Automated Data-Driven Generation of Personalized Pedagogical Interventions in Intelligent Tutoring Systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) have been shown to be highly effective at promoting learning as compared to other computer-based instructional approaches. However, many ITS rely heavily on expert design and hand-crafted rules. This makes them difficult to build and transfer across domains and limits their potential efficacy. In this paper, we investigate how feedback in a large-scale ITS can be automatically generated in a data-driven way, and more specifically how personalization of feedback can lead to improvements in student performance outcomes. First, in this paper we propose a machine learning approach to generate personalized feedback in an automated way, which takes individual needs of students into account, while alleviating the need of expert intervention and design of hand-crafted rules. We leverage state-of-the-art machine learning and natural language processing techniques to provide students with personalized feedback using hints and Wikipedia-based explanations . Second, we demonstrate that personalized feedback leads to improved success rates at solving exercises in practice: our personalized feedback model is used in , a large-scale dialogue-based ITS with around 20,000 students launched in 2019. We present the results of experiments with students and show that the automated, data-driven, personalized feedback leads to a significant overall improvement of 22.95 % in student performance outcomes and substantial improvements in the subjective evaluation of the feedback.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it