skip to main content
10.1145/3375462.3375541acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageslakConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Applying prerequisite structure inference to adaptive testing

Published:23 March 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Modeling student knowledge is important for assessment design, adaptive testing, curriculum design, and pedagogical intervention. The assessment design community has primarily focused on continuous latent-skill models with strong conditional independence assumptions among knowledge items, while the prerequisite discovery community has developed many models that aim to exploit the interdependence of discrete knowledge items. This paper attempts to bridge the gap by asking, "When does modeling assessment item interdependence improve predictive accuracy?" A novel adaptive testing evaluation framework is introduced that is amenable to techniques from both communities, and an efficient algorithm, Directed Item-Dependence And Confidence Thresholds (DIDACT), is introduced and compared with an Item-Response-Theory based model on several real and synthetic datasets. Experiments suggest that assessments with closely related questions benefit significantly from modeling item interdependence.

References

  1. Giovanni Adorni, Chiara Alzetta, Frosina Koceva, Samuele Passalacqua, and Ilaria Torre. 2019. Towards the Identification of Propaedeutic Relations in Textbooks. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer, 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Jaroslav Bayer, Hana Bydžovská, and Jan Géryk. 2012. Towards course prerequisites refinement. IMEA 2012 (2012), 4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Anthony F Botelho, Seth A Adjei, and Neil T Heffernan. 2016. Modeling Interactions across Skills: A Method to Construct and Compare Models Predicting the Existence of Skill Relationships. International Educational Data Mining Society (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Emma Brunskill. 2011. Estimating Prerequisite Structure From Noisy Data.. In EDM. Citeseer, 217--222.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. R Philip Chalmers et al. 2016. Generating adaptive and non-adaptive test interfaces for multidimensional item response theory applications. Journal of Statistical Software 71, 5 (2016), 1--39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Haw-Shiuan Chang, Hwai-Jung Hsu, and Kuan-Ta Chen. 2015. Modeling Exercise Relationships in E-Learning: A Unified Approach.. In EDM. 532--535.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Yetian Chen, José P González-Brenes, and Jin Tian. 2016. Joint Discovery of Skill Prerequisite Graphs and Student Models. International Educational Data Mining Society (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Yang Chen, Pierre-Henr Wuillemin, and Jean-Marc Labat. 2015. Discovering Prerequisite Structure of Skills through Probabilistic Association Rules Mining. International Educational Data Mining Society (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Michel Desmarais et al. 2011. Conditions for effectively deriving a q-matrix from data with non-negative matrix factorization. In 4th international conference on educational data mining, EDM. 41--50.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Soo-Yun Han, Jiyoung Yoon, and Yun Joo Yoo. 2017. Discovering skill prerequisite structure through Bayesian estimation and nested model comparison.. In EDM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Pan Liao, Yuan Sun, Shiwei Ye, Xin Li, Guiping Su, and Yi Sun. 2017. Predicting learners' multi-question performance based on neural networks. In 2017 International Conference on Behavioral, Economic, Socio-cultural Computing (BESC). IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Danny Lynch and Colm P Howlin. 2014. Real world usage of an adaptive testing algorithm to uncover latent knowledge. In 7th international conference of education, research and innovation (ICERI2014 proceedings). IATED, Seville, Spain. 504--511.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Sein Minn, Yi Yu, Michel C. Desmarais, Feida Zhu, and Jill Jenn Vie. 2018. Deep Knowledge Tracing and Dynamic Student Classification for Knowledge Tracing. Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, ICDM 2018-Novem (2018), 1182--1187. arXiv:arXiv:1809.08713v1 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Chris Piech, Jonathan Bassen, Jonathan Huang, Surya Ganguli, Mehran Sahami, Leonidas Guibas, and Jascha Sohl-Dickstein. 2015. Deep knowledge tracing. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2015-Janua (2015), 505--513.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Martin Plajner. 2016. Student Skill Models in Adaptive Testing. Journal of Machine Learning Research 52 (2016), 403--414. http://www.jmlr.org/proceedings/papers/v52/plajner16.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin Plajner. 2017. Probabilistic Models for Computerized Adaptive Testing. (2017). arXiv:1703.09794 http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.09794Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Sam Saarinen, Shriram Krishnamurthi, Kathi Fisler, and Preston Tunnell Wilson. 2019. Harnessing the Wisdom of the Classes: Classsourcing and Machine Learning for Assessment Instrument Generation. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 606--612.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Jill Jenn Vie. 2016. Adaptive Testing Using a General Diagnostic Model. 2 (2016), 640--643. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Jill-Jênn Vie. 2018. Deep Factorization Machines for Knowledge Tracing. (2018), 370--373. arXiv:arXiv:1811.03388v2 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. David J Weiss. 1985. Adaptive testing by computer. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology 53, 6 (1985), 774.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Runze Wu, Qi Liu, Yuping Liu, Enhong Chen, Yu Su, Zhigang Chen, and Guoping Hu. 2015. Cognitive modelling for predicting examinee performance. In Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Applying prerequisite structure inference to adaptive testing

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          LAK '20: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge
          March 2020
          679 pages
          ISBN:9781450377126
          DOI:10.1145/3375462

          Copyright © 2020 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 23 March 2020

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          LAK '20 Paper Acceptance Rate80of261submissions,31%Overall Acceptance Rate236of782submissions,30%
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)60
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)10

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader