skip to main content
10.1145/3077136.3080835acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Retrieval Algorithms Optimized for Human Learning

Published:07 August 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

While search technology is widely used for learning-oriented information needs, the results provided by popular services such as Web search engines are optimized primarily for generic relevance, not effective learning outcomes. As a result, the typical information trail that a user must follow while searching to achieve a learning goal may be an inefficient one involving unnecessarily easy or difficult content, or material that is irrelevant to actual learning progress relative to a user's existing knowledge. We address this problem by introducing a novel theoretical framework, algorithms, and empirical analysis of an information retrieval model that is optimized for learning outcomes instead of generic relevance. We do this by formulating an optimization problem that incorporates a cognitive learning model into a retrieval objective, and then give an algorithm for an efficient approximate solution to find the search results that represent the best 'training set' for a human learner. Our model can personalize results for an individual user's learning goals, as well as account for the effort required to achieve those goals for a given set of retrieval results. We investigate the effectiveness and efficiency of our retrieval framework relative to a commercial search engine baseline ('Google') through a crowdsourced user study involving a vocabulary learning task, and demonstrate the effectiveness of personalized results from our model on word learning outcomes.

References

  1. Peter Bailey, Liwei Chen, Scott Grosenick, Li Jiang, Yan Li, Paul Reinholdtsen, Charles Salada, Haidong Wang, and Sandy Wong. 2012. User task understanding: a web search engine perspective. In NII Shonan Meeting on Whole-Session Evaluation of Interactive Information Retrieval Systems, Kanagawa, Japan.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Benjamin S. Bloom. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York, Longmans, Green.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamin S. Bloom. 1984. The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher 13, 6 (1984), 4--16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Andrei Broder. 2002. A Taxonomy of Web Search. SIGIR Forum 36, 2 (Sept. 2002), 3--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Kevyn Collins-Thompson, Paul N. Bennett, Ryen W. White, Sebastian de la Chica, and David Sontag. 2011. Personalizing Web Search Results by Reading Level. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 403--412. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Kevyn Collins-Thompson, Soo Young Rieh, Carl C. Haynes, and Rohail Syed. 2016. Assessing Learning Outcomes in Web Search: A Comparison of Tasks and Query Strategies. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 163--172. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Albert Corbett. 2001. Cognitive computer tutors: Solving the two-sigma problem. In International Conference on User Modeling. Springer, 137--147. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Antonella De Angeli, Lynne Coventry, Graham Johnson, and Karen Renaud. 2005. Is a picture really worth a thousand words? Exploring the feasibility of graphical authentication systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 63, 1 (2005), 128--152. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Sergio Duarte Torres, Djoerd Hiemstra, and Pavel Serdyukov. 2010. An Analysis of Queries Intended to Search Information for Children. In Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Information Interaction in Context (IIiX '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 235--244. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Carsten Eickhoff, Jaime Teevan, Ryen White, and Susan Dumais. 2014. Lessons from the Journey: A Query Log Analysis of Within-session Learning. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 223--232. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Brian W. Junker. 1999. Some statistical models and computational methods that may be useful for cognitively-relevant assessment. Prepared for the National Research Council Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. Retrieved April 2 (1999), 81.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. David R. Krathwohl. 2002. A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice 41, 4 (2002), 212--218. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Victor Kuperman, Hans Stadthagen-Gonzalez, and Marc Brysbaert. 2012. Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods 44, 4 (2012), 978--990. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Peter Pirolli and Sanjay Kairam. 2013. A knowledge-tracing model of learning from a social tagging system. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 23, 2--3 (2013), 139--168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Filip Radlinski and Susan Dumais. 2006. Improving Personalized Web Search Using Result Diversification. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 691--692. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Karthik Raman, Paul N. Bennett, and Kevyn Collins-Thompson. 2014. Understanding intrinsic diversity in web search: Improving whole-session relevance. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 32, 4 (2014), 20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Daniel E. Rose and Danny Levinson. 2004. Understanding User Goals in Web Search. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW '04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 13--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Mark D. Smucker and Charles L. A. Clarke. 2012. Time-based Calibration of Effectiveness Measures. In Proceedings of the 35th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 95--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Rohail Syed and Kevyn Collins-Thompson. 2017. Optimizing search results for human learning goals. Information Retrieval Journal (2017), 1--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Emine Yilmaz, Manisha Verma, Nick Craswell, Filip Radlinski, and Peter Bailey. 2014. Relevance and Effort: An Analysis of Document Utility. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 91--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Xiaojin Zhu. 2013. Machine teaching for bayesian learners in the exponential family. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 1905--1913.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Retrieval Algorithms Optimized for Human Learning

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGIR '17: Proceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval
      August 2017
      1476 pages
      ISBN:9781450350228
      DOI:10.1145/3077136

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      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]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 7 August 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      SIGIR '17 Paper Acceptance Rate78of362submissions,22%Overall Acceptance Rate792of3,983submissions,20%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader