Advertisement

Student Modeling from Conventional Test Data: A Bayesian Approach without Priors

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1452)

Abstract

Although conventional tests are often used for determining a student’s overall competence, they are seldom used for determining a fine-grained model. However, this problem does arise occasionally, such as when a conventional test is used to initialize the student model of an ITS. Existing psychometric techniques for solving this problem are intractable. Straight-forward Bayesian techniques are also inapplicable because they depend too strongly on the priors, which are often not available. Our solution is to base the assessment on the difference between the prior and posterior probabilities. If the test data raise the posterior probability of mastery of a piece of knowledge even slightly above its prior probability, then that is interpreted as evidence that the student has mastered that piece of knowledge. Evaluation of this technique with artificial students indicates that it can deliver highly accurate assessments.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Conati, C., Gertner, A., VanLehn, K. & Druzdzel, M. (1997). On-line student modeling for coached problem solving using Bayesian networks. In A. Jameson, C. Paris & C. Tasso, User Modeling: Proceedings of the Sixth International conference, UM97. New York: Springer Wein.Google Scholar
  2. DiBello, L. V., Stout, W.F. & Roussos, L. A. (1995) Unified cognitive/psychometric diagnostic assessment likelihood-based classification techniques. In P. D. Nichols, S. F. Chipman & R. L. Brennan (Eds.) Cognitively Diagnostic Assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Neopolitan, R. E. (1990). Probabilistic Reasoning in Expert Systems: Theory and Algorithms. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Pearl, J. (1988). Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. San Mateo, CA: Morgan-Kaufman.Google Scholar
  5. Samejima, F. (1995). A cognitive diagnosis method using latent trait models: Competency space approach and its relationship with DiBello and Stout’s unified cognitive-psychometric diagnosis model. In P. D. Nichols, S. F. Chipman & R. L. Brennan (Eds.) Cognitively Diagnostic Assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Tatsuoka, K. K. (1990). Toward an integration of item-response theory and cognitive error diagnoses. In N. Fredericksen, R. L. Glaser, A. M. Lesgold & M. G. Shafto (Eds), Diagnostic Monitoring of Skill and Knowledge Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Tatsuoka, K. K. (1995). Architecture of knowledge structures and cognitive diagnosis: A statistical pattern recognition and classification approach. In P. D. Nichols, S. F. Chipman & R. L. Brennan (Eds.) Cognitively Diagnostic Assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. VanLehn, K. (1996). Conceptual and meta learning during coached problem solving. In C. Frasson, G. Gauthier and A. Lesgold (Eds.) ITS96: Proceeding of the Third International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning Research and Development CenterUniversity of PittsburghPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations