Model Human Learners: Computational Models to Guide Instructional Design

Christopher J. MacLellan

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 30 references

Model Human Learners: Computational Models to Guide Instructional Design

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A computational model of learning reproduces the main effects of two human A/B teaching experiments without training on human data.

desk verdict Genuine proof-of-concept with two real validations, but the 'accurate' claims outrun what the analyses show. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02456 v4 pith:2BEH352S submitted 2025-02-04 cs.HC cs.AIcs.SC

Christopher J. MacLellan This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.SC

keywords ModelHumanLearnerinstructionaldesigncomputationalmodelsoflearningskillacquisitionA/Bexperimentstutoringsystemsparameter-freepredictioncurves

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes a 'Model Human Learner': a computational model of skill acquisition that instructional designers could run to evaluate teaching interventions before spending money on human studies. It presents what the author identifies as the first evidence that such a model can predict real experimental outcomes, using two existing human A/B experiments as tests. In the fraction-arithmetic experiment, the model reproduced the human result that interleaved practice hurts training performance but improves posttest performance; in the box-and-arrows experiment, it reproduced the human result that constrained item designs aid rule learning. In both cases the predictions were generated without fitting parameters to human data, and the model also produced learning curves that tracked human trends. The author is explicit that the match is qualitative in the fraction study because the simulated students start with zero prior knowledge.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is Trestle, the paper's computational model of skill acquisition. When confronted with a problem, the model matches learned skills against the current state and executes the highest-utility match; when no skill matches, it requests a demonstration, searches for a sequence of basic arithmetic operations that explains the demonstration, generalizes that procedure into a reusable skill, and then refines the skill's conditions and utility from correctness feedback. This cycle converts task structure and problem order directly into simulated learning curves, which is what lets the model generate predictions before any human data are collected.

What would settle it

A concrete test would be to preregister the model's predictions for a third instructional manipulation, for instance an item-design experiment that varies only the number of candidate procedures consistent with the correct answer, and then run the human study; if the human main effect is absent or reversed, the paper's claim that the model can act as a Model Human Learner is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a computational model that learns skills from demonstrations and correctness feedback, run through the same problems a human student would receive, reproduces the direction and statistical significance of the main effects in two human A/B experiments. In the blocked-versus-interleaved fraction study, both humans and agents show worse training accuracy and better posttest accuracy under interleaving. In the constrained-versus-unconstrained box-and-arrows study, both humans and agents do better with constrained problems, and when prior knowledge is controlled the agent accuracies are close to the human ones (19.6% versus 19.1% constrained; 10.0% versus 8.8% unconstrained). The predictions come from task structure and item order alone, with no fitted parameters, which the paper offers as evidence that the model captures something about human learning rather than merely fitting outcomes. The paper also uses the model to test why constrained items help, concluding that the benefit comes from reduced procedural ambiguity rather than from whole numbers being easier to compute.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulated learner's skill-acquisition mechanisms are a faithful enough stand-in for human learning that the condition effects seen in simulation carry over to real students; if that proxy fails, the predicted outcomes do not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Instructional designers could use the model to screen candidate interventions in simulation, reserving human A/B tests for designs the model identifies as promising.
Because predictions are parameter-free and depend only on task structure and item order, the model can generate learning-curve forecasts for tasks where no student data exist yet.
The reproduced effects support the rule-search theory of learning on these tasks, since the model instantiates that theory and produces the same main effects as humans.
The results point to a concrete design principle: constrain items so that only one procedure is consistent with the correct answer, rather than making computation easier.
A validated Model Human Learner would give researchers a low-cost way to test competing explanations for why an intervention works.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If this approach generalizes, instructional design could shift from running many human experiments to first comparing the structure of the candidate rule spaces that different designs create.
The model's zero-prior-knowledge limitation suggests that a practical version will need a way to estimate incoming student competence without using the target experiment's data.
The same simulation protocol could be extended to rule-learning tasks outside arithmetic, such as programming or science tutors, where the space of candidate procedures can be enumerated.
The paper's proposed mechanism for constrained items implies a directly testable design rule: hold arithmetic difficulty constant and vary only the number of candidate procedures, and human learning should follow ambiguity.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my read. The paper does something real: it takes a mechanistic, parameter-free model of skill acquisition and shows that it reproduces the direction of two published human A/B experiments—blocked vs interleaved fraction practice and constrained vs unconstrained box-and-arrows problems. That had not been shown before for this class of model, and the learning curves are genuinely emergent rather than fitted. The surprise result on the box-and-arrows task—agents don't care about computational ease, yet still show the constrained advantage—is a legitimate challenge to Lee et al.'s account, and the procedural-ambiguity explanation is worth taking seriously. The author also uses real datasets and reports regression details, which is more than most proof-of-concept papers do.

The soft spots are exactly where the reader put them. Study 1's agreement is only qualitative; the model has zero prior knowledge, so its absolute error rates are far from human. The abstract's word 'accurately' is not supported by the body, which says 'qualitatively' in the discussion. That needs to change. Study 2's prediction is weaker than the text claims. The hard-problem subset and the half-pretraining were chosen after seeing the human results, and the paper never reports whether the constrained advantage holds without those choices. The regression note that agents have identical initial conditions is also inconsistent with half being pretrained. These are fixable by reporting robustness checks, but until then the 'first successful demonstration' language outruns the evidence.

The self-citation and the fact that the model instantiates Lee et al.'s broader theory are not problems by themselves. The target predictions are emergent, and prior work did not validate against human A/B results. The circularity burden is low.

Bottom line: this is a solid proof-of-concept, not a paradigm shift. It deserves a serious referee and likely publication after revision. I'd require the author to (1) align abstract claims with qualitative agreement, (2) show the Study 2 effect across the full item set and both pretraining halves, and (3) ship code or scripts. With that, it becomes a useful reference point for anyone doing simulation-based instructional design.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the concept of a Model Human Learner, a mechanistic computational model of learning intended to let instructional designers pre-evaluate A/B experiments before running human studies. The model, Trestle from the Apprentice Learner Architecture, is used to simulate two published human experiments: a fraction arithmetic tutor experiment comparing blocked vs. interleaved practice (Study 1) and a Box-and-Arrows tutor experiment comparing constrained vs. unconstrained problem designs (Study 2). The paper reports that the simulated agents reproduce the main effects of both experiments: interleaving reduces tutor performance but improves posttest performance in Study 1, and constrained problems produce higher accuracy than unconstrained problems in Study 2. The paper also claims to generate parameter-free learning curves that qualitatively match human trends, and it uses the Box-and-Arrows simulation to argue against Lee et al.'s (2015) explanation that constrained problems help because they make the correct procedure computationally easier.

Significance. If the central claim is sustained, the paper would be an important proof of concept: it would show that a mechanistic, theory-driven simulation can anticipate the direction of instructional-intervention effects without being fitted to the target human data. The strengths of the paper are real: the simulations produce statistically significant odds ratios in the same direction as the human effects in two independent datasets; the learning curves are not fitted to the target data in the usual curve-fitting sense; and the theoretical observation about procedural ambiguity is a useful, testable alternative to Lee et al.'s computational-cost hypothesis. However, the paper's headline claim of 'first evidence' that a model can 'successfully predict' multiple human A/B experiments is currently stronger than the evidence supports, because in Study 2 the prediction depends on post hoc data selection and an ad hoc pretraining split, and in Study 1 the author concedes that agreement is only qualitative.

major comments (5)

