Instructional Factors Analysis: A Cognitive Model For Multiple Instructional Interventions

In this paper, we proposed a new cognitive modeling approach: Instructional Factors Analysis Model (IFM). It belongs to a class of Knowledge-Component-based cognitive models. More specifically, IFM is targeted for modeling student’s performance when multiple types of instructional interventions are involved and some of them may not generate a direct observation of students’ performance. We compared IFM to two other pre-existing cognitive models: Additive Factor Models (AFMs) and Performance Factor Models (PFMs). The three methods differ mainly on how a student’s previous experience on a Knowledge Component is counted into multiple categories. Among the three models, instructional interventions without immediate direct observations can be easily incorporate into the AFM and IFM models. Therefore, they are further compared on two important tasks—unseen student prediction and unseen step prediction—and to determine whether the extra flexibility afforded by additional parameters leads to better models, or just to over fitting. Our results suggested that, for datasets involving multiple types of learning interventions, dividing student learning opportunities into multiple categories is beneficial in that IFM out-performed both AFM and PFM models on various tasks. However, the relative performance of the IFM models depends on the specific prediction task; so, experimenters facing a novel task should engage in some measure of model selection.

[1]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  Using Contextual Factors Analysis to Explain Transfer of Least Common Multiple Skills , 2011, AIED.

[2]  Kurt VanLehn,et al.  The Behavior of Tutoring Systems , 2006, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[3]  Tiffany Barnes,et al.  The Q-matrix Method: Mining Student Response Data for Knowledge , 2005 .

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

[5]  G. Schwarz Estimating the Dimension of a Model , 1978 .

[6]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  Comparing Two IRT Models for Conjunctive Skills , 2008, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[7]  Tom Routen,et al.  Intelligent Tutoring Systems , 1996, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[8]  Jack Mostow,et al.  How Who Should Practice: Using Learning Decomposition to Evaluate the Efficacy of Different Types of Practice for Different Types of Students , 2008, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

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

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

[11]  Kurt VanLehn,et al.  Developing pedagogically effective tutorial dialogue tactics: experiments and a testbed , 2007, SLaTE.

[12]  Neil T. Heffernan,et al.  Comparing Knowledge Tracing and Performance Factor Analysis by Using Multiple Model Fitting Procedures , 2010, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[13]  Allen and Rosenbloom Paul S. Newell,et al.  Mechanisms of Skill Acquisition and the Law of Practice , 1993 .

[14]  K. Tatsuoka RULE SPACE: AN APPROACH FOR DEALING WITH MISCONCEPTIONS BASED ON ITEM RESPONSE THEORY , 1983 .

[15]  Susanne P. Lajoie,et al.  Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 9th International Conference, ITS 2008, Montreal, Canada, June 23-27, 2008, Proceedings , 2008, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[16]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  The power law repealed: The case for an exponential law of practice , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[17]  Carolyn Penstein Rosé,et al.  Tools for Authoring a Dialogue Agent that Participates in Learning Studies , 2007, AIED.