MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317376037 · doi:10.14288/1.0166864

Eye-tracking as a source of information for automatically predicting user learning with MetaTutor, an intelligent tutoring system to support self-regulated learning

2014· article· en· W2317376037 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daria Bondareva

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTracking (education)Eye trackingIntelligent tutoring systemHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceMultimediaPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Student modeling has been gaining interest among researchers recently. A lot of work has been done on exploring value of interface actions on predicting learning. The focus of this thesis is on using eye-tracking data and action logs for building classifies to infer a student’s learning performance during interaction with MetaTutor, an Intelligent Tutoring System( ITS) that scaffolds self-regulated learning (SRL). Research has shown that eye tracking can be a valuable source for predicting learning for certain learning environments. In this thesis we extend these results by showing that modeling based on eye-tracking data is a valuable approach to predicting learning for another type of ITS, a hypermedia learning environment. We use data from 50 students (collected by a research team at McGill University, which also designed MetaTutor) to compare the performance of actions and eye-tracking data (1) after a complete interaction, and (2) during interaction when different amounts of gaze and action data are available. We built several classifiers using common machine learning algorithms and techniques, with feature sets that are based on (1) eye-tracking data only, (2) actions data only and (3) eye-tracking and actions data combined. The results we found show that eye-tracking data brings important information in predicting student’s performance for an ITS supporting SRL in both overall and over time analysis. The features used for training classifiers suggest that usage of SRL tools available in MetaTutor can be a good predictor of learning.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningFrench-language works237,207