Identifying Students' Characteristic Learning Behaviors in an Intelligent Tutoring System Fostering Self-Regulated Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identification of student learning behaviors, especially those that characterize or distinguish students, can yield important insights for the design of adaptation and feedback mechanisms in Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS). In this paper, we analyze trace data to identify distinguishing patterns of behavior in a study of 51 college students learning about a complex science topic with an agent-based ITS that fosters self-regulated learning (SRL). Preliminary analysis with an Expectation-Maximization clustering algorithm revealed the existence of three distinct groups of students, distinguished by their test and quiz scores (low for the first group, medium for the second group, and high for the third group), their learning gains (low, medium, high), the frequency of their note-taking (rare, frequent, rare) and note-checking (rare, rare, frequent), the proportion of sub-goals attempted (low, low, high), and the time spent reading (high, high, low). In this paper, we extend this analysis to identify characteristic learning behaviors and strategies that distinguish these three groups of students. We employ a differential sequence mining technique to identify differentially frequent activity patterns between the student groups and interpret these patterns in terms of relevant learning behaviors. The results of this analysis reveal that high-performing students tend to be better at quickly identifying the relevance of a page to their subgoal, are more methodical in their exploration of the pedagogical content, rely on system prompts to take notes and summarize, and are more strategic in their preparation for the post-test (e.g., using the end of their session to briefly review pages). These results provide a first step in identifying the group to which a student belongs during the learning session, thus making possible a real-time adaptation of the system.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".