Contextual Slip and Prediction of Student Performance after Use of an Intelligent Tutor

Intelligent tutoring systems that utilize Bayesian Knowledge Tracing have achieved the ability to accurately predict student performance not only within the intelligent tutoring system, but on paper post-tests outside of the system Recent work has suggested that contextual estimation of student guessing and slipping leads to better prediction within the tutoring software (Baker, Corbett, & Aleven, 2008a, 2008b) However, it is not yet clear whether this new variant on knowledge tracing is effective at predicting the latent student knowledge that leads to successful post-test performance In this paper, we compare the Contextual-Guess-and-Slip variant on Bayesian Knowledge Tracing to classical four-parameter Bayesian Knowledge Tracing and the Individual Difference Weights variant of Bayesian Knowledge Tracing (Corbett & Anderson, 1995), investigating how well each model variant predicts post-test performance We also test other ways to utilize contextual estimation of slipping within the tutor in post-test prediction, and discuss hypotheses for why slipping during tutor use is a significant predictor of post-test performance, even after Bayesian Knowledge Tracing estimates are controlled for.

[1]  Douglas M. Hawkins,et al.  The Problem of Overfitting , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[2]  Ralph L. Rosnow,et al.  Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis , 1984 .

[3]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  Performance Factors Analysis - A New Alternative to Knowledge Tracing , 2009, AIED.

[4]  Ryan Shaun Joazeiro de Baker,et al.  Case studies in the use of ROC curve analysis for sensor-based estimates in human computer interaction , 2005, Graphics Interface.

[5]  Piotr J. Gmytrasiewicz,et al.  User Modeling 2001 , 2001, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[6]  Stephen P. Boyd,et al.  Convex Optimization , 2004, Algorithms and Theory of Computation Handbook.

[7]  Jim Reye,et al.  Student Modelling Based on Belief Networks , 2004, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[8]  Cristina Conati,et al.  User Modeling 2007, 11th International Conference, UM 2007, Corfu, Greece, June 25-29, 2007, Proceedings , 2007, User Modeling.

[9]  Joseph E. Beck,et al.  Identifiability: A Fundamental Problem of Student Modeling , 2007, User Modeling.

[10]  A. Corbett,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences: Cognitive Tutors , 2005 .

[11]  R. Schmidt,et al.  New Conceptualizations of Practice: Common Principles in Three Paradigms Suggest New Concepts for Training , 1992 .

[12]  Albert T. Corbett,et al.  A Cognitive Tutor for Genetics Problem Solving: Learning Gains and Student Modeling , 2010 .

[13]  R. Sawyer.  The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences: Introduction , 2014 .

[14]  Albert T. Corbett,et al.  Cognitive Computer Tutors: Solving the Two-Sigma Problem , 2001, User Modeling.

[15]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Inventing to Prepare for Future Learning: The Hidden Efficiency of Encouraging Original Student Production in Statistics Instruction , 2004 .

[16]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Improving Contextual Models of Guessing and Slipping with a Trucated Training Set , 2008, EDM.

[17]  Joel D. Martin,et al.  Student assessment using Bayesian nets , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[18]  Valerie J. Shute,et al.  SMART: Student modeling approach for responsive tutoring , 1995, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

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

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

[21]  R. Charles Murray,et al.  Reducing the Knowledge Tracing Space , 2009, EDM.