skip to main content
10.1145/3375462.3375512acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageslakConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A bayesian model of individual differences and flexibility in inductive reasoning for categorization of examples

Published:23 March 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Inductive reasoning is an important educational practice but can be difficult for teachers to support in the classroom due to the high level of preparation and classroom time needed to choose the teaching materials that challenge students' current views. Intelligent tutoring systems can potentially facilitate this work for teachers by supporting the automatic adaptation of examples based on a student model of the induction process. However, current models of inductive reasoning usually lack two main characteristics helpful to adaptive learning environments, individual differences of students and tracing of students' learning as they receive feedback. In this paper, we describe a model to predict and simulate inductive reasoning of students for a categorization task. Our approach uses a Bayesian model for describing the reasoning processes of students. This model allows us to predict students' choices in categorization questions by accounting for their feature biases. Using data gathered from 222 students categorizing three topics, we find that our model has a 75% accuracy, which is 10% greater than a baseline model. Our model is a contribution to learning analytics by enabling us to assign different bias profiles to individual students and tracking these profile changes over time through which we can gain a better understanding of students' learning processes. This model may be relevant for systematically analysing students' differences and evolution in inductive reasoning strategies while supporting the design of adaptive inductive learning environments.

References

  1. John R Anderson, C Franklin Boyle, and Brian J Reiser. 1985. Intelligent tutoring systems. Science 228, 4698 (1985), 456--462.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Alejandro Bogarín, Rebeca Cerezo, and Cristóbal Romero. 2018. A survey on educational process mining. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 8, 1 (2018), e1230.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Hao Cen, Kenneth Koedinger, and Brian Junker. 2006. Learning factors analysis-a general method for cognitive model evaluation and improvement. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer, 164--175.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Incheol Choi, Richard E Nisbett, and Edward E Smith. 1997. Culture, category salience, and inductive reasoning. Cognition 65, 1 (1997), 15--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Constantinos Christou and Eleni Papageorgiou. 2007. A framework of mathematics inductive reasoning. Learning and Instruction 17, 1 (2007), 55--66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. John Coley, Patrick Shafto, Olga Stepanova, and Elizabeth Baraff. 2005. Knowledge and Category-Based Induction. (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Albert T Corbett and John R Anderson. 1994. Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User modeling and user-adapted interaction 4, 4 (1994), 253--278.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Sharon J Derry, Cindy E Hmelo-Silver, Anandi Nagarajan, Ellina Chernobilsky, and Brian D Beitzel. 2006. Cognitive transfer revisited: Can we exploit new media to solve old problems on a large scale? Journal of Educational Computing Research 35, 2 (2006), 145--162.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Nicholas Diana, John Stamper, and Ken Koedinger. 2018. An instructional factors analysis of an online logical fallacy tutoring system. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer, 86--97.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Louis Faucon, Lukasz Kidzinski, and Pierre Dillenbourg. 2016. Semi-Markov Model for Simulating MOOC Students. International Educational Data Mining Society (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. JHM Hamers, E De Koning, and K Sijtsma. 1998. Inductive reasoning in third grade: Intervention promises and constraints. Contemporary Educational Psychology 23, 2 (1998), 132--148.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Brett K Hayes and Ben R Newell. 2009. Induction with uncertain categories: When do people consider the category alternatives? Memory & Cognition 37, 6 (2009), 730--743.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Evan Heit. 1997. Features of similarity and category-based induction. In An Interdisciplinary Workshop On Similarity And Categorisation (SimCat). Edinburgh, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Evan Heit. 1998. A Bayesian analysis of some forms of inductive reasoning. Rational models of cognition (1998), 248--274.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Cindy E Hmelo-Silver. 2004. Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational psychology review 16, 3 (2004), 235--266.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Natasha G Holmes, James Day, Anthony HK Park, DA Bonn, and Ido Roll. 2014. Making the failure more productive: scaffolding the invention process to improve inquiry behaviors and outcomes in invention activities. Instructional Science 42, 4 (2014), 523--538.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Manu Kapur and Katerine Bielaczyc. 2012. Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences 21, 1 (2012), 45--83.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Tanja Käser, Severin Klingler, Alexander Gerhard Schwing, and Markus Gross. 2014. Beyond knowledge tracing: Modeling skill topologies with bayesian networks. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer, 188--198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Katharina Loibl, Ido Roll, and Nikol Rummel. 2017. Towards a theory of when and how problem solving followed by instruction supports learning. Educational Psychology Review 29, 4 (2017), 693--715.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Christopher J Maclellan, Erik Harpstead, Rony Patel, and Kenneth R Koedinger. 2016. The Apprentice Learner Architecture: Closing the Loop between Learning Theory and Educational Data. International Educational Data Mining Society (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Christopher J MacLellan, Kenneth R Koedinger, and Noboru Matsuda. 2014. Authoring tutors with SimStudent: An evaluation of efficiency and model quality. In International conference on intelligent tutoring systems. Springer, 551--560.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Douglas L Medin, John D Coley, Gert Storms, and Brett L Hayes. 2003. A relevance theory of induction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10, 3 (2003), 517--532.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Eva Millán and José Luis Pérez-De-La-Cruz. 2002. A Bayesian diagnostic algorithm for student modeling and its evaluation. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 12, 2--3 (2002), 281--330.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Andrew J Milson and Brian D Earle. 2008. Internet-based GIS in an inductive learning environment: A case study of ninth-grade geography students. Journal of geography 106, 6 (2008), 227--237.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Todd K Moon. 1996. The expectation-maximization algorithm. IEEE Signal processing magazine 13, 6 (1996), 47--60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Daniel N Osherson, Edward E Smith, Ormond Wilkie, Alejandro Lopez, and Eldar Shafir. 1990. Category-based induction. Psychological review 97, 2 (1990), 185.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Zachary Pardos and Neil Heffernan. 2010. Navigating the parameter space of Bayesian Knowledge Tracing models: Visualizations of the convergence of the Expectation Maximization algorithm. In Educational Data Mining 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Amy Perfors, Joshua B Tenenbaum, Thomas L Griffiths, and Fei Xu. 2011. A tutorial introduction to Bayesian models of cognitive development. Cognition 120, 3 (2011), 302--321.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Chris Piech, Jonathan Bassen, Jonathan Huang, Surya Ganguli, Mehran Sahami, Leonidas J Guibas, and Jascha Sohl-Dickstein. 2015. Deep knowledge tracing. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 505--513.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Michael J Prince and Richard M Felder. 2006. Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of engineering education 95, 2 (2006), 123--138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Anna N Rafferty, Emma Brunskill, Thomas L Griffiths, and Patrick Shafto. 2016. Faster teaching via pomdp planning. Cognitive science 40, 6 (2016), 1290--1332.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Daniel L Schwartz and Taylor Martin. 2004. Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction 22, 2 (2004), 129--184.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Linda B Smith, Susan S Jones, Barbara Landau, Lisa Gershkoff-Stowe, and Larissa Samuelson. 2002. Object name learning provides on-the-job training for attention. Psychological science 13, 1 (2002), 13--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Joshua B Tenenbaum. 1999. Bayesian modeling of human concept learning. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 59--68.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Joshua B Tenenbaum, Charles Kemp, Thomas L Griffiths, and Noah D Goodman. 2011. How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction. science 331, 6022 (2011), 1279--1285.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Amos Tversky. 1977. Features of similarity. Psychological review 84, 4 (1977), 327.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Michael V Yudelson, Kenneth R Koedinger, and Geoffrey J Gordon. 2013. Individualized bayesian knowledge tracing models. In International conference on artificial intelligence in education. Springer, 171--180.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. A bayesian model of individual differences and flexibility in inductive reasoning for categorization of examples

            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
              LAK '20: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge
              March 2020
              679 pages
              ISBN:9781450377126
              DOI:10.1145/3375462

              Copyright © 2020 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: 23 March 2020

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              LAK '20 Paper Acceptance Rate80of261submissions,31%Overall Acceptance Rate236of782submissions,30%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader