Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Properties of Bayesian student model for INQPRO

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Employing a probabilistic student model in a scientific inquiry learning environment often presents two challenges. First, what constitute the appropriate variables for modeling scientific inquiry skills in such a learning environment, considering the fact that it practices exploratory learning approach? Following exploratory learning approach, students are granted the freedom to navigate from one GUI to another. Second, do causal dependencies exist between the identified variables, and if they do, how should they be defined? To tackle the challenges, this research work attempted the Bayesian Networks framework. Leveraging on the framework, two student models were constructed to predict the acquisition of scientific inquiry skills for INQPRO, a scientific inquiry learning environment developed in this research work. The student models can be differentiated by the variables they modeled and the causal dependencies they encoded. An on-field evaluation involving 101 students was performed to assess the most appropriate structure of the INQPRO’s student model. To ensure fairness in model comparison, the same Dynamic Bayesian Network (DBN) construction approach was employed. Lastly, this paper highlights the properties of the student model that provide optimal results for modeling scientific inquiry skill acquisition in INQPRO.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Horvitz E, Breese J, Heckerman D, Hovel D, Rommelse K (1998) The Lumiere project: Bayesian user modeling for inferring the goals and needs of software users. In: Proceedings of 14th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence

    Google Scholar 

  2. Horvitz E, Jacobs A, Hovel D (1999) Attention-sensitive alerting. In: Proceedings of UAI 1999. pp 305–313

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ardissono L, Goy A (2000) Tailoring the interaction with users in web stores. J User Model User-Adapt Int 10(4): 251–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bunt A, Conati C (2003) Probabilistic student modelling to improve exploratory behaviour. J User Model User-Adapt Int 13(3): 269–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Conati C (2002) Probabilistic assessment of user’s emotions in educational games. J Appl Artif Intell 16(7–8): 555–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ting CY, Phon-Amnuaisuk S, Chong YK (2008) Modeling and intervening across time in scientific inquiry exploratory learning environment. J Educ Tech Soc 11(3): 239–258

    Google Scholar 

  7. Murray RC, VanLehn K, Mostow J (2004) Looking ahead to select tutorial actions: a decision-theoretic approach. J Artif Intell Educ 14(3–4): 235–278

    Google Scholar 

  8. Pek P, Poh KL (2005) Making decisions in an intelligent tutoring system. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 4(2): 207–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Paolucci M, Suthers D, Weiner A (1996) Automated advice giving strategies for scientific inquiry. In: Frasson C, Gauthier G, Lesgold A (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on intelligent tutoring systems

    Google Scholar 

  10. Linn MC (2000) Designing the knowledge integration environment. Int J Sci Educ 22(8): 781–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Reiser BJ, Tabak I, Sandoval WA, Smith B, Steinmuller F, Leone TJ (2001) BGuILE: strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In: Carver SM, Klahr D (eds) Cognition and instruction: twenty five years of progress. Erlbaum, Mahvah

    Google Scholar 

  12. Veermans KH, Van Joolingen WR (2004) Combining heuristics and formal methods in a tool for supporting simulation-based discovery learning. Lect Notes Comput Sci 3220:217–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pryor A, Soloway E (1997) Foundation of science: using technology to support authentic science learning. http://hi-ce.eecs.umich.edu/papers/

  14. Dragon T, Woolf BP, Marshall D, Murray T (2006) Coaching within a domain independent inquiry environment. Lect Notes Comput Sci 4053:144–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shute J V, Glaser R (1990) A large-scale evaluation of an intelligent discovery world: Smithtown. Interact Learn Environ 1:51–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jitnah N (1993) Bayesian poker. Honours thesis, Dept. of Computer Science. Monash University

  17. Kennett R, Korb K, Nicholson A (2001) Seabreeze prediction using Bayesian networks. In: Proceedings of PAKDD 2001, pp 148–153

    Google Scholar 

  18. Spirtes P, Glymour C, Scheines, R (1993) Causation, Prediction and search. In: Lecture notes in statistics. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wallace CS, Korb KB (1999) Learning linear causal models by MML sampling. In: Gammerman A (ed) Causal models and intelligent data management. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kjaerulff U, Madsen A (2007) Bayesian networks and influence diagrams: a guide to construction and analysis. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pearl J (1988) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ting CY, Arshad MY (2000) Penggunaan simulasi komputer bagi merealisasikan fenomena tidak sahih: Satu alternative mewujudkan konflik kognitif dalam pembelajaran sains. J Pendidik Univ Teknol Malays 6(1):1–21

    Google Scholar 

  23. Chi MT, Roscoe RD (2002) The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In: Limon M, Mason L (eds) Reconsidering conceptual change: issues in theory and practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp 3–27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Van der Gaag LC, Renooij S, Witteman CLM, Aleman BMP, Taal BG (1999) How to elicit many probabilities. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth conference on uncertainties in artificial intelligence, pp 647–654

    Google Scholar 

  25. Druzdel MJ, Van der Gaag LC (2000) Building Bayesian networks: where do the numbers come from? IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 12:481–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. VanLehn K (1996) Conceptual and meta learning during coached problem solving. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference intelligent tutoring systems, Montreal, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schafer R, Weyrath T (1997) Assessing temporally variable user properties with dynamic Bayesian networks. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference UM97, pp 377–388

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ting CY, Phon-Amnuaisuk S (2009) Optimal dynamic decision network model for scientific inquiry learning environment. Appl Intell, doi: 10.1007/s10489-009-0174-y

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ting CY, Phon-Amnuaisuk S (2009) Log data approach to acquisition of optimal Bayesian learner model. Am J Appl Sci 6(5):913–921

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Choo-Yee Ting.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ting, CY., Phon-Amnuaisuk, S. Properties of Bayesian student model for INQPRO. Appl Intell 36, 391–406 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-010-0267-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-010-0267-7

Keywords

Navigation