MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119645277 · doi:10.1177/0735633120986256

Machine Learning-Based Student Modeling Methodology for Intelligent Tutoring Systems

2021· article· en· W3119645277 on OpenAlexaff
Chunsheng Yang, Feng‐Kuang Chiang, Qiangqiang Cheng, Jun Ji

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational Computing Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware deploymentArtificial intelligenceMachine learningIntelligent tutoring systemEducational technologyIntelligent decision support systemData scienceSoftware engineeringMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning-based modeling technology has recently become a powerful technique and tool for developing models for explaining, predicting, and describing system/human behaviors. In developing intelligent education systems or technologies, some research has focused on applying unique machine learning algorithms to build the ad-hoc student models for specific educational systems. However, systematically developing the data-driven student models from the educational data collected over prior educational experiences remains a challenge. We proposed a systematic and comprehensive machine learning-based modeling methodology to develop high-performance predictive student models from the historical educational data to address this issue. This methodology addresses the fundamental modeling issues, from data processing, to modeling, to model deployment. The said methodology can help developing student models for intelligent educational systems. After a detailed description of the proposed machine learning-based methodology, we introduce its application to an intelligent navigation tutoring system. Using the historical data collected in intelligent navigation tutoring systems, we conduct large-scale experiments to build the student models for training systems. The preliminary results proved that the proposed methodology is useful and feasible in developing the high-performance models for various intelligent education systems.

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)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.309
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.174 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations35
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational Computing ResearchSame topicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningFrench-language works237,207