Abstract
The ability to automatically distinguish between effective and ineffective patterns in collaborative learning sessions opens doors to improved opportunity for learning in pairs or groups even when a teacher might not be available to facilitate. In this chapter, data from one-time computer-based peer tutoring sessions are modeled using hidden Markov models (HMMs) in two ways. The first model uses an input–output HMM to compare the assistance value of different tutor inputs in helping the tutee correct a mistaken step in solution. This model uses only automatically generated codes based on context and cognitive content of the tutor chat. The second model predicts tutee normalized gains from pre- to posttest in the experimental condition. Both cognitive and affective labels to tutor chats (human coded) were included as well as tutee (in)correctness, undos, and chats back to the tutor. Performance of the HMM is favorable compared to a “static” logistic regression model using aggregated totals of the same observables. Some of the hidden states are readily interpretable, though deeper comparison between high- and low-gain groups is part of ongoing work.
This work was conducted while Yoav Bergner was employed with Educational Testing Service.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
This is a special case of coding all bigrams, which is one way to recast a second-order Markov model as a first-order model.
References
Almond, R. G. (2007). An illustration of the use of Markov decision processes to represent student growth (learning) (ETS Research and Development Report No. RR-07-40). Princeton, NJ, USA: ETS
Baghaei, N., Mitrovic, A., & Irwin, W. (2007). Supporting collaborative learning and problem-solving in a constraint-based CSCL environment for UML class diagrams. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 159–190. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9018-0
Baum, L., & Petrie, T. (1966). Statistical inference for probabilistic functions of finite state Markov chains. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 37(6), 1554–1563.
Bengio, Y., & Frasconi, P. (1995). An input output HMM architecture. In Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 427–434). Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Blackwell, D., & Koopmans, L. (1957). On the identifiability problem for functions of finite Markov chains. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 28(4), 1011–1015.
Boyer, K. E., Phillips, R., Ingram, A., & Ha, E. (2011). Investigating the relationship between dialogue structure and tutoring effectiveness: A hidden Markov modeling approach. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 21, 65–81.
Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirshner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen, Netherlands: Open Universiteit Nederland.
Ghahramani, Z. (2001). An introduction to hidden Markov models and Bayesian networks. International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence, 15(1), 9–42.
Gilbert, E. (1959). On the identifiability problem for functions of finite Markov chains. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 30(3), 688–697.
Goodman, L., & Kruskal, W. (1954). Measures of association for cross classifications. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49(268), 732–764.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 23–37). New York, NY, USA: Praeger.
Kumar, R., Rosé, C., Wang, Y., Joshi, M., & Robinson, A. (2007). Tutorial dialogue as adaptive collaborative learning support. In Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: Building technology rich learning contexts that work (pp. 383–390). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
Magnisalis, I., Demetriadis, S., & Karakostas, A. (2011). Adaptive and intelligent systems for collaborative learning support: A review of the field. IEEE Transactions in Learning Technologies, 4(1), 5–20. doi:10.1109/tlt.2011.2
Murphy, K. P. (2001). The Bayes net toolbox for Matlab. Computing Science and Statistics, 33(2). Retrieved from https://code.google.com/p/bnt/
Nag, R., Wong, K., & Fallside, F. (1986). Script recognition using hidden Markov models. In ICASSP ’86: IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (Vol. 11, pp. 2071–2074). New York, NY, USA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICASSP.1986.1168951
Ogan, A., Finkelstein, S., & Walker, E. (2012). Rudeness and rapport: Insults and learning gains in peer tutoring. Paper presented at the 11th International Intelligent Tutoring Systems Conference, Chania, Greece.
Pearl, J. (1988). Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference. San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Rabiner, L. R. (1989). A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 77(2), 257–286.
Reye, J. (2004). Student modelling based on belief networks. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 1–33.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York, NY, USA: Macmillan.
Shao, J., & Wu, C. F. J. (1989). A general theory for jackknife variance estimation. Annals of Statistics, 17(3), 1176–1197. doi:10.1214/aos/1176347263
Soller, A., & Stevens, R. (2007). Applications of stochastic analyses for collaborative learning and cognitive assessment. Alexandria, Virginia, Egypt: Technical report.
Starner, T., & Pentland, A. S. (1997). Real-time american sign language recognition hidden Markov models from video using. In M. Shah & R. Jain (Eds.), Motion-based recognition (pp. 227–243). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.
Walker, E. (2010). Automated adaptive support for peer tutoring (Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University).
Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009a). CTRL: A research framework for providing adaptive collaborative learning support. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 19(5), 387–431. doi:10.1007/s11257-009-9069-1
Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009b). Modeling helping behavior in an intelligent tutor for peer tutoring. In V. Dimitrova, R. Mizoguchi, B. du Boulay, & A. Graessar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 341–349). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Designing automated adaptive support to improve student helping behaviors in a peer tutoring activity. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 279–306. doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9111-2
Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (2014). Adaptive intelligent support to improve peer tutoring in algebra. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24(1), 33–61. doi:10.1007/s40593-013-0001-9
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bergner, Y., Walker, E., Ogan, A. (2017). Dynamic Bayesian Network Models for Peer Tutoring Interactions. In: von Davier, A., Zhu, M., Kyllonen, P. (eds) Innovative Assessment of Collaboration. Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33261-1_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33261-1_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33259-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-33261-1
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)