Skip to main content

Estimating Individual Differences for Student Modeling in Intelligent Tutors from Reading and Pretest Data

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 9684))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Past studies have shown that Bayesian Knowledge Tracing (BKT) can predict student performance and implement Cognitive Mastery successfully. Standard BKT individualizes parameter estimates for skills, also referred to as knowledge components (KCs), but not for students. Studies deriving individual student parameters from the data logs of student tutor performance have shown improvements to the standard BKT model fits, and result in different practice recommendations for students. This study investigates whether individual student parameters, specifically individual difference weights (IDWs) [1], can be derived from student activities prior to tutor use. We find that student performance measures in reading instructional text and in a conceptual knowledge pretest can be employed to predict IDWs. Further, we find that a model incorporating these predicted IDWs performs well, in terms of model fit and learning efficiency, when compared to a standard BKT model and a model with best-fitting IDWs derived from tutor performance.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Corbett, A.T., Anderson, J.R.: Knowledge tracing: modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Model. User-Adap. Inter. 4, 253–278 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mayo, M., Mitrovic, A.: Optimising ITS behaviour with Bayesian networks and decision theory. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 12, 124–153 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Shute, V.: Smart: student modeling approach for responsive tutoring. User Model. User-Adap. Inter. 5(1), 1–44 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ganeshan, R., Johnson, W.L., Shaw, E., Wood, B.P.: Tutoring diagnostic problem solving. In: Gauthier, G., Frasson, C., VanLehn, K. (eds.) ITS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1839, pp. 33–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Conati, C., Gertner, A., VanLehn, K.: Using Bayesian networks to manage uncertainty in student modeling. User Model. User-Adap. Inter. 12, 371–417 (2002)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Corbett, A.T., MacLaren, B., Kauffman, L., Wagner, A., Jones, E.A.: Cognitive tutor for genetics problem solving: learning gains and student modeling. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 42(2), 219–239 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gong, Y., Beck, J., Heffernan, N.: Comparing knowledge tracing and performance factor analysis by using multiple model fitting procedures. In: Aleven, V., Kay, J., Mostow, J. (eds.) ITS 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6094, pp. 35–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Koedinger, K., Corbett, A., Perfetti, C.: The Knowledge-Learning-Instruction (KLI) framework: bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cogn. Sci. 36(5), 757–798 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.) EDM 2012 Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on International Educational Data Mining Society, pp. 118–125 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Pardos, Z., Heffernan, N.: Modeling individualization in a Bayesian networks implementation of knowledge tracing. In: De Bra, P., Kobsa, A., Chin, D. (eds.) UMAP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6075, pp. 255–266. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Yudelson, M.V., Koedinger, K.R., Gordon, G.J.: Individualized Bayesian knowledge tracing models. In: Lane, H.C., Yacef, K., Mostow, J., Pavlik, P. (eds.) AIED 2013. LNCS, vol. 7926, pp. 171–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Pirolli, P., Wilson, M.: A theory of the measurement of knowledge content, access, and learning. Psychol. Rev. 105(1), 58–82 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cen, H., Koedinger, K.R., Junker, B.: Comparing two IRT models for conjunctive skills. In: Woolf, B.P., Aïmeur, E., Nkambou, R., Lajoie, S. (eds.) ITS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5091, pp. 796–798. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Pavlik, Jr., P.I., Yudelson, M., Koedinger, K.R.: Using contextual factors analysis to explain transfer of least common multiple skills. In: Biswas, G., Bull, S., Kay, J., Mitrovic, A. (eds.) AIED 2011. LNCS, vol. 6738, pp. 256–263. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Harvey, L., Anderson, J.: Transfer of declarative knowledge in complex information processing domains. Hum.-Comput. Inter. 11(1), 69–96 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zwann, R., Singer, M.: Text comprehension. In: Graesser, A., Gernsbacher, M., Goldman, S. (eds.) Handbook of Discourse Processes, pp. 83–121. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Arroyo, I., Beck, J.E., Park Woolf, B., Beal, C.R., Schultz, K.: Macroadapting animalwatch to gender and cognitive differences with respect to hint interactivity and symbolism. In: Gauthier, G., VanLehn, K., Frasson, C. (eds.) ITS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1839, pp. 574–583. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Baker, R.S., Corbett, A.T., Aleven, V.: More accurate student modeling through contextual estimation of slip and guess probabilities in bayesian knowledge tracing. In: Woolf, B.P., Aïmeur, E., Nkambou, R., Lajoie, S. (eds.) ITS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5091, pp. 406–415. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Koedinger, K.R., Stamper, J.C., McLaughlin, E.A., Nixon, T.: Using data-driven discovery of better student models to improve student learning. In: Lane, H., Yacef, K., Mostow, J., Pavlik, P. (eds.) AIED 2013. LNCS, vol. 7926, pp. 421–430. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under the grant “Knowing What Students Know: Using Education Data Mining to Predict Robust STEM Learning”, award number DRL1420609.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Eagle .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Eagle, M. et al. (2016). Estimating Individual Differences for Student Modeling in Intelligent Tutors from Reading and Pretest Data. In: Micarelli, A., Stamper, J., Panourgia, K. (eds) Intelligent Tutoring Systems. ITS 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9684. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39583-8_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39583-8_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-39582-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-39583-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics