Personalizing Algebra to Students’ Individual Interests in an Intelligent Tutoring System: Moderators of Impact

Students experience mathematics in their day-to-day lives as they pursue their individual interests in areas like sports or video games. The present study explores how connecting to students’ individual interests can be used to personalize learning using an Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS) for algebra. We examine the idea that the effects of personalization may be moderated by students’ depth of quantitative engagement with their out-of-school interests. We also examine whether math problems designed to draw upon students’ knowledge of their individual interests at a deep level (i.e., actual quantitative experiences) or surface level (i.e., superficial changes to problem topic) have differential effects. Results suggest that connecting math instruction to students’ out-of-school interests can be beneficial for learning in an ITS and reduces gaming the system. However, benefits may only be realized when students’ degree of quantitative engagement with their out-of-school interests matches the depth at which the personalized problems are written. Students whose quantitative engagement with their interests is minimal may benefit most when problems draw upon superficial aspects of their interest areas. Students who report significant quantitative engagement with their interests may benefit most when individual interests are deeply incorporated into the quantitative structure of math problems. We also find that problems with deeper personalization may spur positive affective states and ward off negative ones for all students. Findings suggest depth is a critical feature of personalized learning with implications for theory and AI instructional design.

[1]  Ido Roll,et al.  Evolution and Revolution in Artificial Intelligence in Education , 2016, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.

[2]  Candace A. Walkington,et al.  Designing learning personalized to students’ interests: balancing rich experiences with mathematical goals , 2017 .

[3]  Ryan Shaun Joazeiro de Baker,et al.  Labeling Student Behavior Faster and More Precisely with Text Replays , 2008, EDM.

[4]  K. Koedinger,et al.  Exploring the Assistance Dilemma in Experiments with Cognitive Tutors , 2007 .

[5]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  A Data Repository for the EDM Community: The PSLC DataShop , 2010 .

[6]  Cecily Heiner,et al.  Self-regulation of motivation when learning online: the importance of who, why and how , 2011 .

[7]  K. Ann Renninger,et al.  Interest, Psychology of , 2015 .

[8]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The Transfer of Scientific Principles Using Concrete and Idealized Simulations , 2005, Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[9]  Lynda R. Wiest,et al.  Impact of Personalization of Mathematical Word Problems on Student Performance , 2004 .

[10]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Towards Sensor-Free Affect Detection in Cognitive Tutor Algebra. , 2012, EDM 2012.

[11]  K. Ann Renninger,et al.  Interest And Its Development , 2012 .

[12]  K. Scherer,et al.  How Seductive Details Do Their Damage : A Theory of Cognitive Interest in Science Learning , 2004 .

[13]  Milan Sherman,et al.  Personalized learning in algebra , 2014 .

[14]  M. Schwebel INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES , 1970 .

[15]  Candace Walkington,et al.  Using adaptive learning technologies to personalize instruction to student interests: The impact of relevant contexts on performance and learning outcomes. , 2013 .

[16]  James D. Slotta,et al.  Misconceived Causal Explanations for Emergent Processes , 2012, Cogn. Sci..

[17]  H. Sullivan,et al.  Personalization of mathematics word problems in Taiwan , 2000 .

[18]  Mary Q. Foote,et al.  Promoting equity in mathematics teacher preparation: a framework for advancing teacher learning of children’s multiple mathematics knowledge bases , 2012 .

[19]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  Cognitive tutors as modeling tools and instructional models , 2001 .

[20]  S. Hidi,et al.  The Four-Phase Model of Interest Development , 2006 .

[21]  Albert T. Corbett,et al.  The Knowledge-Learning-Instruction Framework: Bridging the Science-Practice Chasm to Enhance Robust Student Learning , 2012, Cogn. Sci..

[22]  Gregory Schraw,et al.  Situational Interest: A Review of the Literature and Directions for Future Research , 2001 .

[23]  R. Hasnain-Wynia,et al.  Promoting Equity , 2012, American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality.

[24]  Abigail A. Scholer,et al.  Self-Regulation of Motivation , 2016 .

[25]  Eric Gutstein,et al.  Reading And Writing The World With Mathematics: Toward a Pedagogy for Social Justice , 2005 .

[26]  J. Harackiewicz,et al.  Different Strokes for Different Folks: How Individual Interest Moderates the Effects of Situational Factors on Task Interest. , 2007 .

[27]  Olga C. Santos,et al.  Preface to Special Issue on User Modelling to Support Personalization in Enhanced Educational Settings , 2016, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.

[28]  Zachary A. Pardos,et al.  Affective states and state tests: investigating how affect throughout the school year predicts end of year learning outcomes , 2013, LAK '13.

[29]  Albert T. Corbett,et al.  Why Students Engage in “Gaming the System” Behavior in Interactive Learning Environments , 2008 .

[30]  Albert T. Corbett,et al.  The Knowledge-Learning-Instruction (KLI) Framework: Toward Bridging the Science-Practice Chasm to Enhance Robust Student Learning , 2010 .

[31]  E. Erdfelder,et al.  Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[32]  Leah P. McCoy Effect of Demographic and Personal Variables on Achievement in Eighth-Grade Algebra , 2005 .

[33]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Better to be frustrated than bored: The incidence, persistence, and impact of learners' cognitive-affective states during interactions with three different computer-based learning environments , 2010, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[34]  V. Rideout,et al.  Generation M[superscript 2]: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds. , 2010 .

[35]  Steven Ritter,et al.  Context personalization, preferences, and performance in an intelligent tutoring system for middle school mathematics , 2014, LAK.

[36]  R. Reber,et al.  Supporting interest of middle school students in mathematics through context personalization and example choice , 2015 .

[37]  Ryan Shaun Joazeiro de Baker,et al.  Detecting When Students Game the System, Across Tutor Subjects and Classroom Cohorts , 2005, User Modeling.

[38]  Ryan Shaun Joazeiro de Baker,et al.  Developing a generalizable detector of when students game the system , 2008, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[39]  Matthew L. Bernacki,et al.  Students authoring personalized “algebra stories”: Problem-posing in the context of out-of-school interests , 2015 .

[40]  R. Reber,et al.  Effects of Example Choice on Interest, Control, and Learning , 2009 .

[41]  Jennifer A. Fredricks,et al.  Understanding Well-Developed Interests and Activity Commitment , 2015 .

[42]  Gary R. Morrison,et al.  The Role of Rewording and Context Personalization in the Solving of Mathematical Word Problems. , 1991 .

[43]  A. Petrosino,et al.  "Playing the game" of story problems: Coordinating situation-based reasoning with algebraic representation , 2012 .

[44]  Mitchell J. Nathan,et al.  How Readability and Topic Incidence Relate to Performance on Mathematics Story Problems in Computer-Based Curricula , 2015 .

[45]  K. E. Barron,et al.  Measuring Situational Interest in Academic Domains , 2010 .

[46]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning , 2001, Visible Learning Guide to Student Achievement.

[47]  Jennifer A. Fredricks,et al.  Children's competence and value beliefs from childhood through adolescence: growth trajectories in two male-sex-typed domains. , 2002, Developmental psychology.

[48]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Toward Meta-cognitive Tutoring: A Model of Help Seeking with a Cognitive Tutor , 2006, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[49]  Gary King,et al.  Amelia II: A Program for Missing Data , 2011 .

[50]  James J. Kaput,et al.  Teaching and Learning a New Algebra with Understanding. , 2000 .

[51]  M. Lepper,et al.  Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. , 1996 .

[52]  Ozlem Cakir,et al.  A comparative analysis of the effects of computer and paper-based personalization on student achievement , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[53]  A. Frenzel,et al.  Development of mathematics interest in adolescence : Quantitative and qualitative insights , 2009 .

[54]  Ryan Shaun Joazeiro de Baker,et al.  Carelessness and Affect in an Intelligent Tutoring System for Mathematics , 2014, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.

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

[56]  Luis C. Moll,et al.  Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms , 1992 .

[57]  Neil T. Heffernan,et al.  Predicting College Enrollment from Student Interaction with an Intelligent Tutoring System in Middle School , 2013, EDM.

[58]  EARLE M. HOLLAND,et al.  Playing the game , 1991, Nature.

[59]  Matthew L. Bernacki,et al.  The Role of Situational Interest in Personalized Learning , 2018, Journal of Educational Psychology.

[60]  Ryan Shaun Joazeiro de Baker,et al.  Towards Predicting Future Transfer of Learning , 2011, AIED.

[61]  Maxine Eskénazi,et al.  Personalization of Reading Passages Improves Vocabulary Acquisition , 2010, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[62]  Suzanne Hidi,et al.  Interest and self-regulation: Relationships between two variables that influence learning. , 2008 .

[63]  I. Arroyo,et al.  Bayesian networks and linear regression models of students’ goals, moods, and emotions , 2010 .

[64]  K. Ann Renninger,et al.  The Power of Interest for Motivation and Engagement , 2015 .

[65]  Özlem Çak Effect of Personalization on Students' Achievement and Gender Factor in Mathematics Education , 2012 .

[66]  N. Koblitz,et al.  Radical Equations: Math Literacy and Civil Rights 328 Notices of the Ams Volume 49, Number 3 Radical Equations: Math Literacy and Civil Rights , 2022 .

[67]  Candace Walkington,et al.  Motivating Students by “Personalizing” Learning Around Individual Interests: A Consideration of Theory, Design and Implementation Issues , 2014 .

[68]  Leigh A. Mingle,et al.  Considering Cognitive Factors in Interest Research: Context Personalization and Illustrations in Math Curricula. , 2016 .

[69]  Mykola Pechenizkiy,et al.  Handbook of Educational Data Mining , 2010 .

[70]  Anne C. Frenzel,et al.  Development of Mathematics Interest in Adolescence: Influences of Gender, Family, and School Context , 2010 .