Student Modeling for Individuals and Groups: the BioWorld and HOWARD Platforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I first met Jim Greer at the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Syntheses of Instructional Sciences and Computing Science for Effective Instructional Computing Systems in 1990 in Calgary, Canada. It was during this meeting that I came to realize that Jim was one of those rare individuals that could help “translate” computer science principles to non-computer scientists. Through this translation process new knowledge could be developed through interdisciplinary partnerships with psychology and education. In this paper, I describe the manner in which Jim influenced my own journey in the field of Artificial Intelligence and Education. In particular, he has influenced two directions in my research, one direction is the manner in which technology can influence teaching and learning for individuals working solo. The second direction is how technology can influence teaching and learning through collaboration. In both situations I will discuss Jim Greer’s influence on my research with respect to learner modelling, educational data mining, and visualization. In the context of solo learning, I will discuss BioWorld, a system that fosters clinical reasoning in medical students, emphasizing the role of student modeling and educational data mining for fostering and identifying performance differences in clinical reasoning. In the context of collaborative learning, I will discuss HOWARD, an online platform for supporting small group problem-based learning in medical students. In particular, I will discuss the role of learning analytics used in a pedagogical dashboard to foster teachers’ interpretation of group 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".