Artificial Student Agents and Course Mastery Tracking

Linda DuHadway, Thomas C. Henderson


In an effort to meet the changing landscape of education many departments and universities are offering more online courses – a move that is likely to impact every department in some way (Rover et al., 2013). This will require more instructors create online courses, and we describe here how agents and dynamic Bayesian networks can be used to inform this process. Other innovations in instructional strategies are also widely impacting educators (Cutler et al., 2012) including peer instruction, flipped classrooms, problem-based learning, just-in-time teaching, and a variety of active learning strategies. Implementing any of these strategies requires changes to existing courses. We propose ENABLE, a graph-based methodology, to transform a standard linear in-class delivery approach to an on-line, active course delivery system (DuHadway and Henderson, 2015). The overall objectives are: (1) to create a set of methods to analyze the content and structure of existing learning materials that have been used in a synchronous, linearly structured course and provide insight into the nature and relations of the course material and provide alternative ways to organize them, (2) to provide a Bayesian framework to assist in the discovery of causal relations between course learning items and student performance, and (3) to develop some simple artificial student agents and corresponding behavior models to probe the methods’ efficacy and accuracy. In this paper, we focus on our efforts on the third point.


  1. Allen, I. and Seaman, J. (2013). Cahngin Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States. Sloan Consortium, Newburyport, MA.
  2. Anthony, A. and Raney, M. (2012). Bayesian Network Analysis of Computer Science Grade Distributions. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 649-654, Raleigh, NC.
  3. Antonio, A. D., Ramirez, J., Imbert, R., and Mendez, G. (2005). Intelligent Virtual Environmets for Training: an Agent-based Approach. In Multi-Agent Systems and Applications IV, Berlin, Germany. Springer.
  4. Baker, R., Corbett, A., and Aleven, V. (2008). More Accurate Student Modeling through Contextual Estimation of Slip and Guess Probabilities in Bayesian Knowledge Tracing. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pages 406-415, Berlin, Germany. Springer Verlag.
  5. Brusilovsky, P., Sosnovsky, S., and Shcherbinina, O. (2005). User Modeling in a Distributed E-Learning Architecture. In User Modeling 2005. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, (Proceedings of 10th International User Modeling Conference, pages 24-29. Springer Verlag.
  6. Capuano, N., Marsella, M., and Salerno, S. (2000). ABITS: An Agent Based Intelligent Tutoring System for Distance Learning. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on adaptive and Intelligent WE-Based Education Systems. ITS.
  7. Carmona, C., Castillo, G., and Mil'an, E. (2008). Designing a Dynamic Bayesian Network for Modeling Students' Learning Styles. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, pages 346-350, Santander, Cantabria, Spain. IEEE.
  8. Chou, C.-Y., Chan, T.-W., and Lin, C.-J. (2003). Redefining the Learning Companion: the Past, Present, and Future of Educational Agents. Computer and Education, 40(3):255-269.
  9. Conati, C., Gertner, A., and Vanlehn, K. (2002). Using Bayesian Networks to Manage Uncertainty in Student Modeling. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 12(4):371-417.
  10. Cutler, S., Borrego, M., Henderson, M., and Froyd, J. (2012). A Comparison of Electrical, Computer and Chemical Engineering Faculty Progressions through the Innovation-Decision Process. In Proceedings of the Frontiers of Education Conference, Seattle, WA. IEEE.
  11. Desmarais, M. and Baker, R. (2006). A Review of Recent Advances in Learner and Skill Modeling in Intelligent Learning Environments. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interation, 22(1-2):9-38.
  12. DuHadway, L. and Henderson, T. (2015). Informing Change: Course Content Analysis and Organization. In Proceedings of the Frontiers of Education Conference, El Paso, TX. IEEE.
  13. Garcia, P., Garcno, P., and Campo, M. (2007). Evaluating Bayesian Networks' Precision for Detecting Students' Learning Styles. Computers & Education, 49(3):794- 808.
  14. Gardner, J. and Belland, B. R. (2012). A Conceptual Framework for Organizing Active Learning Experiences in Biology Instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(4):465-475.
  15. Giraffa, L. and Viccari, R. (1998). The Use of Agents Techniques on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. In Proceedings of International Conference of the Chilean Society of Computer Science. IEEE.
  16. Gordillo, A., Barra, E., Gallego, D., , and Quemada, J. (2013). An Online E-Learning Authoring Tool to Create Interactive Multidevice Learning Objects Using E- Infrastructure Resources. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Frontiers in Education Conference, pages 1914-1920. IEEE.
  17. Hospers, M., Kroezen, E., Nijholt, A., op den Akker, R., and Heylen, D. (2003). An Agent-based Intelligent Tutoring System for Nurse Education. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
  18. Jennings, N. and Wooldridge, M. (1998). Applications of Intelligent Agents. In Agent Technology, Berlin, Germany. Springer.
  19. Kobsa, A. (2007). Generic User Modeling Systems. In The Adaptive Web, pages 136-154, NY, NY. Springer.
  20. Li, N., Cohen, W., Koedinger, K. R., and Matsuda, N. (2011). A Machine Learning Approach for Automatic Student Model Discovery. In Pechenizkiy, M., Calders, T., Conati, C., Ventura, S., Romero, C., and Stamper, J., editors, Educational Data Mining, pages 31-40.
  21. Moundridou, M. and Virvou, M. (2002). Evaluating the Persona Effect of an Interface Agent in a Tutoring System. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18:253- 261.
  22. Pardos, Z. and Heernan, N. (2010). Modeling Individualization in a Bayesian Networks Implementation of Knowledge Tracing. In Bra, P. D., Kobsa, A., and Chin, D., editors, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization., pages 255-266, Big Island, HI. ACM.
  23. Rover, D., Astatke, Y., Bakshi, S., and Vahid, F. (2013). An Online Revolution in Learning and Teaching. In Proceedings of the Frontiers of Education Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. IEEE.
  24. Russell, S. and Norvig, P. (2009). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
  25. Sleeman, D. and Brown, J. (1982). Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Academic Press, London, UK.
  26. Soliman, M. and Guetl, C. (2013). Implementing Intelligent Pedagogical Agents in Virtual Worlds: Tutoring Natural Science Experiments in OpenWonderland. In Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), pages 782-789. IEEE.
  27. Thrun, S., Burgard, W., and Fox, D. (2005). Probabilistic Robotics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  28. Vomlel, J. (2004). Bayesian Networks in Educational Testing. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 12:83-100.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

DuHadway L. and Henderson T. (2016). Artificial Student Agents and Course Mastery Tracking . In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART, ISBN 978-989-758-172-4, pages 385-391. DOI: 10.5220/0005738703850391

in Bibtex Style

author={Linda DuHadway and Thomas C. Henderson},
title={Artificial Student Agents and Course Mastery Tracking},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART,
TI - Artificial Student Agents and Course Mastery Tracking
SN - 978-989-758-172-4
AU - DuHadway L.
AU - Henderson T.
PY - 2016
SP - 385
EP - 391
DO - 10.5220/0005738703850391