelling paradigm which views “learner model” as a computation not a knowledge structure; the ecological approach, a general architecture for learning systems in which patterns mined from learner interactions with learning objects inform pedagogical decisions; investigations, especially into privacy and reputation, arising from the large scale deployment of iHelp supported by evidence mined from iHelp data; and research into novel affective and social motivation techniques. We conclude by discussing the implications of the common perspective that has emerged from these interrelated research projects. This perspective views the goal of learning technology design to be to track learners as they carry out authentic activities, to deeply understand these learners and their learning context, and to provide just in time support for their learning.


Peer help Active learner modeling Open learner modeling Ecological approach Privacy Reputation Motivation Affect Educational data mining Agent based learning architectures Simulation Scalability 


  1. Anwar, M., & Greer, J. E. (2012). Facilitating trust in privacy-preserving E-learning environments. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies., 5(1), 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandara I., Ioras F. & MaherI K. (2014). Cyber Security Concerns in E-Learning Education. In Proceedings of ICERI2014 Conference, 17th-19th November, 7 p.Google Scholar
  3. Beale, R., & Creed, C. (2009). Affective interaction: how emotional agents affect users. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67(9), 755–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bishop A. S., Greer J.E. & Cooke J.E. (1997). The Co-operative Peer Response System: CPR for Students. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 1997, AACE, June, 172–178.Google Scholar
  5. Boukerch, A., Xu, L., & EL-Khatib, K. (2007). Trust-based security for wireless ad hoc and sensor networks. Computer Communications, 30, 2413–2427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breban S. & Vassileva, J. (2002). Using Inter-Agent Trust Relationships for Efficient Coalition Formation, R. Cohen & B. Spencer (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th Canadian Conference on AI, Calgary, 28–30 May, 2002, Springer Verlag LNAI 2338, 221–236.Google Scholar
  7. Bretzke, H., & Vassileva, J. (2003). Motivating cooperation in peer to peer networks, User Modeling UM03, Johnstown, PA, June. Springer Verlag LNCS, 2702, 218–227.Google Scholar
  8. Brooks C., Winter M., Greer J.E. & McCalla G.I. (2004). The massive user modelling system (MUMS), 7th. International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS-04), Maceió, Brazil, August 2004, 635–645.Google Scholar
  9. Brooks, C., Bateman, S., McCalla, G. I., & Greer, J. E. (2006). Applying the agent metaphor to learning content management systems and learning object repositories, 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS-06). Taiwan, June: Jhongli, 808–810.Google Scholar
  10. Brooks, C., Greer, J. E., & Parchoma, G. (2007). Understanding learning communities, Workshop on Assessment of Group and Individual Learnng Through Intelligent Visualization, at AIED 2007, California, 6 p.Google Scholar
  11. Brooks C., Bateman S., Greer J.E. & McCalla G.I. (2009). Lessons learned using social and semantic web technologies for E-learning, Chapter in Semantic Web technologies for e-learning, Dicheva, Mizoguchi, Greer eds. Amsterdam, IOS Press, 262–280.Google Scholar
  12. Bull, S., & Kay, J. (2010). Open learner models. Berlin Heidelberg: In Advances in Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer, 301–322.Google Scholar
  13. Bull, S., & Pain, H. (1995). Did I say what I think I said, and do you agree with me?: inspecting and questioning the student model. DAI Research Paper: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  14. Bull S., Greer J.E., McCalla G.I. & Kettel L. (2001). User modelling in I-Help: what, why, when and how, 8th International Conference on User Modeling (UM 2001), Sonthofen, Germany, 117–126.Google Scholar
  15. Carmagnola, F., Cena, F., & Gena, C. (2011). User model interoperability: a survey. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 21(3), 285–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carolan, B. V. (2013). Social Network Analysis and Education: Theory. Methods & Applications: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, 344 p.Google Scholar
  17. Champaign J., Zhang J. & Cohen R. (2011). Coping with poor advice from peers in peer-based intelligent tutoring: the case of avoiding bad annotations of learning objects. User Modeling, Adaption and Personalization, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 38–49.Google Scholar
  18. Chan, T. W. (1996). Learning companion systems, social learning systems, and the global social learning club. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 7(2), 125–159.Google Scholar
  19. Cheng, R., & Vassileva, J. (2006). Design and evaluation of an adaptive incentive mechanism for sustained educational online communities. User Modelling and User-Adapted Interaction, 16(2/3), 321–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Corradini, A., Mehta, M., Bernsen, N., & Charfuelan, M. (2005). Animating an interactive conversational character for an educational game system. Proceedings Intelligent User Interfaces IUI, 05, 183–190.Google Scholar
  21. Deterding S., Sicart M., Nacke L., O’Hara K. & Dixon D. (2011). Gamification. Using Game-Design Elements in Non-Gaming Contexts. Proceedings of CHI 11, ACM, 2425–2428.
  22. Dimitrova, V., Self, J., & Brna, P. (1999). The interactive maintenance of open learner models, proc. In 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Le Mans, France 405–412.Google Scholar
  23. Dimitrova V., McCalla G.I. & Bull S. (2007). Guest editors, special issue on open learner modelling of the International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 17, 2 and 17, 3, April and July 2007.Google Scholar
  24. Dolog P & Schäfer M (2005). A Framework for Browsing, Manipulating and Maintaining Interoperable Learner Profiles. Proc. User Modeling 2005, Springer, 397–401.Google Scholar
  25. Driver, C., & Clarke, S. (2008). An application framework for mobile, context-aware trails. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 4, 719–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Endriss U. (2006). Monotonic Concession Protocols for Multilateral Negotiation. Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems AAMAS06, 392–299.Google Scholar
  27. Erickson G., Frost S., Bateman S. & McCalla G.I. (2013). Using the Ecological Approach to Create Simulations of Learning Environments. Proceedings of 16th Int. Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED 2013), Memphis, July, 411–420.Google Scholar
  28. Farzan, R., & Brusilovsky, P. (2011). Encouraging user participation in a course recommender system: an impact on user behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 276–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Farzan R., DiMicco J.M., Millen D. R., Dugan C., Geyer W. & Brownholtz E.A. (2008). Results from deploying a participation incentive mechanism within the enterprise. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing System 2008s, 563-572.Google Scholar
  30. Frost, S., & McCalla, G. I. (2013). Exploring through simulation the effects of peer impact on learning, AIED workshop on simulated learners, part 4. In Proceedings of the workshops at the 16th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIEDWS 2013), Vol 1009, Memphis, TN, July, 21–30.Google Scholar
  31. Frost S. & McCalla G. I. (2015). Exploring Through Simulation an Instructional Planner for Dynamic Open Ended Learning Environments. Proc. 17th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED 2015), Madrid, Spain, 4 p.Google Scholar
  32. Greer, J. E., McCalla, G. I., Collins, J., Kumar, V., Meagher, P., & Vassileva, J. (1998a). Supporting peer help and collaboration in distributed workplace environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9, 159–177.Google Scholar
  33. Greer J.E., McCalla G.I., Cooke J.E., Collins J., Kumar V., Bishop A. & Vassileva J. (1998b). The Intelligent helpdesk: Supporting Peer-Help in a University Course. Proc. Intelligent Tutoring Systems Conference (ITS 1998), Springer Berlin, 494-503.Google Scholar
  34. Greer J.E., McCalla G.I., Vassileva J., Deters R., Bull S. & Kettel L. (2001). Lessons Learned in Deploying a Multi-Agent Learning Support System: The I-Help Experience. Proc. of AI in Education Conference AIED 2001, San Antonio, IOS Press: Amsterdam, 410–421.Google Scholar
  35. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Pakkanen, T. (2014). Do persuasive technologies persuade? - a review of empirical studies. In Persuasive Technology: Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume, 8462(2014), 118–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hartley, D., & Mitrovic, A. (2002). Supporting learning by opening the student model. In Proc. 6th international conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 2363 (pp. 453–462).Google Scholar
  37. Heckmann, D. (2006). Ubiquitous user modeling. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 268 p.Google Scholar
  38. Hsiao, I. H., Bakalov, F., Brusilovsky, P., & König-Ries, B. (2011). Open social student modeling: visualizing student models with parallel introspective views. In Proc. 19th International Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, Springer 171–182.Google Scholar
  39. IMS Global Learning Consortium (2015). Learning Measurement for Analytics Whitepaper,, 12 p.
  40. Kapp, K. M. (2012). The Gamification of Education. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, 336 p.Google Scholar
  41. Kay J. (2000). Stereotypes, Student Models and Scrutability. Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 19–30.Google Scholar
  42. Kay, J. (2008). Lifelong learner modeling for lifelong personalized pervasive learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 1(4), 215–228.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  43. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. (2006). A social-cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research & Development, 54(6), 569–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kobsa A. (2007). Generic User Modeling Systems. The Adaptive Web. LNCS 4321, Springer, 136–154.Google Scholar
  45. Kumar, V., McCalla, G. I., & Greer, J. E. (1999). Helping the peer helper. In Proc. 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Le Mans, France, IOS 325–332.Google Scholar
  46. Lelei E. & McCalla G.I. (2015). Using Simulation to Explore Reciprocal Help Seeking in a Lifelong Learning Context. Int. J. of Business Process Integration and Management, 7 (3), Inderscience, 228–246.Google Scholar
  47. Liu, K., Bhaduri, K., Das, K., Nguyen, P., & Kargupta, H. (2006). Client-side web mining for community formation in peer-to-peer environments. Proc. WebKDD 2006. SIGKDD Explorations, 8(2), 11–20.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Manouselis N., Drachsler H., Vuorikari R., Hummel H. & Koper R. (2011). Recommender systems in technology enhanced learning. In Recommender Systems Handbook. Springer, 387-415Google Scholar
  49. Mao Y., Vassileva J. & Grassmann W. (2007). A System Dynamics Approach to Study Virtual Communities, in Proc. IEEE HICSS07 Mini-Track on Virtual Communities. Big Island, Hawaii, January, 187a.Google Scholar
  50. Matsuda N., Cohen W.W., Sewall J., Lacerda G., & Koedinger K.R. (2007). Predicting Students Performance with SimStudent that Learns Cognitive Skills from Observation, Proc. Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Marina del Rey, 467–476.Google Scholar
  51. McCalla, G. I. (2000). The fragmentation of culture, learning, teaching and technology: implications for the artificial intelligence in education research agenda in 2010. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11(2), 177–196..Google Scholar
  52. McCalla G.I. (2004). The Ecological Approach to the Design of E-Learning Environments: Purpose-based Capture and Use of Information about Learners. J. of Interactive Media in Education (JIME), 2004 (1), 18 p. []
  53. McCalla G.I., Vassileva J., Greer J.E. & Bull S. (2000). Active Learner Modelling. Intelligent Tutoring Systems Conference ITS 2000, Montreal, pp. 53-62Google Scholar
  54. Moyaux, T., Chaib-Draa, B., & D’Amours, S. (2006). Supply chain management and multiagent systems: an overview. Studies in Computational Intelligence (SCI), 28, 1–27.Google Scholar
  55. Niu, X., McCalla, G. I., & Vassileva, J. (2004). Purpose-based expert finding in a portfolio management system. Computational Intelligence Journal, 20(4), 548–561.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  56. Nwana, H. (1996). Software agents: an overview. Knowledge Engineering Review, 11(3), 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ogata, H., & Yano, Y. (1999). Combining social networks and collaborative learning in distributed organizations. Proc. EdMedia, 1999, 119–125.Google Scholar
  58. Okonkwo, C., & Vassileva, J. (2001). Affective pedagogical agents and user persuasion. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on human- computer interaction, new Orleans (pp. 397–401).Google Scholar
  59. Orji, R., Vassileva, J., & Mandryk, R. (2014). Modeling the efficacy of persuasive strategies for different gamer types in serious games for health. User Modeling and User Adapted Interaction (UMUAI), 24(5), 453–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Paramythis, A., & Loidl-Reisinger, S. (2004). Adaptive learning environments and e-learning standards. Electronic Journal on e-Learning, 2(1), 181–194.Google Scholar
  61. Pizzato L., Rej T., Chung Th., Koprinska I. & Kay J. (2010). RECON: a reciprocal recommender for online dating, International Conference on Recommender Systems RecSys 2010, September, Barcelona, Spain, 207–214. Google Scholar
  62. Raghavun, K., & Vassileva, J. (2011). Visualizing reciprocity to motivate participation in an online community. In Proc. 5th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies Conference (DEST), IEEE Press (pp. 89–94).Google Scholar
  63. Richards, G., McGreal, R., Hatala, M., & Friesen, N. (2002). The evolution of learning object repository technologies: portals for on-line objects for learning. International Journal of E-Learning and Distance Education, 17(3), 67–79.Google Scholar
  64. Richardson, B.R., & Greer, J.E. (2004). An architecture for identity management. Privacy Security and Trust Conference, Fredericton, August, 103–108.Google Scholar
  65. Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1983). Representation in Memory, Center for Human Memory Technical. Report: University of San Diego, 117 p.Google Scholar
  66. Sahib, Z., & Vassileva, J. (2009). Designing to attract participation in a niche community for women in science and engineering, proc. In Workshop on Social Computing in Education, 1st IEEE International Conference on Social Computing SocialComp 2009. Vancouver: August.Google Scholar
