Sequential detection of learning in cognitive diagnosis.

In order to look more closely at the many particular skills examinees utilize to answer items, cognitive diagnosis models have received much attention, and perhaps are preferable to item response models that ordinarily involve just one or a few broadly defined skills, when the objective is to hasten learning. If these fine-grained skills can be identified, a sharpened focus on learning and remediation can be achieved. The focus here is on how to detect when learning has taken place for a particular attribute and efficiently guide a student through a sequence of items to ultimately attain mastery of all attributes while administering as few items as possible. This can be seen as a problem in sequential change-point detection for which there is a long history and a well-developed literature. Though some ad hoc rules for determining learning may be used, such as stopping after M consecutive items have been successfully answered, more efficient methods that are optimal under various conditions are available. The CUSUM, Shiryaev-Roberts and Shiryaev procedures can dramatically reduce the time required to detect learning while maintaining rigorous Type I error control, and they are studied in this context through simulation. Future directions for modelling and detection of learning are discussed.

[1]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  Retrieval-Based Learning: A Perspective for Enhancing Meaningful Learning , 2012 .

[2]  B. Junker,et al.  Cognitive Assessment Models with Few Assumptions , and Connections with Nonparametric IRT , 2001 .

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

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

[5]  Matthias von Davier,et al.  A GENERAL DIAGNOSTIC MODEL APPLIED TO LANGUAGE TESTING DATA , 2005 .

[6]  John Schacter,et al.  Does Computer Technology Improve Student Learning and Achievement? How, When, and under What Conditions? , 1999 .

[7]  J. B. Stroud,et al.  Effect of Informing Pupils of the Correctness of Their Responses to Objective Test Questions , 1942 .

[8]  Rob R. Meijer,et al.  Detecting person misfit in adaptive testing using statistical process control techniques , 2000 .

[9]  S. W. Roberts A Comparison of Some Control Chart Procedures , 1966 .

[10]  G. S. Hanna Effects of Total and Partial Feedback in Multiple-Choice Testing Upon Learning , 1976 .

[11]  Dmitry I. Belov Detection of Test Collusion via Kullback–Leibler Divergence , 2013 .

[12]  B. Veldkamp,et al.  Detection of aberrant item score patterns in computerized adaptive testing: An empirical example using the CUSUM , 2010 .

[13]  J. Templin,et al.  Skills Diagnosis Using IRT-Based Latent Class Models , 2007 .

[14]  Wim J. J. Veerkamp,et al.  Detection of Known Items in Adaptive Testing with a Statistical Quality Control Method , 2000 .

[15]  B. Junker,et al.  Cognitive Assessment Models with Few Assumptions, and Connections with Nonparametric Item Response Theory , 2001 .

[16]  Verena D. Schmittmann,et al.  Multiple learning modes in the development of performance on a rule-based category-learning task , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[17]  R.D. Armstrong,et al.  Model-Free CUSUM Methods for Person Fit. , 2009 .

[18]  Matthias von Davier,et al.  A general diagnostic model applied to language testing data. , 2008, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[19]  John Balch The Influence of the Evaluating Instrument on Students’ Learning , 1964 .

[20]  Yi-Hsuan Lee,et al.  Monitoring Scale Scores over Time via Quality Control Charts, Model-Based Approaches, and Time Series Techniques , 2013, Psychometrika.

[21]  Jorge N. Tendeiro,et al.  Detection of Invalid Test Scores: The Usefulness of Simple Nonparametric Statistics (Law School Admission Council) , 2013 .

[22]  G. Moustakides Optimal stopping times for detecting changes in distributions , 1986 .

[23]  M. Raijmakers,et al.  Characterizing sequence knowledge using online measures and hidden Markov models , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[24]  Maarten Speekenbrink,et al.  It's a Catastrophe! Testing dynamics between competing cognitive states using mixture and hidden Markov models , 2014, CogSci.

[25]  Jorge N. Tendeiro,et al.  The Use of the lz and lz* Person-Fit Statistics and Problems Derived From Model Misspecification , 2012 .

[26]  R.D. Armstrong,et al.  A Parametric Cumulative Sum Statistic for Person Fit , 2009 .

[27]  Pieter Bastiaan Ober,et al.  Sequential analysis: hypothesis testing and changepoint detection , 2015 .

[28]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Using Latent Semantic Analysis to Evaluate the Contributions of Students in AutoTutor , 2000, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[29]  G. Lorden PROCEDURES FOR REACTING TO A CHANGE IN DISTRIBUTION , 1971 .

[30]  Tze Leung Lai,et al.  Information Bounds and Quick Detection of Parameter Changes in Stochastic Systems , 1998, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[31]  K. Koedinger,et al.  Automated, Unobtrusive, Action-by-Action Assessment of Self-Regulation During Learning With an Intelligent Tutoring System , 2010 .

[32]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  Retrieval Practice Produces More Learning than Elaborative Studying with Concept Mapping , 2011, Science.

[33]  G. Brosvic,et al.  Immediate Feedback during Academic Testing , 2001, Psychological reports.

[34]  Moshe Pollak,et al.  Third-order Asymptotic Optimality of the Generalized Shiryaev-Roberts Changepoint Detection Procedures , 2010, 1005.1129.

[35]  M. Basseville,et al.  Sequential Analysis: Hypothesis Testing and Changepoint Detection , 2014 .

[36]  Rob R. Meijer,et al.  CUSUM-Based Person-Fit Statistics for Adaptive Testing , 2001 .

[37]  John T. Willse,et al.  Defining a Family of Cognitive Diagnosis Models Using Log-Linear Models with Latent Variables , 2009 .

[38]  Jorge N. Tendeiro,et al.  Using Cumulative Sum Statistics to Detect Inconsistencies in Unproctored Internet Testing , 2013 .

[39]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Intelligent Tutoring Goes To School in the Big City , 1997 .

[40]  E. Maris Estimating multiple classification latent class models , 1999 .

[41]  A. Shiryaev On Optimum Methods in Quickest Detection Problems , 1963 .

[42]  J. Prestwood Knowledge of Results and the Proportion of Positive Feedback on Tests of Ability , 1979 .

[43]  H. Cooper,et al.  A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K–12 students’ mathematical learning. , 2013 .

[44]  A. Kluger,et al.  The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. , 1996 .

[45]  Ingmar Visser,et al.  Seven things to remember about hidden Markov models: A tutorial on Markovian models for time series , 2011 .

[46]  E. S. Page CONTINUOUS INSPECTION SCHEMES , 1954 .

[47]  David Kapland,et al.  An overview of Markov chain methods for the study of stage-sequential developmental processes. , 2008, Developmental psychology.

[48]  Daniel F. McCaffrey,et al.  Effectiveness of Cognitive Tutor Algebra I at Scale , 2014 .

[49]  H. Cooper,et al.  A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students' academic learning , 2014 .

[50]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  When and why do retrieval attempts enhance subsequent encoding? , 2012, Memory & cognition.

[51]  Dmitry I. Belov,et al.  Automatic Detection of Answer Copying via Kullback-Leibler Divergence and K-Index , 2010 .

[52]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Cognitive Tutors: Lessons Learned , 1995 .

[53]  J. D. L. Torre,et al.  The Generalized DINA Model Framework. , 2011 .

[54]  R. Meijer,et al.  Detecting Person Misfit in Adaptive Testing , 2009 .

[55]  M. Pollak Optimal Detection of a Change in Distribution , 1985 .

[56]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Cognitive Modeling and Intelligent Tutoring , 1990, Artif. Intell..