skip to main content
10.1145/3447548.3467237acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Learning Process-consistent Knowledge Tracing

Authors Info & Claims
Published:14 August 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Knowledge tracing (KT), which aims to trace students' changing knowledge state during their learning process, has improved students' learning efficiency in online learning systems. Recently, KT has attracted much research attention due to its critical significance in education. However, most of the existing KT methods pursue high accuracy of student performance prediction but neglect the consistency of students' changing knowledge state with their learning process. In this paper, we explore a new paradigm for the KT task and propose a novel model named Learning Process-consistent Knowledge Tracing (LPKT), which monitors students' knowledge state through directly modeling their learning process. Specifically, we first formalize the basic learning cell as the tuple exercise---answer time---answer. Then, we deeply measure the learning gain as well as its diversity from the difference of the present and previous learning cells, their interval time, and students' related knowledge state. We also design a learning gate to distinguish students' absorptive capacity of knowledge. Besides, we design a forgetting gate to model the decline of students' knowledge over time, which is based on their previous knowledge state, present learning gains, and the interval time. Extensive experimental results on three public datasets demonstrate that LPKT could obtain more reasonable knowledge state in line with the learning process. Moreover, LPKT also outperforms state-of-the-art KT methods on student performance prediction. Our work indicates a potential future research direction for KT, which is of both high interpretability and accuracy.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

learning_processconsistent_knowledge_tracing-shuanghong_shen-qi_liu-38957811-Cfsa.mp4

mp4

35 MB

References

  1. Mart'in Abadi, Paul Barham, Jianmin Chen, Zhifeng Chen, Andy Davis, Jeffrey Dean, Matthieu Devin, Sanjay Ghemawat, Geoffrey Irving, Michael Isard, et almbox. 2016. Tensorflow: A system for large-scale machine learning. In OSDI. 265--283.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Ghodai Abdelrahman and Qing Wang. 2019. Knowledge Tracing with Sequential Key-Value Memory Networks (SIGIR'19). New York, NY, USA, 175--184.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Youngduck Choi, Youngnam Lee, Dongmin Shin, Junghyun Cho, Seoyon Park, Seewoo Lee, Jineon Baek, Chan Bae, Byungsoo Kim, and Jaewe Heo. 2020. Ednet: A large-scale hierarchical dataset in education. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer, 69--73.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Albert T Corbett and John R Anderson. 1994. Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. UMUAI , Vol. 4, 4 (1994), 253--278.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Mingyu Feng, Neil Heffernan, and Kenneth Koedinger. 2009. Addressing the assessment challenge with an online system that tutors as it assesses. USER-ADAP , Vol. 19, 3 (2009), 243--266.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Aritra Ghosh, Neil Heffernan, and Andrew S. Lan. 2020. Context-Aware Attentive Knowledge Tracing (KDD '20). New York, NY, USA, 2330--2339.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Xavier Glorot and Yoshua Bengio. 2010. Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks. In AISTATS . 249--256.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Richard R Hake. 2002. Relationship of individual student normalized learning gains in mechanics with gender, high-school physics, and pretest scores on mathematics and spatial visualization. In Physics education research conference , Vol. 8. 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Geoffrey E Hinton, Nitish Srivastava, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan R Salakhutdinov. 2012. Improving neural networks by preventing co-adaptation of feature detectors. arXiv preprint arXiv:1207.0580 (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural computation , Vol. 9, 8 (1997), 1735--1780.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Zhenya Huang, Qi Liu, Yuying Chen, Le Wu, Keli Xiao, Enhong Chen, Haiping Ma, and Guoping Hu. 2020. Learning or Forgetting? A Dynamic Approach for Tracking the Knowledge Proficiency of Students. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) , Vol. 38, 2 (2020), 1--33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Julia KäFer, Susanne Kuger, Eckhard Klieme, and Mareike Kunter. 2019. The significance of dealing with mistakes for student achievement and motivation: results of doubly latent multilevel analyses. European Journal of Psychology of Education (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Van Der Maaten Laurens and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing Data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research , Vol. 9, 2605 (2008), 2579--2605.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Jingchen Liu, Gongjun Xu, and Zhiliang Ying. 2012. Data-driven learning of Q-matrix. Applied psychological measurement , Vol. 36, 7 (2012), 548--564.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Qi Liu, Zhenya Huang, Yu Yin, Enhong Chen, Hui Xiong, Yu Su, and Guoping Hu. 2019. EKT: Exercise-aware Knowledge Tracing for Student Performance Prediction. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (IEEE TKDE) (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Geoffrey R Loftus. 1985. Evaluating forgetting curves. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition , Vol. 11, 2 (1985), 397.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. R Luckin et almbox. 2007. Beyond the code-and-count analysis of tutoring dialogues. Artificial intelligence in education: Building technology rich learning contexts that work, R. Luckin, KR Koedinger, and J. Greer, Eds. IOS Press (2007), 349--356.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Ye Mao. 2018. Deep Learning vs. Bayesian Knowledge Tracing: Student Models for Interventions. Journal of educational data mining , Vol. 10, 2 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Shaul Markovitch and Paul D Scott. 1988. The role of forgetting in learning. In Machine Learning Proceedings 1988 . Elsevier, 459--465.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Cecile Hoareau McGrath, Benoit Guerin, Emma Harte, Michael Frearson, and Catriona Manville. 2015. Learning gain in higher education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation (2015).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Koki Nagatani, Qian Zhang, Masahiro Sato, Yan-Ying Chen, Francine Chen, and Tomoko Ohkuma. 2019. Augmenting Knowledge Tracing by Considering Forgetting Behavior. In WWW. ACM, 3101--3107.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Prema Nedungadi and MS Remya. 2015. Incorporating forgetting in the personalized, clustered, bayesian knowledge tracing (pc-bkt) model. In 2015 International Conference on cognitive computing and information processing (CCIP). IEEE, 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Tuan Nguyen. 2015. The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no significant difference and future horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching , Vol. 11, 2 (2015), 309--319.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Ebba Ossiannilsson. 2020. Sustainability: Special Issue "The Futures of Education in the Global Context: Sustainable Distance Education". Sustainability (07 2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Shalini Pandey and George Karypis. 2019. A Self-Attentive model for Knowledge Tracing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.06837 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Shalini Pandey and Jaideep Srivastava. 2020. RKT: Relation-Aware Self-Attention for Knowledge Tracing (CIKM '20). New York, NY, USA, 1205--1214.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Philip I Pavlik Jr, Hao Cen, and Kenneth R Koedinger. 2009. Performance Factors Analysis--A New Alternative to Knowledge Tracing. Online Submission (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Radek Pelánek. 2017. Bayesian knowledge tracing, logistic models, and beyond: an overview of learner modeling techniques. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction , Vol. 27, 3--5 (2017), 313--350.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Chris Piech, Jonathan Bassen, Jonathan Huang, Surya Ganguli, Mehran Sahami, Leonidas J Guibas, and Jascha Sohl-Dickstein. 2015. Deep knowledge tracing. In NeurIPS. 505--513.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Cristóbal Romero and Sebastián Ventura. 2010. Educational data mining: a review of the state of the art. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) , Vol. 40, 6 (2010), 601--618.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Shuanghong Shen, Qi Liu, Enhong Chen, Han Wu, Zhenya Huang, Weihao Zhao, Yu Su, Haiping Ma, and Shijin Wang. 2020. Convolutional Knowledge Tracing: Modeling Individualization in Student Learning Process. SIGIR '20: The 43rd International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in Information Retrieval Virtual Event China July, 2020 (2020), 1857--1860.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Dongmin Shin, Yugeun Shim, Hangyeol Yu, Seewoo Lee, Byungsoo Kim, and Youngduck Choi. 2020. SAINTGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. : Integrating Temporal Features for EdNet Correctness Prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.12042 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Gabriele Steuer and Markus Dresel. 2015. A constructive error climate as an element of effective learning environments. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling , Vol. 57, 2 (2015), 262 -- 275.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Fei Wang, Qi Liu, Enhong Chen, Zhenya Huang, Yuying Chen, Yu Yin, Zai Huang, and Shijin Wang. 2020. Neural Cognitive Diagnosis for Intelligent Education Systems. In AAAI 2020 .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Le Wu, Yong Ge, Qi Liu, Enhong Chen, Richang Hong, Junping Du, and Meng Wang. 2017. Modeling the evolution of users' preferences and social links in social networking services. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , Vol. 29, 6 (2017), 1240--1253.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Chun-Kit Yeung and Dit-Yan Yeung. 2018. Addressing two problems in deep knowledge tracing via prediction-consistent regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.02180 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Jiani Zhang, Xingjian Shi, Irwin King, and Dit-Yan Yeung. 2017. Dynamic key-value memory networks for knowledge tracing. In WWW. 765--774.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Learning Process-consistent 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 Conferences
        KDD '21: Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining
        August 2021
        4259 pages
        ISBN:9781450383325
        DOI:10.1145/3447548

        Copyright © 2021 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: 14 August 2021

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate1,133of8,635submissions,13%

        Upcoming Conference

        KDD '24

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader