Using learners’ problem-solving processes in computer-based assessments for enhanced learner modeling: A deep learning approach
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 Successful computer-based assessments for learning greatly rely on an effective learner modeling approach to analyze learner data and evaluate learner behaviors. In addition to explicit learning performance (i.e., product data), the process data logged by computer-based assessments provide a treasure trove of information about how learners solve assessment questions. Unfortunately, how to make the best use of both product and process data to sequentially model learning behaviors is still under investigation. This study proposes a novel deep learning-based approach for enhanced learner modeling that can sequentially predict learners’ future learning performance (i.e., item responses) based on modeling their history learning behaviors. The evaluation results show that the proposed model outperforms another popular deep learning-based learner model, and process data learning of the model contributes to improved prediction performance. In addition, the model can be used to discover the mapping of items to skills from scratch without prior expert knowledge. Our study showcases how product and process data can be modelled under the same framework for enhanced learner modeling. It offers a novel approach for learning evaluation in the context of computer-based assessments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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