MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2855035396 · doi:10.1145/3209219.3209238

Gaze-Enhanced Student Modeling for Game-based Learning

2018· article· en· W2855035396 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Andrew Emerson, Robert G. Sawyer, Roger Azevedo, James C. Lester

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNorth Carolina State University
KeywordsGazeLeverage (statistics)Eye trackingComputer scienceBaseline (sea)Tracking (education)Human–computer interactionGame based learningStudent engagementMultimediaArtificial intelligenceMathematics educationPsychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advances in eye-tracking technologies have introduced the opportunity to incorporate gaze into student modeling. Creating student models that leverage gaze information holds significant promise for game-based learning environments. This paper introduces a gaze-enhanced student modeling framework that incorporates student eye tracking to dynamically predict students' performance in a game-based learning environment for microbiology education, CRYSTAL ISLAND. The gaze-enhanced student modeling framework was investigated in a study comparing a gaze-enhanced student model with a baseline student model that does not utilize student eye-tracking. Results of a study conducted with 65 college students interacting with the CRYSTAL ISLAND game-based learning environment indicate that the gaze-enhanced student model significantly outperforms the baseline model in dynamically predicting student problem-solving performance. The findings suggest that incorporating gaze into student modeling can contribute to a new generation of student models for game-based learning environments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningFrench-language works237,207