skip to main content
10.1145/3051457.3053983acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesl-at-sConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

One Decision Tree is Enough to Make Customization

Published: 12 April 2017 Publication History

Abstract

The ability to customize instruction to individuals is a great potential for adaptive educational software. Unfortunately, beyond mastery learning and learner control, there has not been much work with adapting instruction to individuals. This paper provides an approach to determine what type of learner does best with a different intervention. We focused on constructing a decision tree that discriminated difference between tutoring interventions, and thus to make customization for each student. We evaluated our model on simulated and on real data. In the simulated data set, it outperformed other methods and the constructed models captured a pre-defined customization structure. With the real data, the customized learning approach achieved stronger learning gains than simply picking the best overall teaching option. Surprisingly, it was difficult to outperform a decision tree that simply used how quickly students tended to learn a skill. That is, more features and more complex models did not result in a more effective system.

References

[1]
Benjamin S Bloom, The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational researcher, 1984. 13(6): p. 4--16.
[2]
Jack Mostow and Joseph Beck, When the rubber meets the road: Lessons from the in-school adventures of an automated Reading Tutor that listens. Scale-Up in Education, 2006. 2: p. 183--200.
[3]
Hyun Jin Cha, Yong Se Kim, Seon Hee Park, Tae Bok Yoon, Young Mo Jung, and Jee-Hyong Lee. Learning styles diagnosis based on user interface behaviors for the customization of learning interfaces in an intelligent tutoring system. in International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. 2006. Springer.
[4]
Harold Pashler, Mark McDaniel, Doug Rohrer, and Robert Bjork, Learning styles concepts and evidence. Psychological science in the public interest, 2008. 9(3): p. 105--119.
[5]
Anthony Botelho, Hao Wan, and Neil Heffernan. The prediction of student first response using prerequisite skills. in Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale. 2015. ACM.
[6]
Hao Wan and Joseph Barbosa Beck, Considering the Influence of Prerequisite Performance on Wheel Spinning. International Educational Data Mining Society, 2015.
[7]
Jong Woo Kim, Byung Hun Lee, Michael J Shaw, Hsin-Lu Chang, and Matthew Nelson, Application of decision-tree induction techniques to personalized advertisements on internet storefronts. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 200 5(3): p. 45--62.
[8]
Gerhard Weber, Hans-Christian Kuhl, and Stephan Weibelzahl. Developing adaptive internet based courses with the authoring system NetCoach. in Workshop on Adaptive Hypermedia. 2001. Springer.
[9]
Joseph Jay Williams, Na Li, Juho Kim, Jacob Whitehill, Samuel Maldonado, Mykola Pechenizkiy, Larry Chu, and Neil Heffernan, The MOOClet framework: Improving online education through experimentation and personalization of modules. Available at SSRN 2523265, 2014.
[10]
Hendrik Blockeel and Luc De Raedt, Top-down induction of first-order logical decision trees. Artificial intelligence, 1998. 101(1): p. 285--297.
[11]
Leo Breiman, Jerome Friedman, Charles J Stone, and Richard A Olshen, Classification and regression trees. 1984: CRC press.
[12]
J Ross Quinlan, C4. 5: programs for machine learning. 2014: Elsevier.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
L@S '17: Proceedings of the Fourth (2017) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale
April 2017
352 pages
ISBN:9781450344500
DOI:10.1145/3051457
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: 12 April 2017

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. customization
  2. decision tree
  3. treatment effect

Qualifiers

  • Short-paper

Conference

L@S 2017
Sponsor:
L@S 2017: Fourth (2017) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale
April 20 - 21, 2017
Massachusetts, Cambridge, USA

Acceptance Rates

L@S '17 Paper Acceptance Rate 14 of 105 submissions, 13%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 117 of 440 submissions, 27%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 174
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 18 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media