Learner Control

  • Judy Kay
Article

Abstract

This paper describes major trends in learner-adapted teaching systems towards greater learner control over the learning process. In the early teaching systems, the goal was to build a clever teacher able to communicate knowledge to the individual student. Recent and emerging work focuses on the learner exploring, designing, constructing, making sense and using adaptive systems as tools. Correspondingly, systems are being built to give the learner greater responsibility and control over all aspects of the learning, and especially over the learner model which is at the core of user-adaptation. A parallel trend is the growing acknowledgement of the importance of the learner's social context. Systems are increasingly being designed for learners working in groups of real or simulated peers. This paper discusses several elements of the shift to greater learner control, with a focus on the implications for learner modelling. The computer may offer the learner a choice of learning tools and companion learners, on-demand learning of various types, control over the elements of the systems and the possibility of controlling the amount of control. Learner control offers promising possibilities for improved learning. At the same time, there are pragmatic issues for achieving the benefits. The paper discusses three of these: the need to evaluate the effectiveness of the emergent learner-controlled systems; problems with learner control; and the need for interoperable and reusable components.

learner model student model ITS CSCL 

References

  1. Andriessen, J. and Sandberg, J.: 1999, Where is education heading and how about AI?, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10, 130-150.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, M.: 1994, A model for negotiation in teaching-learning dialogues, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 5, 2, 199-254.Google Scholar
  3. Boud, D. and Feletti, G.: 1991, The challenge of problembased learning, Kogan Page, London.Google Scholar
  4. Boyle, C. and Encarnacion, A.O.: 1994, MetaDoc: an adaptive hypertext reading system, User Models and User Adapted Interaction, 4(1), 1-20.Google Scholar
  5. Browne, D., Totterdell, P. and Norman, M.: 1990, Adaptive User Interfaces, Academic Press, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  6. Bull, S. and Pain, H.: 1995a, Did I say what I think I said, and do you agree with me?: inspecting and questioning the Student Model, Proceedings of World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, AACE, Washington DC, USA, pp. 501-508.Google Scholar
  7. Bull, S., Brna, P. and Pain, H.: 1995b, Extending the scope of the student model, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 5(1), 44-65.Google Scholar
  8. Bull, S. and Brna, P.: 1997a, What does Susan know that Paul doesn't? (and vice-versa): contributing to each other's student model, International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, IOS Press, pp. 568-570.Google Scholar
  9. Bull, S.: 1997b, A multiple student and user modelling system for peer interaction, Proceedings of ABIS97, Universität Saarbrücken, pp. 61-71.Google Scholar
  10. Burton, R.R. and Brown, J.S.: 1979, An investigation of computer coaching for informal learning activities, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 11, 5-24.Google Scholar
  11. Carbonaro, A., Maniezzo, V., Roccietti, M. and Aslomoni, P.: 1995, Modeling the student in Pitagora 2.0, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 4(4), 233-251.Google Scholar
  12. Chan, T.W. and Baskin, A.B.: 1990, Learning Companion Systems, Intelligent Tutoring systems: at the crossroads of Artificial Intelligence and Education, Ablex.Google Scholar
  13. Chan, T.W.: 1996, Learning companion systems, social learning systems, and the global social learning club, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 7, 125-159.Google Scholar
  14. Chin, D.: 2001, Empirical evaluation of user models and user-adapted systems, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 11(1–2), 181-194 (this issue).Google Scholar
  15. Collins, J.A., Greer, J.E., Kumar, V.S. McCalla, G.I., Meagher, P. and Tkatch, R.: 1997, Inspectable user models for just-in-time workplace training, In: A. Jameson, C. Paris and C. Tasso (eds.), User Modeling Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference UM97, pp. 327-337, Springer, Chia Laguna, Sardinia, Italy.Google Scholar
  16. Cook, R., Kay, J., Ryan, G. and Thomas, R.C.: 1995, A toolkit for appraising the long term usability of a text editor, Software Quality Journal, Chapman and Hall, London, 4, 131-154.Google Scholar
  17. Corbett, A.T. and Anderson, J.: 1995, Knowledge tracing: modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 4, 253-278.Google Scholar
  18. Crawford, K. and Kay, J.: 1993, Metacognitive processes and learning with intelligent educational systems, In: P. Slezak, T. Caelli and R. Clark (eds.), Perspectives on Cognitive Science, Ablex, pp. 63-77.Google Scholar
  19. Curtis, C.A., Carver, A., Howard, R.A. and Lane, W.D.: 1995, A methodology for active, student controlled learning: motivating our weakest students, In: Proceedings of the 27th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  20. Eliot, C. and Woolf, B.P.: 1995, An adaptive student centred curriculum for an intelligent training system, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 5(1), 67-86.Google Scholar
  21. Fischer, G.: 2001, User modeling in Human-Computer Interaction, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 11(1–2), 65-86 (this issue).Google Scholar
  22. Fischer, G.: 1991, The importance of models in making complex systems comprehensible, In: D. Ackerman and M. Tauber (eds.), Mental Models and Human Computer Communication: Proceedings of the 8th Interdisciplinary Workshop on Informatics and Psychology, Schaeding, Austria, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp. 3-36.Google Scholar
  23. Goodman, B., Soller, A., Linton, F. and Gaimari, R.: 1998, Encouraging student reflection and articulation using a learning companion, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9, 237-255.Google Scholar
  24. Grandbastien, M.: 1999, Teaching expertise is at the core of ITS research, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10, 335-349.Google Scholar
  25. Haller, S. and McRoy, S. and Kobsa, A.: 1999, Computational Models of Mixed-Initiative Interaction. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Henderson, A. and Kyng, M: 1995, From customisable systems to intelligent agents, In: R.M. Baeker, J. Grudin, W. Buxton and S. Greenberg (eds), Readings in Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 783-792, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  27. Hietala, P. and Niemirepo, T.: 1998, The Competence of Learning Companion Agents, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9, 178-192.Google Scholar
  28. Hohl, H., Böcker, H-D. and Gunzenhäuser, R.: 1996, Hypadapter: An Adaptive Hypertext System for Exploratory Learning and Programming, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 6, 12-3.Google Scholar
  29. Holden, S and Kay, J.: 1999 The scrutable user model and beyond, In: R. Morales (ed.), AIED, Artificial Intelligence and Education, 99 Workshop W7: Open, interactive, and other overt approaches to learner modelling, pp. 51-62, http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/groups/aied/Conferences/Ovalm/PapersGoogle Scholar
  30. Hook, K., Karlgren, J. Waern, A., Dahlbeck, N., Jansson, C.G. and Lemaire, B.: 1996, A glass box approach to adaptive hypermedia, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 6(2–3), 157-184.Google Scholar
  31. Horvitz, E.: 1997, Agents with beliefs: reflections on bayesian methods for user modeling, User Modeling, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference UM97, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 441-442.Google Scholar
  32. LTSC IEEE: 1999, IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC), In: http//ltsc.ieee.org/ltsc/, IEEE.Google Scholar
  33. Johnson, W.L., Rickel, J.W. and Lester, J.C.: 2000, Animated Pedagogical Agents: Face-to-Face Interaction in Interactive Learning Environments, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 11, 47-78.Google Scholar
  34. Kay, J.: 1995, The um toolkit for cooperative user modelling, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 4(3), 149-196.Google Scholar
  35. Kobsa, A. and Pohl, W.: 1995, The user modeling shell system BGP-MS, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 4(2), 59-106.Google Scholar
  36. Koedinger, K.R., Suthers, D.D. and Forbus, K.D.: 1999, Component-based construction of a science learning space, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10, 292-313.Google Scholar
  37. Lester, J.C., Stone, B.A. and Stelling, G.D.: 1999, Lifelike pedagogic agents in mixed-initiative problem solving in constructivist learning environments, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 9(1–2), 1-144.Google Scholar
  38. Linton, F. Joy, D. and Schaefer, H-P.: 1999, Building user and expert models by long-term observation of application usage, In: J. Kay (ed.), User Modeling: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference, UM99, Springer Wien, pp. 129-138.Google Scholar
  39. Luckin, R. and du Boulay, B.: Capability, potential and collaborative assistance, In: J. Kay (ed.), User Modeling: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference, UM99, Springer Wien, New York, pp. 139-148.Google Scholar
  40. Machado, I., Martins, A. and Paiva, A.: 1999, One for all and all for one: a learner modelling server in a multi-agent platform, In: J. Kay (ed.), User Modeling: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference, UM99, Springer Wien, New York.Google Scholar
  41. Major, N.: 1995, Modelling teaching strategies, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(2/3), 117-152.Google Scholar
  42. Moyse, R. and Elsom-Cook, M.: In: Knowledge Negotiation, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  43. Muhlenbrock, M., Tewissen, F. and Hoppe, H.U.: A framework system for intelligent support in open distributed learning environments, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9, 256-274.Google Scholar
  44. Paiva, A. and Self, J.: 1995, TAGUS–a user and learner modeling workbench, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 4(3), 197-228.Google Scholar
  45. Reagle, J. and Cranor, L.: 1998, W3C The Platform for Privacy Preferences, In: http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-P3P-CACM/ Google Scholar
  46. Sack, W., Soloway, E. and Weingard, P.: 1994, Re-writing cartesian student models, In: J. Greer and G. McCalla (eds.), Student Modelling; The Key to Individualized Knowledge-Based Instruction, Springer-Verlag, pp. 335-376.Google Scholar
  47. Self, J.: 2000, The defining characteristics of intelligent tutoring systems research: ITSs care, precisely, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 10, 350-364.Google Scholar
  48. Self, J.: 1988, Bypassing the Intractable Problem of Student Modelling: Invited paper, In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Montreal, pp. 18-24Google Scholar
  49. Shute, V.: 1995, Smart: Student Modeling Approach for Responsive Tutoring, UserModeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 5(1), 1-44.Google Scholar
  50. Vygotsky, L.S.: 1978, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard University Press, U.S.Google Scholar
  51. Weber, G. and Mollenberg, A.: 1995, ELM programming environment: a tutoring system for LISP beginners, In:K. F. Wender and H.-D. Bocker (eds.), Ablex, Norwood, pp. 373-408.Google Scholar
  52. Weber, G.: 1999, Adaptive learning systems in the World Wide Web, In: J. Kay (ed.), Proceedings of UM99: Seventh International Conference on User Modeling, pp. 371-378.Google Scholar
  53. Wenger, E.: 1987, Artificial Intelligence and Tutoring Systems–Computational and Cognitive Approaches to the Communication of Knowledge, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos.Google Scholar
  54. White, B.Y., Shimoda, T.A. and Frederiksen, J.R.: 1999, Enabling students to construct theories of collaborative inquiry and reflective learning: Computer support for metacognitive development, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10, 151-182.Google Scholar
  55. Wilensky, R., Arens, Y. and Chin, D.: 1984, Talking to UNIX in English: an overview of UC, Communications of the ACM, 27(6), 574-593.Google Scholar
  56. Zukerman, I. and Litman, D.: 2001, Natural language processing and user modeling: synergies and limitations, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 11(1–2), 129-158 (this issue).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judy Kay
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of SydneyAustralia.

Personalised recommendations