Do we need to go Deep? Knowledge Tracing with Big Data

Interactive Educational Systems (IES) enabled researchers to trace student knowledge in different skills and provide recommendations for a better learning path. To estimate the student knowledge and further predict their future performance, the interests in utilizing the student interaction data captured by IES to develop learner performance models is increasing rapidly. Moreover, with the advances in computing systems, the amount of data captured by these IES systems is also increasing that enables deep learning models to compete with traditional logistic models and Markov processes. However, it is still not empirically evident if these deep models outperform traditional models on the current scale of datasets with millions of student interactions. In this work, we adopt EdNet, the largest student interaction dataset publicly available in the education domain, to understand how accurately both deep and traditional models predict future student performances. Our work observes that logistic regression models with carefully engineered features outperformed deep models from the extensive experimentation. We follow this analysis with interpretation studies based on Locally Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanation (LIME) to understand the impact of various features on best performing model predictions.

[1]  Byungsoo Kim,et al.  EdNet: A Large-Scale Hierarchical Dataset in Education , 2020, AIED.

[2]  Judy Kay,et al.  Open Learner Models , 2010, Advances in Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[3]  K. VanLehn The Relative Effectiveness of Human Tutoring, Intelligent Tutoring Systems, and Other Tutoring Systems , 2011 .

[4]  Carolyn Penstein Rosé,et al.  Explanatory learner models: Why machine learning (alone) is not the answer , 2019, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[5]  Konstantina Chrysafiadi,et al.  Student modeling approaches: A literature review for the last decade , 2013, Expert Syst. Appl..

[6]  Radek Pelánek,et al.  Bayesian knowledge tracing, logistic models, and beyond: an overview of learner modeling techniques , 2017, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[7]  Yoshua Bengio,et al.  Gradient Flow in Recurrent Nets: the Difficulty of Learning Long-Term Dependencies , 2001 .

[8]  Luca Antiga,et al.  Automatic differentiation in PyTorch , 2017 .

[9]  Tom Mitchell,et al.  When is Deep Learning the Best Approach to Knowledge Tracing , 2020 .

[10]  Jiaqi Gong,et al.  Studying Factors Influencing the Prediction of Student STEM and Non-STEM Career Choice , 2019, EDM.

[11]  Carlos Guestrin,et al.  "Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier , 2016, ArXiv.

[12]  Jiaqi Gong,et al.  Towards Better Affect Detectors: Detecting Changes Rather Than States , 2018, AIED.

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

[14]  George Karypis,et al.  A Self Attentive model for Knowledge Tracing , 2019, EDM.

[15]  Ingo Mierswa,et al.  YALE: rapid prototyping for complex data mining tasks , 2006, KDD '06.

[16]  Ryan Shaun Joazeiro de Baker,et al.  New Potentials for Data-Driven Intelligent Tutoring System Development and Optimization , 2013, AI Mag..

[17]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[18]  Joseph E. Beck,et al.  Going Deeper with Deep Knowledge Tracing , 2016, EDM.

[19]  Michael Yudelson,et al.  How Mastery Learning Works at Scale , 2016, L@S.

[20]  R. J. Mokken,et al.  Handbook of modern item response theory , 1997 .

[21]  Leonidas J. Guibas,et al.  Deep Knowledge Tracing , 2015, NIPS.

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