Abstract
Most approaches to student modeling assume that students’ knowledge can be represented by a large set of knowledge components that are learned independently. Knowledge components typically represent fairly small pieces of knowledge. This seems to conflict with the literature on problem solving which suggests that expert knowledge is composed of large schemas. This study compared several domain models for knowledge that is arguably composed of schemas. The knowledge is used by students to construct system dynamics models with the Dragoon intelligent tutoring system. An evaluation with 52 students showed that a relative simple domain model, that assigned one KC to each schema and schema combination, sufficed and was more parsimonious than other domain models with similarly accurate predictions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Barnes, T., Stamper, J., Madhyastha, T.: Comparative analysis of concept derivation using the q-matrix method and facets. In: Workshop at Educational Data Mining at AAAI 2006, pp. 21–30 (2006)
Cen, H., Koedinger, K., Junker, B.: Learning factors analysis – a general method for cognitive model evaluation and improvement. In: Ikeda, M., Ashley, K.D., Chan, T.-W. (eds.) ITS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4053, pp. 164–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11774303_17
Corbett, A.T., Anderson, J.R.: Knowledge tracing: modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Model. User-Adap. Inter. 4(4), 253–278 (1994)
Daroczy, G., Wolska, M., Meurers, W.D., Nuerk, H.C.: Word problems: a review of linguistic and numerical factors contributing to their difficulty. Front. Psychol. 6, 348 (2015)
De La Torre, J.: An empirically based method of Q-matrix validation for the dina model: development and applications. J. Educ. Meas. 45(4), 343–362 (2008)
DeCarlo, L.T.: Recognizing uncertainty in the q-matrix via a bayesian extension of the dina model. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 36(6), 447–468 (2012)
Desmarais, M., Beheshti, B., Xu, P.: The refinement of a q-matrix: assessing methods to validate tasks to skills mapping. In: Educational Data Mining 2014 (2014)
Desmarais, M.C., Naceur, R.: A matrix factorization method for mapping items to skills and for enhancing expert-based Q-matrices. In: Lane, H.C., Yacef, K., Mostow, J., Pavlik, P. (eds.) AIED 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7926, pp. 441–450. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39112-5_45
Doerr, H.M.: Stella ten years later: a review of the literature. Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn. 1(2), 201–224 (1996)
Feng, M., Heffernan, N., Mani, M., Heffernan, C.: Using mixed-effects modeling to compare different grain-sized skill models. In: Educational Data Mining: Papers from the AAAI Workshop. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2006)
Gonzalez-Brenes, J., Huang, Y.: Your model is predictive-but is it useful? Theoretical and empirical considerations of a new paradigm for adaptive tutoring evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Educational Data Mining. University of Pittsburgh (2015)
González-Brenes, J., Huang, Y., Brusilovsky, P.: General features in knowledge tracing to model multiple subskills, temporal item response theory, and expert knowledge. In: The 7th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, pp. 84–91. University of Pittsburgh (2014)
Heffernan, N.T., Koedinger, K.R.: The composition effect in symbolizing: the role of symbol production vs. text comprehension. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 307–312 (1997)
Iwaniec, D.M., Childers, D.L., VanLehn, K., Wiek, A.: Studying, teaching and applying sustainability visions using systems modeling. Sustainability 6(7), 4452–4469 (2014)
Koedinger, K.R., Nathan, M.J.: The real story behind story problems: effects of representations on quantitative reasoning. J. Learn. Sci. 13(2), 129–164 (2004)
Koedinger, K.R., Yudelson, M.V., Pavlik, P.I.: Testing theories of transfer using error rate learning curves. Topics Cogn. Sci. 8(3), 589–609 (2016)
Mayer, R.E.: Frequency norms and structural analysis of algebra story problems into families, categories, and templates. Instr. Sci. 10(2), 135–175 (1981)
Nižnan, J., Pelánek, R., Řihák, J.: Mapping problems to skills combining expert opinion and student data. In: Hliněný, P., Dvořák, Z., Jaroš, J., Kofroň, J., Kořenek, J., Matula, P., Pala, K. (eds.) MEMICS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8934, pp. 113–124. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14896-0_10
Paige, J.M.: Cognitive processes in solving algebra word problems. Problem solving (1966)
Pavlik Jr., P.I., Brawner, K., Olney, A., Mitrovic, A.: A review of student models used in intelligent tutoring systems. In: Design Recommendations for Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pp. 39–68 (2013)
Pelánek, R.: Bayesian knowledge tracing, logistic models, and beyond: an overview of learner modeling techniques. User Model. User-Adap. Inter. 27(3–5), 313–350 (2017)
Richmond, B.: STELLA: software for bringing system dynamics to the other 98%. In: Proceedings of the 1985 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society: 1985 International System Dynamics Conference, pp. 706–718 (1985)
Shute, V.J., Kim, Y.J.: Formative and stealth assessment. In: Spector, J., Merrill, M., Elen, J., Bishop, M. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, pp. 311–321. Springer, New York (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_25
VanLehn, K.: Student modeling. In: Polson, M., Richardson, J. (eds.) Foundations of Intelligent Tutoring Systems, vol. 55, p. 78. Erlbaum, Hillsade (1988)
VanLehn, K.: Problem solving and cognitive skill acquisition. In: Foundations of Cognitive Science, pp. 527–579. MIT Press (1989)
VanLehn, K.: Cognitive skill acquisition. In: Spence, J.T. (ed.) Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 47, pp. 513–539. Annual Reviews Inc. (1996)
VanLehn, K., Chung, G., Grover, S., Madni, A., Wetzel, J.: Learning science by constructing models: can dragoon increase learning without increasing the time required? Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 26(4), 1033–1068 (2016)
VanLehn, K., Wetzel, J., Grover, S., van de Sande, B.: Learning how to construct models of dynamic systems: an initial evaluation of the dragoon intelligent tutoring system. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. (2017)
Wetzel, J., VanLehn, K., Butler, D., Chaudhari, P., Desai, A., Feng, J., Grover, S., Joiner, R., Kong-Sivert, M., Patade, V., et al.: The design and development of the dragoon intelligent tutoring system for model construction: lessons learned. Interact. Learn. Environ. 25(3), 361–381 (2017)
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by NSF IIS-1628782, NSF IIS-1123823, ONR N00014-13-C-0029, ONR N00014-12-C-0643 and US Army, W911NF-04-D-0005, Delivery Order No. 0041.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Grover, S., Wetzel, J., VanLehn, K. (2018). How Should Knowledge Composed of Schemas be Represented in Order to Optimize Student Model Accuracy?. In: Penstein Rosé, C., et al. Artificial Intelligence in Education. AIED 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10947. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93843-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93843-1_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-93842-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-93843-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)