skip to main content
10.1145/2930238.2930255acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesumapConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Predicting Individual Differences for Learner Modeling in Intelligent Tutors from Previous Learner Activities

Published: 13 July 2016 Publication History

Abstract

This study examines how accurately individual student differences in learning can be predicted from prior student learning activities. Bayesian Knowledge Tracing (BKT) predicts learner performance well and has often been employed to implement cognitive mastery. Standard BKT individualizes parameter estimates for knowledge components, but not for learners. Studies have shown that individualizing parameters for learners improves the quality of BKT fits and can lead to very different (and potentially better) practice recommendations. These studies typically derive best-fitting individualized learner parameters from learner performance in existing data logs, making the methods difficult to deploy in actual tutor use. In this work, we examine how well BKT parameters in a tutor lesson can be individualized based on learners' prior performance in reading instructional text, taking a pretest, and completing an earlier tutor lesson. We find that best-fitting individual difference estimates do not directly transfer well from one tutor lesson to another, but that predictive models incorporating variables extracted from prior reading, pretest and tutor activities perform well, when compared to a standard BKT model and a model with best-fitting individualized parameter estimates.

References

[1]
Corbett, A.T., Anderson, J.R.: Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User modeling and user-adapted interaction, 4, 253--278. (1995)
[2]
Mayo, M., Mitrovic, A. Optimising ITS behaviour with Bayesian networks and decision theory. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 124--153 (2001).
[3]
Shute, V.: Smart: Student Modeling Approach for Responsive Tutoring. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 5 (1), 1--44. (1995)
[4]
Ganeshan, R., Johnson, L., Shaw, E., Wood, B.: Tutoring diagnostic problem solving. In G. Gauthier, C. Frasson, K. VanLehn (eds.) ITS2000 Intelligent Tutoring Systems, LNCS vol. 1839, pp. 33--42. Springer, Heidelberg. (2000)
[5]
Conati, C., Gertner, A., VanLehn, K. Using Bayesian networks to manage uncertainty in student modeling. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 12, 371--417. (2002)
[6]
Corbett, A.T., MacLaren, B., Kauffman, L., Wagner, A., Jones, E. A.: Cognitive Tutor for Genetics Problem Solving: Learning Gains and Student Modeling. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42 (2), 219--239. (2010)
[7]
Gong, Y., Beck, J., Heffernan, N.: Comparing knowledge tracing and performance factor analysis by using multiple model fitting. In V. Aleven, J. Kay, J. Mostow (eds.) ITS2010 Intelligent Tutoring Systems. LNCS vol. 6094, pp. 35--44. Springer, Heidelberg. (2010)
[8]
Lee, J., Brunskill, E.: The impact of individualizing student models on necessary practice opportunities. In: Yacef, K., Zaiane, O., Hershkovitz, A., Yudelson, M., Stamper, J. (eds.) EDM2012 Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on International Educational Data Mining Society, 118--125. (2012)
[9]
Pardos, Z. Heffernan, N.: Modeling individualization in a Bayesian networks implementation of Knowledge Tracing. In De Bra, P., Kobsa, A., Chin, D. (eds.) UMAP2010 Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization, LNCS vol. 6075, pp. 255--266. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
[10]
Yudelson, M., Koedinger, K., Gordon, G.: Individualized Bayesian knowledge tracing models. In: Lane, C., Yacef, K., Mostow, J., Pavlik, P. (eds.) AIED2013 Artificial Intelligence in Education, LNCS vol. 7926, pp. 171--180, Springer, Heidel-berg. (2013)
[11]
Pirolli, P., Wilson, M: A theory of the measurement of knowledge content, access, and learning. Psychological Review, 105(1), 58--82. (1998)
[12]
Cen, H., Koedinger, K., Junker, B.: Comparing two IRT models for conjunctive skills. In B. Woolf, E. Atmour, R. Nkambou, S. Lajoie (eds.) ITS2008 Intelligent Tutoring Systems LNCS vol. 5091, pp. 796--798. Springer, Heidelberg. (2008)
[13]
