Fuzzy Cognitive Diagnosis for Modelling Examinee Performance

Recent decades have witnessed the rapid growth of educational data mining (EDM), which aims at automatically extracting valuable information from large repositories of data generated by or related to people’s learning activities in educational settings. One of the key EDM tasks is cognitive modelling with examination data, and cognitive modelling tries to profile examinees by discovering their latent knowledge state and cognitive level (e.g. the proficiency of specific skills). However, to the best of our knowledge, the problem of extracting information from both objective and subjective examination problems to achieve more precise and interpretable cognitive analysis remains underexplored. To this end, we propose a fuzzy cognitive diagnosis framework (FuzzyCDF) for examinees’ cognitive modelling with both objective and subjective problems. Specifically, to handle the partially correct responses on subjective problems, we first fuzzify the skill proficiency of examinees. Then we combine fuzzy set theory and educational hypotheses to model the examinees’ mastery on the problems based on their skill proficiency. Finally, we simulate the generation of examination score on each problem by considering slip and guess factors. In this way, the whole diagnosis framework is built. For further comprehensive verification, we apply our FuzzyCDF to three classical cognitive assessment tasks, i.e., predicting examinee performance, slip and guess detection, and cognitive diagnosis visualization. Extensive experiments on three real-world datasets for these assessment tasks prove that FuzzyCDF can reveal the knowledge states and cognitive level of the examinees effectively and interpretatively.

[1]  Carlos Delgado Kloos,et al.  GLASS: a learning analytics visualization tool , 2012, LAK '12.

[2]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  Learning Factors Analysis - A General Method for Cognitive Model Evaluation and Improvement , 2006, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[3]  Enhong Chen,et al.  Question Difficulty Prediction for READING Problems in Standard Tests , 2017, AAAI.

[4]  Jeffrey A Douglas,et al.  Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis , 2004 .

[5]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge , 2005, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[6]  Gregory Camilli,et al.  Origin of the scaling constant d = 1.7 in item response theory. , 1994 .

[7]  Robert LIN,et al.  NOTE ON FUZZY SETS , 2014 .

[8]  Yi Sun,et al.  Alternating Recursive Method for Q-matrix Learning , 2014, EDM.

[9]  Eunice Eunhee Jang,et al.  A *Validity Narrative: Effects of Reading Skills Diagnosis on Teaching and Learning in the Context of NG TOEFL , 2005 .

[10]  Lars Schmidt-Thieme,et al.  Recommender system for predicting student performance , 2010, RecSysTEL@RecSys.

[11]  Le Wu,et al.  Tracking Knowledge Proficiency of Students with Educational Priors , 2017, CIKM.

[12]  Amy K. Clark Validation of a Cognitive Diagnostic Model across Multiple Forms of a Reading Comprehension Assessment. , 2013 .

[13]  David Engel,et al.  Intelligent Tutoring Systems Evolutions In Design , 2016 .

[14]  W. K. Hastings,et al.  Monte Carlo Sampling Methods Using Markov Chains and Their Applications , 1970 .

[15]  D. Hargreaves,et al.  Teachers’ questions: open, closed and half‐open , 1984 .

[16]  Louis V. DiBello,et al.  31A Review of Cognitively Diagnostic Assessment and a Summary of Psychometric Models , 2006 .

[17]  George J. Klir,et al.  Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic - theory and applications , 1995 .

[18]  Dror Ben-Naim,et al.  Visualization and Analysis of Student Interactions in an Adaptive Exploratory Learning Environment , 2008 .

[19]  Fritz Drasgow,et al.  Item response theory : application to psychological measurement , 1983 .

[20]  Carolina Ruiz,et al.  The Composition Effect: Conjuntive or Compensatory? An Analysis of Multi-Skill Math Questions in ITS , 2008, EDM.

[21]  P. Fayers Item Response Theory for Psychologists , 2004, Quality of Life Research.

[22]  Melvin R. Novick,et al.  Some latent train models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability , 1966 .

[23]  Bernard J. Jansen,et al.  Subjective versus Objective Questions: Perception of Question Subjectivity in Social Q&A , 2015, SBP.

