Learning Logical Reasoning Using an Intelligent Tutoring System: A Hybrid Approach to Student Modeling
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
In our previous works, we presented Logic-Muse as an Intelligent Tutoring System that helps learners improve logical reasoning skills in multiple contexts. Logic-Muse components were validated and argued by experts throughout the designing process (ITS researchers, logicians, and reasoning psychologists). A catalog of reasoning errors (syntactic and semantic) has been established, in addition to an explicit representation of semantic knowledge and the structures and meta-structures underlying conditional reasoning. A Bayesian network with expert validation has been developed and used in a Bayesian Knowledge Tracing (BKT) process that allows the inference of the learner skills. This paper presents an evaluation of the learner-model components in Logic-Muse (a bayesian learner model). We conducted a study and collected data from nearly 300 students who processed 48 reasoning activities. These data were used to develop a psychometric model for initializing the learner's model and validating the structure of the initial Bayesian network. We have also developed a neural architecture on which a model was trained to support a deep knowledge tracing (DKT) process. The proposed neural architecture improves the initial version of DKT by allowing the integration of expert knowledge (through the Bayesian Expert Validation Network) and allowing better generalization of knowledge with few samples. The results show a significant improvement in the predictive power of the learner model. The analysis of the results of the psychometric model also illustrates an excellent potential for improving the Bayesian network's structure and the learner model's initialization process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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