MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Case Study on Scaffolding Adaptive Feedback within Virtual Learning Environments

2011· book-chapter· en· W4240001947 on OpenAlexaff
Mehdi Najjar

Bibliographic record

VenueMachine Learning · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProcess (computing)Representation (politics)Virtual LaboratoryKnowledge representation and reasoningHuman–computer interactionDomain (mathematical analysis)Domain knowledgeArtificial intelligenceMultimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite a growing development of virtual laboratories which use the advantages of multimedia and the Internet for distance education, learning by means of such tutorial tools would be more effective if they were specifically tailored to each student needs. The virtual teaching process would be well adapted if an artificial tutor (integrated into the lab) could identify the correct acquired knowledge. The training approach could be more personalised if the tutor is also able to recognise the erroneous learner’s knowledge and to suggest a suitable sequence of pedagogical activities to improve significantly the level of the student. This chapter proposes a knowledge representation model which judiciously serves the remediation process to students’ errors during learning activities via a virtual laboratory. The chapter also presents a domain knowledge generator authoring tool which attempts to offer a user-friendly environment that allows modelling graphically any subject-matter domain knowledge according to the proposed knowledge representation and remediation approach. The model is inspired by artificial intelligence research on the computational representation of the knowledge and by cognitive psychology theories that provide a fine description of the human memory subsystems and offer a refined modelling of the human learning processes. Experimental results, obtained thanks to practical tests, show that the knowledge representation and remediation model facilitates the planning of a tailored sequence of feedbacks that considerably help the learner.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMachine LearningSame topicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningFrench-language works237,207