skip to main content
10.1145/3231644.3231675acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesl-at-sConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Exploring the utility of response times and wrong answers for adaptive learning

Published:26 June 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Personalized educational systems adapt their behavior based on student performance. Most student modeling techniques, which are used for guiding the adaptation, utilize only the correctness of student's answers. However, other data about performance are typically available. In this work we focus on response times and wrong answers as these aspects of performance are available in most systems. We analyze data from several types of exercises and domains (mathematics, spelling, grammar). The results suggest that wrong answers are more informative than response times. Based on our results we propose a classification of student performance into several categories.

References

  1. Ryan SJ Baker, Albert T Corbett, and Vincent Aleven. 2008. More accurate student modeling through contextual estimation of slip and guess probabilities in bayesian knowledge tracing. In Proc. of Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer, 406--115. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. S Klinkenberg, M Straatemeier, and HLJ Van der Maas. 2011. Computer adaptive practice of Maths ability using a new item response model for on the fly ability and difficulty estimation. Computers & Education 57, 2 (2011), 1813--1824. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Jan Papoušek, Radek Pelánek, Jiří Rihák, and Vít Stanislav. 2015. An Analysis of Response Times in Adaptive Practice of Geography Facts. In Proc. of Educational Data Mining. 562--563.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Radek Pelánek. 2017. Bayesian knowledge tracing, logistic models, and beyond: an overview of learner modeling techniques. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 27, 3 (2017), 313--350. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Radek Pelánek and Jiří Rihák. 2017. Experimental Analysis of Mastery Learning Criteria. In Proc. of User Modelling, Adaptation and Personalization. ACM, 156--163. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Radek Pelánek and Jiří Rihák. 2016. Properties and Applications of Wrong Answers in Online Educational Systems. In Proc. of Educational Data Mining. 466--471.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. W.J. Van Der Linden. 2009. Conceptual Issues in Response-Time Modeling. Journal of Educational Measurement 46, 3 (2009), 247--272.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Yutao Wang, Neil T Heffernan, and Cristina Heffernan. 2015. Towards better affect detectors: effect of missing skills, class features and common wrong answers. In Proc. of Learning Analytics And Knowledge. ACM, 31--35. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

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 Other conferences
    L@S '18: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale
    June 2018
    391 pages
    ISBN:9781450358866
    DOI:10.1145/3231644

    Copyright © 2018 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 the author(s) 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: 26 June 2018

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • short-paper

    Acceptance Rates

    L@S '18 Paper Acceptance Rate24of58submissions,41%Overall Acceptance Rate117of440submissions,27%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader