Mining Relevant Examples for Learning in ITS Student Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS) provides direct customized instruction or feedback to students while they perform a task in a tutoring system without the intervention of a human. One of the main functions of an ITS system is to present its students with course materials that are most appropriate to their current knowledge of domain concepts, example being one of the course materials. ITS systems typically compare and analyze student model (SM) components for student's current knowledge of concepts (main topics, e.g. Scanf in C programming) that are required to understand the next example (e.g. Codes for scanf) suitable for learning a task (e.g. Write C code to read 2 integers from the keyboard). Existing systems such as NavEx and PADS perform an exhaustive matching of student knowledge level with all examples in the database. This research proposes a task-based technique for managing and classifying examples for more effective retrieval of relevant examples for learning a task. We propose a system called EASK for translating task and example solutions into concepts for similarity matching, which is more readily available, easily extendible and adaptable to other domains. Examples and tasks are represented as vectors of weights computed with term frequency measure TFIDF that signify the importance of a concept for an example. Examples most similar to a task are found by using a classification method called k-NN, which finds the closeness between different objects such as examples and tasks using cosine similarity measure and selecting the k objects (examples) with highest similarity scores. As a by-product, k-NN also predicts the class label (difficulty level) of the task. Our proposed model achieves this prediction with 89% accuracy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".