Pavlik, P., Yudelson, M., Koedinger, K.: Using contextual factors analysis to explain transfer of least common multiple skills. In G. Biswas, S. Bull, J. Kay, A. Mitrovic (eds.) AIED2011 Artificial Intelligence in Education, LNCS vol. 6738, pp. 256--263. Springer, Heidelberg. (2011)
[14]
Eagle, M., Corbett, A., Stamper, J., McLaren, B.M., Wagner, A., MacLaren, B., Mitchell, A.: Estimating individual differences for student modeling in intelligent tutors from reading and pretest data. ITS2016 Intelligent Tutoring Systems. (in press)
[15]
Harvey, L., Anderson, J.: Transfer of declarative knowledge in complex information processing domains. Human-Computer Interaction, 11 (1), 69--96. (1996)
[16]
Zwann, R., Singer, M.: Text comprehension. In A. Graesser, M. Gernsbacher, S. Goldman (eds.) Handbook of discourse processes, pp. 83--12 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. (2003)
[17]
Arroyo, I., Beck, J., Woolf, B., Beal, C., Schultz, K.: Macroadapting Animalwatch to gender and cognitive differences with respect to hint interactivity and symbolism. In G. Gauthier, C. Frasson, K. VanLehn (eds.) ITS2000 Intelligent Tutoring Systems, LNCS vol. 1839, pp. 574--583. Springer, Heidelberg. (2000)
[18]
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 24). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
[19]
Baker, R.S.J.d., Corbett, A.T., Gowda, S.M. (2013). Generalizing automated detection of the robustness of student learning in an intelligent tutor for genetics. Journal of Educational Psychology. 105, 946--956.
[20]
Koedinger, K.R., Corbett, A.T. and Perfetti, C. (2012). The Knowledge-Learning-Instruction (KLI) Framework: Bridging the Science-Practice Chasm to Enhance Robust Student Learning. Cognitive Science, 36, 757--798.
[21]
Baker, R.S.J.d., Gowda, S.M., Corbett, A.T., Ocumpaugh, J.: Towards automatically detecting whether student learning is shallow. In S. Cerri, W. Clancey, G. Papadourakis, K. Panourgia (eds.) ITS2012 Intelligent Tutoring Systems LNCS vol. 7315, pp. 444--453. Springer, Heidelberg. (2012)
[22]
Koedinger, K., Stamper, J., McLaughlin, E., Nixon,T.: Using data-driven discovery of better student models to improve student learning. In: Lane, C., Yacef, K., Mostow, J., Pavlik, P. (eds.) AIED2013 Artificial Intelligence in Education, LNCS vol. 7926, pp. 421--430, Springer, Heidelberg. (2013)
[23]
Baker, R., Corbett, A., Aleven, V.: More Accurate Student Modeling Through Contextual Estimation of Slip and Guess Probabilities in Bayesian Knowledge Tracing. In B. Woolf, E. Aimeur, R. Nkambou, S. Lajoie (eds.) ITS2008 Intelligent Tutoring Systems. LNCS vol. 5091, pp. 406--415. Springer, Heidelberg. (2008)
[24]
Efron, B., Hastie, T., Johnstone, I., & Tibshirani, R. Least angle regression. The Annals of statistics, 32(2), 407--499. (2004).
[25]
Andersen, Robert. Modern methods for robust regression. Sage, 2008.
[26]
Ihaka, Ross, and Robert Gentleman. "R: a language for data analysis and graphics." Journal of computational and graphical statistics 5.3, 299--314. (1996)
[27]
Nash, John C., and Ravi Varadhan. "Unifying optimization algorithms to aid software system users: optimx for R." Journal of Statistical Software 43.9, 1--14. (2011)
[28]
Venables, W. N., Ripley, B.D., Modern Applied Statistics with S. Forth Edition. Springer, New York. (2013)

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
UMAP '16: Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on User Modeling Adaptation and Personalization
July 2016
366 pages
ISBN:9781450343688
DOI:10.1145/2930238
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 13 July 2016

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. BKT
  2. genetics
  3. machine learning
  4. student modeling

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

UMAP '16
Sponsor:
UMAP '16: User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization Conference
July 13 - 17, 2016
Nova Scotia, Halifax, Canada

Acceptance Rates

UMAP '16 Paper Acceptance Rate 21 of 123 submissions, 17%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 162 of 633 submissions, 26%

Upcoming Conference

UMAP '25

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)53
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9
Reflects downloads up to 07 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media