Measuring the difficulty of activities for adaptive learning

An effective adaptive learning system would theoretically maintain learners in a permanent state of flow. In this state, learners are completely focused on activities. To attain this state, the difficulty of learning activities must match learners’ skills. To perform this matching, it is essential to define, measure and deeply analyze difficulty. However, very few previous works deal with difficulty in depth. Most commonly, difficulty is defined as a one-dimensional value. This permits ordering activities, but limits the possibilities of deep analysis of activities and learners’ performance. This work proposes a new definition of difficulty and a way to measure it. The proposed definition depends on learners’ progress on activities over time. This expands the concept of difficulty over a two-dimensional space, also making it drawable. The difficulty graphs provide a rich interpretation with insights into the learning process. A practical case is presented: the PLMan learning system. This system is formed by a web application and a game to teach computational logic. The proposed definition is applied in this context. Measures are taken and analyzed using difficulty graphs. Some examples of these analyses are shown to illustrate the benefits of this proposal. Singularities and interesting spots are easily identified in graphs, providing insights in the activities. This new information lets experts adapt the learning system by improving activity classification and assignment. This first step lays solid foundations for automation, making the PLMan learning system fully adaptive.

[1]  Adnan Baki,et al.  Integration into mathematics classrooms of an adaptive and intelligent individualized e-learning environment: Implementation and evaluation of UZWEBMAT , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[2]  Zoran Budimac,et al.  E-Learning personalization based on hybrid recommendation strategy and learning style identification , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[3]  Sanjit A. Seshia,et al.  Automating exercise generation: a step towards meeting the MOOC challenge for embedded systems , 2012, WESE '12.

[4]  Matteo Gaeta,et al.  Adaptive course generation through learning styles representation , 2008, Universal Access in the Information Society.

[5]  Martin Mladenov Offline Learning for Online Difficulty Prediction , 2010 .

[6]  A. Elo The rating of chessplayers, past and present , 1978 .

[7]  Rafael Molina-Carmona,et al.  An Approach to Measuring the Difficulty of Learning Activities , 2016, HCI.

[8]  Robin Hunicke,et al.  The case for dynamic difficulty adjustment in games , 2005, ACE '05.

[9]  R. Felder,et al.  Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. , 1988 .

[10]  S. A. Becker,et al.  NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher Education Edition , 2015 .

[11]  Tom Minka,et al.  TrueSkillTM: A Bayesian Skill Rating System , 2006, NIPS.

[12]  Thomas Hofmann,et al.  TrueSkill™: A Bayesian Skill Rating System , 2007 .

[13]  John G. Nicholls,et al.  The Differentiation of the Concepts of Difficulty and Ability. , 1983 .

[14]  Nicole Fruehauf Flow The Psychology Of Optimal Experience , 2016 .

[15]  Robin Hunicke,et al.  AI for Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment in Games , 2004 .

[16]  Mario Soflano,et al.  Learning style analysis in adaptive GBL application to teach SQL , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[17]  Stéphane Natkin,et al.  Scaling the Level of Difficulty in Single Player Video Games , 2009, ICEC.

[18]  BudimacZoran,et al.  E-Learning personalization based on hybrid recommendation strategy and learning style identification , 2011 .

[19]  Rafael Molina-Carmona,et al.  PLMan: Towards a Gamified Learning System , 2016, HCI.

[20]  Danijel Radošević,et al.  Automatic On-Line Generation of Student's Exercises in Teaching Programming , 2010 .

[21]  Jesse Schell,et al.  The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses , 2019 .

[22]  Thomas Gärtner,et al.  Predicting Dynamic Difficulty , 2011, NIPS.

[23]  Zhen He,et al.  The effectiveness of adaptive difficulty adjustments on students' motivation and learning in an educational computer game , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[24]  Constantine Stephanidis,et al.  Universal access in the information society , 1999, HCI.

[25]  J. W. Getzels,et al.  The Creative Vision: A Longitudinal Study of Problem Finding in Art , 1977 .

[26]  Francisco Gallego Durán,et al.  Estimating difficulty of learning activities in design stages: A novel application of Neuroevolution , 2016 .

[27]  Julian Togelius,et al.  Modeling player experience in Super Mario Bros , 2009, 2009 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Games.

[28]  M. Csíkszentmihályi Flow. The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York (HarperPerennial) 1990. , 1990 .

[29]  Irene Cheng,et al.  An Algorithm for Automatic Difficulty Level Estimation of Multimedia Mathematical Test Items , 2008, 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies.

[30]  Fausto Mourato,et al.  Measuring Difficulty in Platform Videogames , 2010 .

[31]  Marco Roccetti,et al.  First person shooters on the road: Leveraging on APs and VANETs for a quality gaming experience , 2012, 2012 IFIP Wireless Days.

[32]  Gwo-Jen Hwang,et al.  Development of an Adaptive Learning System with Multiple Perspectives based on Students? Learning Styles and Cognitive Styles , 2013, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..