[Study 2, Simulation and Analysis Method (incl. Footnote 4)] The claimed prediction for the Box-and-Arrows experiment is not fully specified. The analysis is restricted to hard problems post hoc ('only analyzed their performance on the hard problems, because my model does not take into account prior knowledge'), and half of the simulated agents received pretraining on 16 easy problems (Footnote 4). The paper never reports the model's accuracy on easy problems, never compares the pretrained half with the non-pretrained half, and never states whether the constrained-vs-unconstrained effect survives in both halves. Because both choices were made with knowledge of the human results and the desired outcome, the reported prediction could depend on these choices. To support the 'first evidence' claim, the paper must report the full-problem analysis and the no-pretraining analysis, or justify both choices from theory in advance.
[Study 2, Simulation and Analysis Method] The statement that no random effect was included for agents 'because the agents all have identical initial conditions' is internally inconsistent with Footnote 4, which states that half of the simulated agents received prior training on easy problems. If half were pretrained, the agents do not all have identical initial conditions, and the regression should account for this grouping or the pretraining should be removed. At minimum, the author should clarify whether the reported odds ratio comes from the pooled agent sample, the pretrained half, the non-pretrained half, or some combination.
[Study 1, Discussion and Abstract/Conclusion] The paper's own Discussion states that the model 'only qualitatively predicts the experimental effects' and 'does not accurately predict the absolute tutor and posttest scores for each student (or their average).' Yet the Abstract says the model can 'accurately predict the outcomes' of the two experiments, and the Conclusion claims 'first evidence' of successful prediction of main effects in multiple A/B experiments. The main-effect directions match, which is nontrivial, but the word 'accurately' is not supported by Study 1, where the agents start with no prior knowledge and have 100% first-problem error versus 53.8% for humans. The claims should be scaled back to 'qualitatively predict the direction of the main effects' unless the model is extended to handle prior knowledge.
[Study 1 and Study 2, Learning Curves and Prediction Independence] The paper calls the learning curves 'parameter-free predictions based solely on task structure' and later says they 'could have been generated prior to collecting any human data.' However, in Study 1 the agents are given the exact problem sequence each human student received, and in Study 2 the same simulation procedure is used. If those sequences are taken from the human logs, then the predictions are not independent of human data in the way the text suggests. The paper should clarify whether the problem sequences were specified a priori by the experimental design or copied from the human student logs, and the same clarification is needed for the claim that the Box-and-Arrows predictions were generated 'based entirely on the structure of the task and the sequence of the items.'
[The Computational Model] The 'parameter-free' claim cannot be verified from the text because the model's parameters, if any, are never enumerated. Trestle is described as having utility values, condition refinement, and generalization mechanisms, but the paper does not state which numerical parameters these mechanisms contain, what values were used, or whether any values were tuned on prior data. If the model has no parameters, that should be stated explicitly; if it has parameters, the paper must list them and explain how their values were set, because the claim that predictions are not fitted to human data is load-bearing for the entire paper.

minor comments (6)

[Study 2, Human Data] The phrase 'how different instructional choices effect student learning' should be 'how different instructional choices affect student learning.'
[Study 2, Simulation and Analysis Method] There is a duplicated word in 'because all problems were of of the same type (hard).'
[Throughout] The manuscript uses 'ANOV A' with a stray space where 'ANOVA' is intended.
[Study 2, Footnote 4] The pretraining detail is important enough that it should be in the main text, not relegated to a footnote, especially since the analysis depends on it.
[References] The reference 'Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1986)' lacks publisher and page range information, and the title 'The handbook of human perception' should be italicized.
[Figure 1 and Figure 4] The captions should state explicitly which panel is the human interface and which is the machine-readable tutor interface, since the text relies on this distinction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity: the reported predictions are emergent simulation outputs, though the self-authored modeling framework and partially post hoc Study 2 protocol warrant a low non-zero score.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The Trestle model is imported from the author's prior work, but the simulated agents are then run on the same problem sequences as the human students and evaluated without fitting any parameter to the human outcome data. The claimed main effects—blocked versus interleaved practice and constrained versus unconstrained items—emerge from the agent simulations rather than being reconstructed from the target datasets. Study 1 explicitly concedes that agreement is only qualitative, and Study 2's restriction to hard problems plus the half-pretraining footnote are post hoc protocol choices that weaken the out-of-sample status of the prediction, but they do not make the model output identical to its input by construction. The self-citations supply the model definition and prior architecture, not a fitted parameter or a forced uniqueness theorem, so they are not load-bearing in a circular way. The low non-zero score reflects minor self-reliance in the modeling framework and the partially data-informed evaluation design, not a demonstrated reduction of the prediction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the faithfulness of the Trestle model as a proxy for human learning, plus a set of domain assumptions about prior knowledge, tutor isomorphism, and the correctness of Lee et al.'s theory. The only ad hoc numeric choice is the half-pretraining of agents in Study 2. The Model Human Learner is a conceptual entity with no independent evidence beyond the specific model predictions.

free parameters (1)

Agent pretraining on easy Box/Arrows problems = 16 easy problems; applied to half of the simulated agents
Footnote 4 states half of simulated agents received prior training on 16 easy problems to account for possible transfer; the fraction is not derived from theory or human data, and the analysis does not report whether results are robust to this choice.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The Trestle model's learning mechanisms (matching, demonstration, generalization, condition refinement, utility update) are a faithful computational proxy for human skill acquisition.
The paper's central comparison assumes that emergent agent behavior tells us something about human learning; the model itself is prior work cited to the author's own papers, and no independent validation of the proxy is given.
domain assumption The absolute gap between agent and human error is attributable entirely to unmodeled prior knowledge, so the qualitative match of condition effects is meaningful.
Study 1 Discussion states the model predicts performance without prior fraction skills; if prior knowledge interacted with condition, the match could be coincidental.
domain assumption Hidden-field differences between the human tutor and the machine-readable tutor do not materially affect the simulation.
Study 1 Simulation section admits the isomorphic tutor exposes conversion fields; the author asserts preliminary simulations showed agents rarely make such errors but provides no data.
domain assumption Lee et al.'s (2015) characterization of learning as search through a hypothesis space of rules is correct enough to ground the Box and Arrows model.
The Box and Arrows model is described as a direct instantiation of that theory; if that theory is wrong, the human-agent match could follow from a different mechanism.
standard math Mixed-effect logistic regression is an appropriate statistical model for both human and agent correctness data.
Used to compare conditions; no anomaly noted.

invented entities (1)

Model Human Learner (concept)
purpose: A unified computational model of learning proposed to let instructional designers evaluate candidate interventions before costly human experiments.
The concept is an analogy to Card et al.'s Model Human Processor and is not itself a falsifiable mechanism; its value depends entirely on specific model implementations such as Trestle.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Model Human Learners: Computational Models to Guide Instructional Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2BEH352S

@misc{pith2026250202456,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Model Human Learners: Computational Models to Guide Instructional Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2BEH352S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02456}
}

read the original abstract

Instructional designers face an overwhelming array of design choices, making it challenging to identify the most effective interventions. To address this issue, I propose the concept of a Model Human Learner, a unified computational model of learning that can aid designers in evaluating candidate interventions. This paper presents the first successful demonstration of this concept, showing that a computational model can accurately predict the outcomes of two human A/B experiments -- one testing a problem sequencing intervention and the other testing an item design intervention. It also demonstrates that such a model can generate learning curves without requiring human data and provide theoretical insights into why an instructional intervention is effective. These findings lay the groundwork for future Model Human Learners that integrate cognitive and learning theories to support instructional design across diverse tasks and interventions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02456 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Fraction arithmetic tutor interfaces. The Computational Model This study employs a computational model from the Apprentice Learner Architecture (MacLellan, 2017; Weitekamp, Harpstead, & Koedinger, 2020; MacLellan & Koedinger, 2022), which integrates mechanisms from prior models of human learning, including ACM (Langley & Ohlsson, 1984), CASCADE (VanLehn, Jones, & Chi, 1991), STEPS (Ur & VanLehn, 1995), and SimStude… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Fraction arithmetic learning curves with 95% CIs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Box and arrows tutor interfaces [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Overall box and arrow accuracy with 95% CIs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Box and arrow learning curves with 95% CIs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

write newline

" write newline " cite write " FUNCTION editor.postfix editor num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION editor.trans.postfix editor num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION trans.postfix translator num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION authors.editors.reflist.apa5 'field := 'dot := field num.names 'numnames := numnames 'format.num.names := format.num.names na...
[2]

, McLaren, B M

aleven2006cognitive APACrefauthors Aleven, V. , McLaren, B M. , Sewall, J. \ Koedinger, K R. APACrefauthors \ 2006 . The cognitive tutor authoring tools (CTAT): Preliminary evaluation of efficiency gains The cognitive tutor authoring tools (CTAT): Preliminary evaluation of efficiency gains . M. Ikeda, K D. Ashley \ C. Tak-Wai\ ( ), Proceedings of the 8th ...