  67. Sun L. & Vassileva J. (2006). Social Visualization Encouraging Participation in Online Communities. Groupware: Design, Implementation, and Use, Proc. 12th International CRIWG Workshop, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4154, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 349–363.Google Scholar
  68. Tang, T. Y., & McCalla, G. I. (2005). Paper Annotations with Learner Models, 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education AIED-05 (pp. 654–661). Amsterdam: July.Google Scholar
  69. Vail A., Boyer K., Wiebe E. & Lester J. (2015). The Mars and Venus Effect: The Influence of User Gender on the Effectiveness of Adaptive Task Support. Proc. User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, UMAP2015, July, Dublin, 265–276.Google Scholar
  70. VanLehn, K., Ohlsson, S., & Nason, R. (1994). Applications of simulated students: an exploration. Int. J. of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 5, 135–175.Google Scholar
  71. Vassileva, J. (1998). Goal-based autonomous social agents supporting adaptation and teaching in a distributed environment, Intelligent Tutoring Systems ITS 1998, San Antonio, LNCS 1452 (pp. 564–573). Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  72. Vassileva J. (2001). Distributed user modelling for universal information access, Proc. of the 9th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. New Orleans, Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, N.J., 122–126.Google Scholar
  73. Vassileva, J. (2002). Supporting peer-to-peer user communities. In R. Meersman, Z. Tari, et al. (Eds.), On the move to meaningful internet systems 2002: CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE, Coordinated International Conferences Proceedings, Irvine, LNCS 2519. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 230–247.Google Scholar
  74. Vassileva, J. (2004). Harnessing P2P power in the classroom, Intelligent Tutoring Systems Conference ITS 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3220, 305–314.Google Scholar
  75. Vassileva, J. (2008). Towards social learning environments. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 1(4), 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vassileva, J. (2012). Motivating participation in social computing applications: a user modeling perspective. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 22(1–2), 177–201.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  77. Vassileva J. & Sun L. (2007). Using Community Visualization to Stimulate Participation in Online Communities. e-Service Journal, 6, 1, 3–40.Google Scholar
  78. Vassileva J., Greer J.E., McCalla G.I., Deters R., Zapata D., Mudgal C. & Grant S. (1999). A Multi-Agent Approach to the Design of Peer-Help Environments, in Proc. Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence in Education AIED 1999, Le mans, France, 38-45.Google Scholar
  79. Vassileva J., Deters R., Greer J.E., McCalla G.I., Bull S. & Kettel L. (2001). Lessons from Deploying I-Help. Workshop on Multi-Agent Architectures for Distributed Learning Environments at AIED 2001. San Antonio, 3–11.Google Scholar
  80. Vassileva, J., McCalla, G. I., & Greer, J. E. (2003). Multi-agent multi-user modeling. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 13(1), 179–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Viviani, M., Bennani, N., & Egyed-Zsigmond, E. (2010). A survey on user modeling in multi-application environments. Proc. IEEE Advances in Human-Oriented and Personalized Mechanisms, Technologies and Services (CENTRIC), 111–116.Google Scholar
  82. Wang, Y., & Vassileva, J. (2003). Bayesian network-based trust model, proc. In of IEEE/WIC International Conference on Web intelligence (WI 2003), Halifax, Canada (pp. 372–378).Google Scholar
  83. Wang Y. & Vassileva J. (2004). Trust-based community formation in peer-to-peer file sharing networks, Proc. of IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI 2004), Beijing, 341–348.Google Scholar
  84. Webster A.S. & Vassileva J. (2006). Visualizing Personal Relations in Online Communities, in Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Web-Based Systems, Dublin, Ireland, June, Springer LNCS 4018, 223–233.Google Scholar
  85. Winoto P., McCalla G.I. & Vassileva J. (2002). An Extended Alternating-Offers Bargaining Protocol for Automated Negotiation in Multi-Agent Systems. Proc. On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2002: CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE. 179-194.Google Scholar
  86. Winoto, P., McCalla, G. I., & Vassileva, J. (2005). Non-monotonic-offers bargaining protocol. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(1), 45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Yee, N., Bailenson, J., & Rickertsen, K. (2007). A meta-analysIn Recommender Systems Handbook. Springer In Recommender Systems Handbook. Springer is of the impact of the inclusion and realism of human-like faces on user experiences in interfaces. Proc. of CHI, 2007, 1–10.Google Scholar
  88. Yimam-Said, D., & Kobsa, A. (2003). Expert-finding systems for organizations: problem and domain analysis and the DEMOIR approach. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 13(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Yu, H. T., Liu, C. R., & Zhang, F. Z. (2011). Reciprocal recommendation algorithm for the field of recruitment. Journal of Information & Computational Science, 8(16), 4061–4068.Google Scholar
  90. Zhou, R., & Hwang, K. (2007). PowerTrust: a robust and scalable reputation system for trusted peer-to-peer computing. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 18(4), 460–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Artificial Intelligence in Education Society 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ARIES Laboratory, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations