An Emotional Student Model for Game-Based Learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Students’ performance and motivation are influenced by their emotions. Game-based learning (GBL) environments comprise elements that facilitate learning and the creation of an emotional connection with students. GBL environments include Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITSs) to ensure personalized learning. ITSs reason about students’ needs and characteristics (student modeling) to provide suitable instruction (tutor modeling). The authors’ research is focused on the design and implementation of an emotional student model for GBL environments based on the Control-Value Theory of achievement emotions by Pekrun et al. (2007). The model reasons about answers to questions in game dialogues and contextual variables related to student behavior acquired through students’ interaction with PlayPhysics. The authors’ model is implemented using Dynamic Bayesian Networks (DBNs), which are derived using Probabilistic Relational Models (PRMs), machine learning techniques, and statistical methods. This work compares an earlier approach that uses Multinomial Logistic Regression (MLR) and cross-tabulation for learning the structure and conditional probability tables with an approach that employs Necessary Path Condition and Expectation Maximization algorithms. Results showed that the latter approach is more effective at classifying the control of outcome-prospective emotions. Future work will focus on applying this approach to classification of activity and outcome-retrospective emotions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it