work page 2006
[3]

, Moran, T P

Card:1986vx APACrefauthors Card, S K. , Moran, T P. \ Newell, A. APACrefauthors \ 1986 . The model human processor: An engineering model of human performance The model human processor: An engineering model of human performance . The Handbook of Human Perception The handbook of human perception \ ( \ 45--50)

work page 1986
[4]

APACrefauthors \ 2009

Cen:2009ve APACrefauthors Cen, H. APACrefauthors \ 2009 . Generalized Learning Factors Analysis: Improving Cognitive Models with Machine Learning Generalized Learning Factors Analysis: Improving Cognitive Models with Machine Learning . , Carnegie Mellon University

work page 2009
[5]

, Koedinger, K R

Cen:2006th APACrefauthors Cen, H. , Koedinger, K R. \ Junker, B. APACrefauthors \ 2006 . Learning Factors Analysis A General Method for Cognitive Model Evaluation and Improvement Learning Factors Analysis A General Method for Cognitive Model Evaluation and Improvement . Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems Procee...

work page 2006
[6]

\ Anderson, J R

Corbett:1994ux APACrefauthors Corbett, A T. \ Anderson, J R. APACrefauthors \ 1995 . Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge . User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 4 4 253--278

work page 1995
[7]

, Baker, R S J d

Koedinger:2010tj APACrefauthors Koedinger, K R. , Baker, R S J d. , Cunningham, K. , Skogsholm, A. , Leber, B. \ Stamper, J. APACrefauthors \ 2010 . A Data Repository for the EDM community: The PSLC DataShop A Data Repository for the EDM community: The PSLC DataShop . C. Romero, S. Ventura, M. Pechenizkiy \ R S J d. Baker\ ( ), Handbook of Educational Dat...

work page 2010
[8]

, Booth, J L

Koedinger:2013hp APACrefauthors Koedinger, K R. , Booth, J L. \ Klahr, D. APACrefauthors \ 2013 . Instructional Complexity and the Science to Constrain It Instructional Complexity and the Science to Constrain It . Science 342 6161 935--937

work page 2013

Show all 30 references

[9]

, Laird, J E

Langley:2008ka APACrefauthors Langley, P. , Laird, J E. \ Rogers, S. APACrefauthors \ 2009 . Cognitive architectures: Research issues and challenges Cognitive architectures: Research issues and challenges . Cognitive Systems Research

2009
[10]

\ Ohlsson, S

LangIey:1984uh APACrefauthors Langley, P. \ Ohlsson, S. APACrefauthors \ 1984 . Automated cognitive modeling Automated cognitive modeling . Proceedings of the 4th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence Proceedings of the 4th national conference on artificial intelligen...

1984
[11]

, Betts, S

Lee:2015gb APACrefauthors Lee, H S. , Betts, S. \ Anderson, J R. APACrefauthors \ 2015 . Learning Problem-Solving Rules as Search Through a Hypothesis Space Learning Problem-Solving Rules as Search Through a Hypothesis Space . Cognitive Science 40 5 1036--1079

2015
[12]

, Matsuda, N

NanLi:2010wi APACrefauthors Li, N. , Matsuda, N. , Cohen, W W. \ Koedinger, K R. APACrefauthors \ 2010 . Towards a Computational Model of Why Some Students Learn Faster than Others Towards a Computational Model of Why Some Students Learn Faster than Others . AAAI 2010 Fall Sym...

2010
[13]

, Stampfer, E

Li:2013vd APACrefauthors Li, N. , Stampfer, E. , Cohen, W W. \ Koedinger, K R. APACrefauthors \ 2013 . General and Efficient Cognitive Model Discovery Using a Simulated Student General and Efficient Cognitive Model Discovery Using a Simulated Student . M. Knauff, M. Paulen, N....

