Avoiding Problem Selection Thrashing with Conjunctive Knowledge Tracing

One function of a student model in tutoring systems is to select future tasks that will best meet student needs. If the inference procedure that updates the model is inaccurate, the system may select non-optimal tasks for enhancing students’ learning. Poor selection may arise when the model assumes multiple knowledge components are required for a single correct student behavior. When the student makes an error, a deliberately simple model update procedure uniformly reduces the probability of all components even though just one may be to blame. Until now, we have had no evidence that this simple approach has any bad consequences for students. We present such evidence. We observed problem selection thrashing in analysis of log data from a tutor designed to adaptively fade (or reintroduce) instructional scaffolding based on student performance. We describe a conjunctive knowledge tracing approach, based on techniques from Bayesian networks and psychometrics, and show how it may alleviate thrashing. By applying this approach to the log data, we show that a third (441 of 1370) of the problems students were assigned may have been unnecessary.

[1]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  Human-Machine Student Model Discovery and Improvement Using DataShop , 2011, AIED.

[2]  Kurt VanLehn,et al.  Student Modeling from Conversational Test Data: A Bayesian Approach Without Priors , 1998, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[3]  Neil T. Heffernan,et al.  The Composition Effect in Symbolizing: The Role of Symbol Production vs. Text Comprehension , 2013 .

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

[5]  Jim Reye Two-Phase Updating of Student Models Based on Dynamic Belief Networks , 1998, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[6]  Zachary A. Pardos,et al.  Effective Skill Assessment Using Expectation Maximization in a Multi Network Temporal Bayesian Network , 2008 .

[7]  José-Luis Pérez-de-la-Cruz,et al.  Bayesian student modeling and the problem of parameter specification , 2001, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[8]  B. Junker,et al.  Nonparametric Item Response Theory in Action: An Overview of the Special Issue , 2001 .

[9]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  Towards Better Understanding of Transfer in Cognitive Models of Practice , 2011, EDM.

[10]  Albert T. Corbett,et al.  Cognitive Tutor: Applied research in mathematics education , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[11]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Student Modeling and Mastery Learning in a Computer-Based Proramming Tutor , 1992, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

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

[13]  Cristina Conati,et al.  Using Bayesian Networks to Manage Uncertainty in Student Modeling , 2002, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[14]  N. Heffernan,et al.  Using HMMs and bagged decision trees to leverage rich features of user and skill from an intelligent tutoring system dataset , 2010 .