LogCF: Deep Collaborative Filtering with Process Data for Enhanced Learning Outcome Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective learning outcome modeling is crucial to the success of learning evaluation in education. In the digital age, the movement towards online learning and computerized assessments has resulted in an explosion of structured and unstructured educational data (e.g., learners' problem-solving process data), which offers new opportunities for large-scale learning outcome modeling. Traditional psychometric models are of limited scalability and cannot adequately model item and learner features with incomplete and unstructured learner performance data. Existing advances in machine learning typically don't account for learners' problem-solving processes for learning outcome modeling. Leveraging the collaborative filtering approach used in recommender systems, we develop a general framework of deep learning-based collaborative filtering with process data for enhanced learning outcome modeling, which is named LogCF. LogCF is capable of modeling learner- and item-skill associations as well as predicting learners' item responses. In our experiments on two datasets of distinctive features, we demonstrate the superior predictive capacity of LogCF compared with other educational data mining and psychometric measurement models under different conditions of training/test partition ratios. In addition, we derive three variants of LogCF to examine whether item-skill associations learned or refined by LogCF are superior to the expert-specified ones. In addition, we also demonstrate the interpretability of learner- and item-skill associations learned by LogCF.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".