2013
[14]

APACrefauthors \ 2017

Maclellan:2017thesis APACrefauthors MacLellan, C J. APACrefauthors \ 2017 . Computational models of human learning: Applications for tutor development, behavior prediction, and theory testing Computational models of human learning: Applications for tutor development, behavior ...

2017
[15]

, Harpstead, E

MacLellan:2016tqa APACrefauthors MacLellan, C J. , Harpstead, E. , Patel, R. \ Koedinger, K R. APACrefauthors \ 2016 . The Apprentice Learner Architecture: Closing the loop between learning theory and educational data The Apprentice Learner Architecture: Closing the loop betwe...

2016
[16]

\ Koedinger, K R

maclellan2022domain APACrefauthors MacLellan, C J. \ Koedinger, K R. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . Domain-general tutor authoring with apprentice learner models Domain-general tutor authoring with apprentice learner models . International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Educat...

2022
[17]

, Liu, R

MacLellan:2015to APACrefauthors MacLellan, C J. , Liu, R. \ Koedinger, K R. APACrefauthors \ 2015 . Accounting for Slipping and Other False Negatives in Logistic Models of Student Learning Accounting for Slipping and Other False Negatives in Logistic Models of Student Learning...

2015
[18]

, Stowers, K

maclellan2023optimizing APACrefauthors MacLellan, C J. , Stowers, K. \ Brady, L. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . Evaluating Alternative Training Interventions Using Personalized Computational Models of Learning Evaluating alternative training interventions using personalized computati...

2023
[19]

, Lee, A

Lee:2009ty APACrefauthors Matsuda, N. , Lee, A. , Cohen, W W. \ Koedinger, K R. APACrefauthors \ 2009 . A Computational Model of How Learner Errors Arise from Weak Prior Knowledge A Computational Model of How Learner Errors Arise from Weak Prior Knowledge . N. Taatgen\ H. van ...

2009
[20]

, Yarzebinski, E

Matsuda:2011wf APACrefauthors Matsuda, N. , Yarzebinski, E. , Keiser, V. , Cohen, W W. \ Koedinger, K R. APACrefauthors \ 2011 . Learning by Teaching SimStudent An Initial Classroom Baseline Study Comparing with Cognitive Tutor Learning by Teaching SimStudent An Initial Classr...

2011
[21]

APACrefauthors \ 1973

Newell:1973tt APACrefauthors Newell, A. APACrefauthors \ 1973 . You can't play 20 questions with nature and win: Projective comments on the papers of this symposium You can't play 20 questions with nature and win: Projective comments on the papers of this symposium . W G. Chas...

1973
[22]

, Liu, R

Patel:ho4PITKp APACrefauthors Patel, R. , Liu, R. \ Koedinger, K R. APACrefauthors \ 2016 . When to Block versus Interleave Practice? Evidence Against Teaching Fraction Addition before Fraction Multiplication. When to Block versus Interleave Practice? Evidence Against Teaching...

2016
[23]

, Carvalho, P F

rachatasumrit2023content APACrefauthors Rachatasumrit, N. , Carvalho, P F. , Li, S. \ Koedinger, K R. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . Content matters: A computational investigation into the effectiveness of retrieval practice and worked examples Content matters: A computational invest...

2023
[24]

\ VanLehn, K

Ur:1995wr APACrefauthors Ur, S. \ VanLehn, K. APACrefauthors \ 1995 . Steps: A Simulated, Tutorable Physics Student Steps: A Simulated, Tutorable Physics Student . Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 6 405--437

1995
[25]

, Jones, R M

VanLehn:1991we APACrefauthors VanLehn, K. , Jones, R M. \ Chi, M T H. APACrefauthors \ 1991 . Modeling the self-explanation effect with Cascade 3 Modeling the self-explanation effect with Cascade 3 . Proceedings of the human factors in computing systems conference Proceedings ...

1991
[26]

, Harpstead, E

weitekamp2024ai2t APACrefauthors Weitekamp, D. , Harpstead, E. \ Koedinger, K. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . AI2T : Building Trustable AI Tutors by Interactively Teaching a Self-Aware Learning Agent AI2T : Building trustable ai tutors by interactively teaching a self-aware learning ...

