An engagement-aware predictive model to evaluate problem-solving performance from the study of adult skills' (PIAAC 2012) process data
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 The benefits of incorporating process information in a large-scale assessment with the complex micro-level evidence from the examinees (i.e., process log data) are well documented in the research across large-scale assessments and learning analytics. This study introduces a deep-learning-based approach to predictive modeling of the examinee’s performance in sequential, interactive problem-solving tasks from a large-scale assessment of adults' educational competencies. The current methods disambiguate problem-solving behaviors using network analysis to inform the examinee's performance in a series of problem-solving tasks. The unique contribution of this framework lies in the introduction of an “effort-aware” system. The system considers the information regarding the examinee’s task-engagement level to accurately predict their task performance. The study demonstrates the potential to introduce a high-performing deep learning model to learning analytics and examinee performance modeling in a large-scale problem-solving task environment collected from the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC 2012) test in multiple countries, including the United States, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. Our findings indicated a close relationship between the examinee's engagement level and their problem-solving skills as well as the importance of modeling them together to have a better measure of students’ problem-solving performance.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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