MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997778743 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i01.5406

Predictive Student Modeling in Educational Games with Multi-Task Learning

2020· article· en· W2997778743 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michael Geden, Andrew Emerson, Jonathan E. Rowe, Roger Azevedo, James Lester

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFormative assessmentComputer scienceTask (project management)TRACE (psycholinguistics)Test (biology)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematics educationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modeling student knowledge is critical in adaptive learning environments. Predictive student modeling enables formative assessment of student knowledge and skills, and it drives personalized support to create learning experiences that are both effective and engaging. Traditional approaches to predictive student modeling utilize features extracted from students’ interaction trace data to predict student test performance, aggregating student test performance as a single output label. We reformulate predictive student modeling as a multi-task learning problem, modeling questions from student test data as distinct “tasks.” We demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach by utilizing student data from a series of laboratory-based and classroom-based studies conducted with a game-based learning environment for microbiology education, Crystal Island. Using sequential representations of student gameplay, results show that multi-task stacked LSTMs with residual connections significantly outperform baseline models that do not use the multi-task formulation. Additionally, the accuracy of predictive student models is improved as the number of tasks increases. These findings have significant implications for the design and development of predictive student models in adaptive 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningFrench-language works237,207