skip to main content
10.1145/2883851.2883885acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageslakConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Sequencing educational content in classrooms using Bayesian knowledge tracing

Published:25 April 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Despite the prevalence of e-learning systems in schools, most of today's systems do not personalize educational data to the individual needs of each student. This paper proposes a new algorithm for sequencing questions to students that is empirically shown to lead to better performance and engagement in real schools when compared to a baseline approach. It is based on using knowledge tracing to model students' skill acquisition over time, and to select questions that advance the student's learning within the range of the student's capabilities, as determined by the model. The algorithm is based on a Bayesian Knowledge Tracing (BKT) model that incorporates partial credit scores, reasoning about multiple attempts to solve problems, and integrating item difficulty. This model is shown to outperform other BKT models that do not reason about (or reason about some but not all) of these features. The model was incorporated into a sequencing algorithm and deployed in two classes in different schools where it was compared to a baseline sequencing algorithm that was designed by pedagogical experts. In both classes, students using the BKT sequencing approach solved more difficult questions and attributed higher performance than did students who used the expert-based approach. Students were also more engaged using the BKT approach, as determined by their interaction time and number of log-ins to the system, as well as their reported opinion. We expect our approach to inform the design of better methods for sequencing and personalizing educational content to students that will meet their individual learning needs.

References

  1. F. B. Baker and S.-H. Kim. Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques. CRC Press, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. M. Bieliková, M. Šimko, M. Barla, J. Tvarožek, M. Labaj, R. Móro, I. Srba, and J. Ševcech. Alef: from application to platform for adaptive collaborative learning. In Recommender Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning, pages 195--225. Springer, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. J. H. Block, P. W. Airasian, B. S. Bloom, and J. B. Carroll. Mastery learning: Theory and practice. Holt, Rinehart and Winston New York, 1971.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. P. Brusilovsky, L. N. Cassel, L. M. Delcambre, E. A. Fox, R. Furuta, D. D. Garcia, F. M. Shipman, and M. Yudelson. Social navigation for educational digital libraries. Procedia Computer Science, 1(2):2889--2897, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. B. Clement, P.-Y. Oudeyer, D. Roy, and M. Lopes. Online optimization of teaching sequences with multi-armed bandits. In International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM), 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. A. T. Corbett and J. R. Anderson. Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Modelling and User-Adapted Interaction, 4(4):253--278, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. A. T. Corbett and A. Bhatnagar. Student Modeling in the ACT Programming Tutor: Adjusting a Procedural Learning Model With Declarative Knowledge. In User Modeling, pages 243--254. Springer Vienna, Vienna, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. R. S. d Baker, A. T. Corbett, and V. Aleven. More accurate student modeling through contextual estimation of slip and guess probabilities in bayesian knowledge tracing. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pages 406--415, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. A. P. Dempster, N. M. Laird, and D. B. Rubin. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the em algorithm. Journal of the royal statistical society. Series B (methodological), pages 1--38, 1977.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. M. C. Desmarais and R. S. J. de Baker. A review of recent advances in learner and skill modeling in intelligent learning environments. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 22(1-2):9--38, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. W. J. Hawkins, N. T. Heffernan, and R. S. J. de Baker. Learning Bayesian Knowledge Tracing Parameters with a Knowledge Heuristic and Empirical Probabilities. Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 8474(Chapter 18):150--155, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. T.-C. Hsieh, M.-C. Lee, C.-Y. Su, et al. Designing and implementing a personalized remedial learning system for enhancing the programming learning. Educational Technology & Society, 16(4):32--46, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Y.-M. Huang, T.-C. Huang, K.-T. Wang, and W.-Y. Hwang. A markov-based recommendation model for exploring the transfer of learning on the web. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2):144, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. K. Ostrow, C. Donnelly, S. Adjei, and N. Heffernan. Improving student modeling through partial credit and problem difficulty. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conf on L@ S, pages 11--20, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Z. Pardos and N. Heffernan. Modeling individualization in a Bayesian networks implementation of knowledge tracing. In User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization, volume 6075, pages 255--266. 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Z. A. Pardos, Y. Bergner, D. T. Seaton, and D. E. Pritchard. Adapting Bayesian Knowledge Tracing to a Massive Open Online Course in edX. EDM, pages 137--144, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Z. A. Pardos and N. T. Heffernan. KT-IDEM: Introducing Item Difficulty to the Knowledge Tracing Model. In UMAP, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. R. Pelánek. Metrics for evaluation of student models. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. L.-p. Shen and R.-m. Shen. Learning content recommendation service based-on simple sequencing specification. In Advances in Web-Based Learning-ICWL 2004, pages 363--370. Springer, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Y. Wang and N. Heffernan. Extending knowledge tracing to allow partial credit: Using continuous versus binary nodes. In Artificial Intelligence in Education, pages 181--188. Springer, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. J. V. Wertsch. Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Harvard University Press, 1988.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  1. Sequencing educational content in classrooms using Bayesian knowledge tracing

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      LAK '16: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge
      April 2016
      567 pages
      ISBN:9781450341905
      DOI:10.1145/2883851

      Copyright © 2016 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 25 April 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      LAK '16 Paper Acceptance Rate36of116submissions,31%Overall Acceptance Rate236of782submissions,30%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader