skip to main content
10.1145/2930238.2930258acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesumapConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

A Framework for Dynamic Knowledge Modeling in Textbook-Based Learning

Published:13 July 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Various e-learning systems that provide electronic textbooks are gathering data on large numbers of student reading interactions. This data can potentially be used to model student knowledge acquisition. However, reading activity is often overlooked in canonical student modeling. Prior studies modeling learning from reading either estimate student knowledge at the end of all reading activities, or use quiz performance data with expert-crafted knowledge components (KCs). In this work, we demonstrate that the dynamic modeling of student knowledge is feasible and that automatic text analysis can be applied to save expert effort. We propose a data-driven approach for dynamic student modeling in textbook-based learning. We formulate the problem of modeling learning from reading as a reading-time prediction problem, reconstruct existing popular student models (such as Knowledge Tracing) and explore two automatic text analysis approaches (bag-of-words-based and latent semantic-based) to build the KC model. We evaluate the proposed framework using a dataset collected from a Human-Computer Interaction course. Results show that our approach for reading modeling is plausible; the proposed Knowledge Tracing-based student model reliably outperforms baselines and the latent semantic-based approach can be a promising way to construct a KC model. Serving as the first step to model dynamic knowledge in textbook-based learning, our framework can be applied to a broader context of open-corpus personalized learning.

References

  1. S. Bechhofer, C. Goble, L. Carr, W. Hall, S. Kampa, and D. De Roure. Cohse: Conceptual open hypermedia service. In Annotation for the Semantic Web, pages 193--210. IOS Press, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. D. M. Blei, A. Y. Ng, and M. I. Jordan. Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3:993--1022, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. P. Brusilovsky and J. Eklund. A study of user-model based link annotation in educational hypermedia. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 4(4):429--448, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. P. Brusilovsky, C. Karagiannidis, and D. Sampson. Layered evaluation of adaptive learning systems. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 14(4/5):402 -- 421, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. P. Brusilovsky and J. Kim. Enhancing electronic books with spatial annotation and social navigation support. In Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Universal Digital Library (ICUDL), 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. P. Brusilovsky and E. Millán. User models for adaptive hypermedia and adaptive educational systems. In The adaptive web, pages 3--53. Springer-Verlag, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. P. Brusilovsky and L. Pesin. Adaptive navigation support in educational hypermedia: An evaluation of the isis-tutor. Journal of Computing and Information Technology, 6(1):27--38, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. P. Brusilovsky, S. Sosnovsky, and M. Yudelson. Addictive links: The motivational value of adaptive link annotation. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 15(1):97--118, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. K. R. Canini, L. Shi, and T. L. Griffiths. Online inference of topics with latent dirichlet allocation. In Int. Conf. Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 65--72, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. R. P. Carver. The causes of high and low reading achievement. Routledge, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. H. Cen, K. R. Koedinger, and B. Junker. Comparing two irt models for conjunctive skills. In Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pages 796--798, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2008. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. D. Chin. Empirical evaluations of user models and user-adapted systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11(1--2):181--194, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. T. Corbett and J. R. Anderson. Knowledge tracing: Modelling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 4(4):253--278, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. A. Davidovic, J. Warren, and E. Trichina. Learning benefits of structural example-based adaptive tutoring systems. IEEE Transactions on Education, 46(2):241--251, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. R. Farzan and P. Brusilovsky. Social navigation support in e-learning: What are real footprints. In IJCAI'05 Workshop on Intelligent Techniques for Web Personalization, pages 49--56, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Y. Gong, J. E. Beck, and N. T. Heffernan. Comparing knowledge tracing and performance factor analysis by using multiple model fitting procedures. In Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pages 35--44. Springer, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. J. P. González-Brenes, Y. Huang, and P. Brusilovsky. General features in knowledge tracing: Applications to multiple subskills, temporal item response theory, and expert knowledge. In Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. on Educational Data Mining, pages 84--91, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. J. Guerra, D. Parra, and P. Brusilovsky. Encouraging online student reading with social visualization. In The 2nd Workshop on Intelligent Support for Learning in Groups at the 16th Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pages 47--50, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. J. Guerra, S. Sosnovsky, and P. Brusilovsky. When one textbook is not enough: Linking multiple textbooks using probabilistic topic models. In Scaling up Learning for Sustained Impact, pages 125--138. Springer, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. N. Henze and W. Nejdl. Adaptation in open corpus hypermedia. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12(4):325--350, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. I.-H. Hsiao, S. Sosnovsky, and P. Brusilovsky. Guiding students to the right questions: adaptive navigation support in an e-learning system for java programming. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(4):270--283, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Y. Huang, J. P. González-Brenes, R. Kumar, and P. Brusilovsky. A framework for multifaceted evaluation of student models. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, pages 203--210, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. M. A. Just and P. A. Carpenter. The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Allyn & Bacon, 1987.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. A. Kavcic. Fuzzy user modeling for adaptation in educational hypermedia. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 34(4):439--449, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. K. Koedinger, J. Stamper, E. McLaughlin, and T. Nixon. Using data-driven discovery of better student models to improve student learning. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education., pages 412--430, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. H. P. Luhn. The automatic creation of literature abstracts. IBM Journal of research and development, 2(2):159--165, 1958. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. B. Martin, A. Mitrovic, K. Koedinger, and S. Mathan. Evaluating and improving adaptive educational systems with learning curves. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 21(3):249--283, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. J. T. Mayes, M. R. Kibby, and H. Watson. Strathtutor: The development and evaluation of a learning-by-browsing on the macintosh. Computers and Education, 12(1):221--229, 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. A. Newell and P. S. Rosenbloom. Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. Cognitive skills and their acquisition, 1:1--55, 1981.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. K. O'Hara. Towards a typology of reading goals. Technical Report EPC-1996--107, Rank Xerox Research Centre Cambridge Laboratory, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. K. A. Papanikolaou, M. Grigoriadou, H. Kornilakis, and G. D. Magoulas. Personalising the interaction in a web-based educational hypermedia system: the case of inspire. User Modeling and User Adapted Interaction, 13(3):213--267, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. A. Paramythis and S. Weibelzahl. A decomposition model for the layered evaluation of interactive adaptive systems. In L. Ardissono, P. Brna, and A. Mitrovic, editors, 10th International User Modeling Conference, volume 3538 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 438--442. Springer Verlag, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. P. I. Pavlik Jr., H. Cen, and K. R. Koedinger. Performance factors analysis -- a new alternative to knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pages 531--538. IOS Press, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. L. Rabiner and B. Juang. An introduction to Hidden Markov Models. ASSP Magazine, IEEE, 3(1):4--16, 1986.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. M. Rosen-Zvi, T. Griffiths, M. Steyvers, and P. Smyth. The author-topic model for authors and documents. In Proceedings of the 20th conference on Uncertainty in artificial intelligence, pages 487--494. AUAI Press, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. G. Salton and C. Buckley. Term-weighting approaches in automatic text retrieval. Information processing & management, 24(5):513--523, 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. F. Sebastiani. Machine learning in automated text categorization. ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 34(1):1--47, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. S. Sosnovsky and P. Brusilovsky. Evaluation of topic-based adaptation and student modeling in quizguide. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 25(4):371--424, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. W. J. van der Linden and R. K. Hambleton. Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. Springer Verlag, New York, NY, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. H. M. Wallach. Topic modeling: beyond bag-of-words. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning, pages 977--984. ACM, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. G. Weber and P. Brusilovsky. Elm-art: An adaptive versatile system for web-based instruction. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12(4):351--384, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Y. Xu and J. Mostow. Comparison of methods to trace multiple subskills: Is LR-DBN best? In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, pages 41--48, Chania, Greece, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. M. Yudelson, K. Koedinger, and G. Gordon. Individualized bayesian knowledge tracing models. In Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED 2013)., pages 171--180, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2013. Springer-Verlag.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. M. Yudelson, P. Pavlik, and K. Koedinger. User modeling -- a notoriously black art. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on User Modeling Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP 2011), pages 317--328, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A Framework for Dynamic Knowledge Modeling in Textbook-Based Learning

                                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
                                  UMAP '16: Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on User Modeling Adaptation and Personalization
                                  July 2016
                                  366 pages
                                  ISBN:9781450343688
                                  DOI:10.1145/2930238

                                  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: 13 July 2016

                                  Permissions

                                  Request permissions about this article.

                                  Request Permissions

                                  Check for updates

                                  Qualifiers

                                  • research-article

                                  Acceptance Rates

                                  UMAP '16 Paper Acceptance Rate21of123submissions,17%Overall Acceptance Rate162of633submissions,26%

                                  Upcoming Conference

                                PDF Format

                                View or Download as a PDF file.

                                PDF

                                eReader

                                View online with eReader.

                                eReader