2024 arXiv
[27]

, Harpstead, E

weitekamp2020interaction APACrefauthors Weitekamp, D. , Harpstead, E. \ Koedinger, K R. APACrefauthors \ 2020 . An interaction design for machine teaching to develop AI tutors An interaction design for machine teaching to develop ai tutors . Proceedings of the 2020 CHI confere...

2020
[28]

, Harpstead, E

weitekamp2019toward APACrefauthors Weitekamp, D. , Harpstead, E. , Rachatasumrit, N. , Maclellan, C. \ Koedinger, K R. APACrefauthors \ 2019 . Toward Near Zero-Parameter Prediction Using a Computational Model of Student Learning Toward near zero-parameter prediction using a co...

2019
[29]

\ Koedinger, K

weitekamp2023computational APACrefauthors Weitekamp, D. \ Koedinger, K. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . Computational models of learning: Deepening care and carefulness in AI in education Computational models of learning: Deepening care and carefulness in ai in education . Internation...

2023
[30]

weitekamp2020investigating APACrefauthors Weitekamp, D. , Ye, Z. , Rachatasumrit, N. , Harpstead, E. \ Koedinger, K. APACrefauthors \ 2020 . Investigating differential error types between human and simulated learners Investigating differential error types between human and sim...

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

write newline

" write newline " cite write " FUNCTION editor.postfix editor num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION editor.trans.postfix editor num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION trans.postfix translator num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION authors.editors.reflist.apa5 'field := 'dot := field num.names 'numnames := numnames 'format.num.names := format.num.names na...

[2] [2]

, McLaren, B M

aleven2006cognitive APACrefauthors Aleven, V. , McLaren, B M. , Sewall, J. \ Koedinger, K R. APACrefauthors \ 2006 . The cognitive tutor authoring tools (CTAT): Preliminary evaluation of efficiency gains The cognitive tutor authoring tools (CTAT): Preliminary evaluation of efficiency gains . M. Ikeda, K D. Ashley \ C. Tak-Wai\ ( ), Proceedings of the 8th ...

work page 2006

[3] [3]

, Moran, T P

Card:1986vx APACrefauthors Card, S K. , Moran, T P. \ Newell, A. APACrefauthors \ 1986 . The model human processor: An engineering model of human performance The model human processor: An engineering model of human performance . The Handbook of Human Perception The handbook of human perception \ ( \ 45--50)

work page 1986

[4] [4]

APACrefauthors \ 2009

Cen:2009ve APACrefauthors Cen, H. APACrefauthors \ 2009 . Generalized Learning Factors Analysis: Improving Cognitive Models with Machine Learning Generalized Learning Factors Analysis: Improving Cognitive Models with Machine Learning . , Carnegie Mellon University

work page 2009

[5] [5]

, Koedinger, K R

Cen:2006th APACrefauthors Cen, H. , Koedinger, K R. \ Junker, B. APACrefauthors \ 2006 . Learning Factors Analysis A General Method for Cognitive Model Evaluation and Improvement Learning Factors Analysis A General Method for Cognitive Model Evaluation and Improvement . Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems Procee...

work page 2006

[6] [6]

\ Anderson, J R

Corbett:1994ux APACrefauthors Corbett, A T. \ Anderson, J R. APACrefauthors \ 1995 . Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge . User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 4 4 253--278

work page 1995

[7] [7]

, Baker, R S J d

Koedinger:2010tj APACrefauthors Koedinger, K R. , Baker, R S J d. , Cunningham, K. , Skogsholm, A. , Leber, B. \ Stamper, J. APACrefauthors \ 2010 . A Data Repository for the EDM community: The PSLC DataShop A Data Repository for the EDM community: The PSLC DataShop . C. Romero, S. Ventura, M. Pechenizkiy \ R S J d. Baker\ ( ), Handbook of Educational Dat...

work page 2010

[8] [8]

, Booth, J L

Koedinger:2013hp APACrefauthors Koedinger, K R. , Booth, J L. \ Klahr, D. APACrefauthors \ 2013 . Instructional Complexity and the Science to Constrain It Instructional Complexity and the Science to Constrain It . Science 342 6161 935--937

work page 2013