[24]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  More Accurate Student Modeling through Contextual Estimation of Slip and Guess Probabilities in Bayesian Knowledge Tracing , 2008, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[25]  Ruslan Salakhutdinov,et al.  Probabilistic Matrix Factorization , 2007, NIPS.

[26]  Joseph E. Beck,et al.  High-Level Student Modeling with Machine Learning , 2000, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[27]  W. Gilks Markov Chain Monte Carlo , 2005 .

[28]  B. Junker,et al.  Cognitive Assessment Models with Few Assumptions, and Connections with Nonparametric Item Response Theory , 2001 .

[29]  Enhong Chen,et al.  Cognitive Modelling for Predicting Examinee Performance , 2015, IJCAI.

[30]  Kikumi K. Tatsuoka,et al.  Analysis of Errors in Fraction Addition and Subtraction Problems. Final Report. , 1984 .

[31]  Michel C. Desmarais,et al.  Mapping question items to skills with non-negative matrix factorization , 2012, SKDD.

[32]  S. Embretson,et al.  Component Latent Trait Models for Test Design. , 1982 .

[33]  S. Chipman,et al.  Cognitively diagnostic assessment , 1995 .

[34]  J. D. L. Torre,et al.  The Generalized DINA Model Framework. , 2011 .

[35]  F. Samejima A General Model for Free Response Data. , 1972 .

[36]  Enhong Chen,et al.  Collaborative Learning Team Formation: A Cognitive Modeling Perspective , 2016, DASFAA.

[37]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations , 1998 .

[38]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Engaging with massive online courses , 2014, WWW.

[39]  Ryan Shaun Joazeiro de Baker,et al.  Off-task behavior in the cognitive tutor classroom: when students "game the system" , 2004, CHI.

[40]  Jan Jantzen,et al.  Foundations of Fuzzy Control: A Practical Approach , 2013 .

[41]  Neil T. Heffernan,et al.  Personalizing Knowledge Tracing: Should We Individualize Slip, Guess, Prior or Learn Rate? , 2014, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[42]  Jimmy de la Torre,et al.  Differential Item Functioning Assessment in Cognitive Diagnostic Modeling: Application of the Wald Test to Investigate DIF in the DINA Model. , 2014 .

[43]  Michael Jahrer,et al.  Collaborative Filtering Applied to Educational Data Mining , 2010 .

[44]  Jorge Dı́ez Peer Assessment in MOOCs Using Preference Learning via Matrix Factorization , 2013 .

[45]  Konstantina Chrysafiadi,et al.  Fuzzy Logic for Adaptive Instruction in an E-learning Environment for Computer Programming , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems.

[46]  Yehuda Koren,et al.  Matrix Factorization Techniques for Recommender Systems , 2009, Computer.

[47]  G. Rasch On General Laws and the Meaning of Measurement in Psychology , 1961 .

[48]  Lars Schmidt-Thieme,et al.  Multi-relational Factorization Models for Student Modeling in Intelligent Tutoring Systems , 2015, 2015 Seventh International Conference on Knowledge and Systems Engineering (KSE).

[49]  Edward Haertel,et al.  An Application of Latent Class Models to Assessment Data , 1984 .

[50]  Antonija Mitrovic,et al.  Supporting Learning by Opening the Student Model , 2002, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[51]  Philip S. Yu,et al.  Targeting the right students using data mining , 2000, KDD '00.

[52]  Enhong Chen,et al.  Knowledge or Gaming?: Cognitive Modelling Based on Multiple-Attempt Response , 2017, WWW.

[53]  Hui Xiong,et al.  Mining Indecisiveness in Customer Behaviors , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining.

[54]  Gregory Camilli Teacher’s Corner: Origin of the Scaling Constant d = 1.7 in Item Response Theory , 1994 .

[55]  L. T. DeCarlo On the Analysis of Fraction Subtraction Data: The DINA Model, Classification, Latent Class Sizes, and the Q-Matrix , 2011 .

[56]  H. Sebastian Seung,et al.  Algorithms for Non-negative Matrix Factorization , 2000, NIPS.