A review of recent advances in learner and skill modeling in intelligent learning environments
By Michel C. Desmarais, Ryan Shaun Joazeiro de Baker. User modeling and user-adapted interaction, 2012
451 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Computer Science Applications, Developmental and Educational Psychology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2aac14e8dd32f0d67379945674b44df446fdfeb6
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Artificial Intelligence
- Bruce M. McLaren
- Longo Luca
- Ashish Dutt
- Maizatul Akmar Ismail
- Maria K. Virvou
- Tutut Herawan
- Vincent A. W. M. M. Aleven
- Kenneth Holstein
In Computer Science Applications
- Bruce M. McLaren
- Longo Luca
- Ashish Dutt
- Maizatul Akmar Ismail
- Maria K. Virvou
- Tutut Herawan
- Vincent A. W. M. M. Aleven
- Kenneth Holstein
In Developmental and Educational Psychology
- Bruce M. McLaren
- Longo Luca
- Ashish Dutt
- Maizatul Akmar Ismail
- Maria K. Virvou
- Tutut Herawan
- Vincent A. W. M. M. Aleven
- Kenneth Holstein
Citations in the corpus
- Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) 2.0: A Manifesto of Open Challenges and Interdisciplinary Research Directions (2023, background): “On the one hand, for students, AIED has focused on developing models [111] and adaptive systems that can identify learners’ strengths and weaknesses across a variety of topics, leading to customized instructions and resources that align with their learning needs [112].”
- COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING AND THE ASSESSMENT OF COGNITIVE SKILLS: PSYCHOMETRIC CONSIDERATIONS (2013, methodology): “BBNs have long been applied in ITS to represent student knowledge and, thereby, guide the activities of the tutoring system (Corbett & Anderson, 1995; Desmarais & Baker, 2012; VanLehn, 2008).”
- Co-Designing a Real-Time Classroom Orchestration Tool to Support Teacher-AI Complementarity (2019, methodology): “…mining, and AI in education literatures — where many automated detectors of student learning and behaviour have been introduced and validated, which rely only on students’ interactions within the software (e.g., Aleven et al., 2016; Beck & Gong, 2013; Desmarais & Baker, 2012; Käser et al., 2016).”
- A Systematic Review on Educational Data Mining (2017, background): “…& Clustering [130], [131], [132] Semantic web in education & Clustering [44], [58] Student modeling & Clustering [18], [130], [133], [21], [101], [85], [134] Student motivation & Clustering [135] Student profiling & Clustering [55], [56], [136], [137], [138], [139] We will now provide a detailed…”
- Student modeling approaches: A literature review for the last decade (2013, background): “…high representative power and the fact that they lend themselves to an intuitive graphical representation, as well as the fact that they offer a well defined formalism that lends itself to sound probability computations of unobserved nodes from evidence of observed nodes (Desmarais & Baker, 2012).”
- WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shifts (2020, unknown): “…assisting in grading (Piech et al., 2013; Shermis, 2014; Kulkarni et al., 2014; Taghipour and Ng, 2016), estimating student knowledge and ability (Desmarais and Baker, 2012; Wu et al., 2020), identifying students who need assistance (Ahadi et al., 2015), or automatically generating explanations…”