Search for: All records

The use of Bayesian Knowledge Tracing (BKT) models in predicting student learning and mastery, especially in mathematics, is a well-established and proven approach in learning analytics. In this work, we report on our analysis examining the generalizability of BKT models across academic years attributed to "detector rot." We compare the generalizability of Knowledge Training (KT) models by comparing model performance in predicting student knowledge within the academic year and across academic years. Models were trained on data from two popular open-source curricula available through Open Educational Resources. We observed that the models generally were highly performant in predicting student learning within an academic year, whereas certain academic years were more generalizable than other academic years. We posit that the Knowledge Tracing models are relatively stable in terms of performance across academic years yet can still be susceptible to systemic changes and underlying learner behavior. As indicated by the evidence in this paper, we posit that learning platforms leveraging KT models need to be mindful of systemic changes or drastic changes in certain user demographics. 

The use of Bayesian Knowledge Tracing (BKT) models in predicting student learning and mastery, especially in mathematics, is a well-established and proven approach in learning analytics. In this work, we report on our analysis examining the generalizability of BKT models across academic years attributed to ”detector rot.” We compare the generalizability of Knowledge Training (KT) models by comparing model performance in predicting student knowledge within the academic year and across academic years. Models were trained on data from two popular open-source curricula available through Open Educational Resources. We observed that the models generally were highly performant in predicting student learning within an academic year, whereas certain academic years were more generalizable than other academic years. We posit that the Knowledge Tracing models are relatively stable in terms of performance across academic years yet can still be susceptible to systemic changes and underlying learner behavior. As indicated by the evidence in this paper, we posit that learning platforms leveraging KT models need to be mindful of systemic changes or drastic changes in certain user demographics. 

The use of Bayesian Knowledge Tracing (BKT) models in predicting student learning and mastery, especially in mathematics, is a well-established and proven approach in learning analytics. In this work, we report on our analysis examining the generalizability of BKT models across academic years attributed to ”detector rot.” We compare the generalizability of Knowledge Training (KT) models by comparing model performance in predicting student knowledge within the academic year and across academic years. Models were trained on data from two popular open-source curricula available through Open Educational Resources. We observed that the models generally were highly performant in predicting student learning within an academic year, whereas certain academic years were more generalizable than other academic years. We posit that the Knowledge Tracing models are relatively stable in terms of performance across academic years yet can still be susceptible to systemic changes and underlying learner behavior. As indicated by the evidence in this paper, we posit that learning platforms leveraging KT models need to be mindful of systemic changes or drastic changes in certain user demographics. 

Large language models have recently been able to perform well in a wide variety of circumstances. In this work, we explore the possibility of large language models, specifically GPT-3, to write explanations for middle-school mathematics problems, with the goal of eventually using this process to rapidly generate explanations for the mathematics problems of new curricula as they emerge, shortening the time to integrate new curricula into online learning platforms. To generate explanations, two approaches were taken. The first approach attempted to summarize the salient advice in tutoring chat logs between students and live tutors. The second approach attempted to generate explanations using few-shot learning from explanations written by teachers for similar mathematics problems. After explanations were generated, a survey was used to compare their quality to that of explanations written by teachers. We test our methodology using the GPT-3 language model. Ultimately, the synthetic explanations were unable to outperform teacher written explanations. In the future more powerful large language models may be employed, and GPT-3 may still be effective as a tool to augment teachers’ process for writing explanations, rather than as a tool to replace them. The explanations, survey results, analysis code, and a dataset of tutoring chat logs are all available at https://osf.io/wh5n9/. 

Large language models have recently been able to perform well in a wide variety of circumstances. In this work, we explore the possibility of large language models, specifically GPT-3, to write explanations for middle-school mathematics problems, with the goal of eventually using this process to rapidly generate explanations for the mathematics problems of new curricula as they emerge, shortening the time to integrate new curricula into online learning platforms. To generate explanations, two approaches were taken. The first approach attempted to summarize the salient advice in tutoring chat logs between students and live tutors. The second approach attempted to generate explanations using few-shot learning from explanations written by teachers for similar mathematics problems. After explanations were generated, a survey was used to compare their quality to that of explanations written by teachers. We test our methodology using the GPT-3 language model. Ultimately, the synthetic explanations were unable to outperform teacher written explanations. In the future more powerful large language models may be employed, and GPT-3 may still be effective as a tool to augment teachers’ process for writing explanations, rather than as a tool to replace them. The explanations, survey results, analysis code, and a dataset of tutoring chat logs are all available at https://osf.io/wh5n9/. 

Solving mathematical problems is cognitively complex, involving strategy formulation, solution development, and the application of learned concepts. However, gaps in students’ knowledge or weakly grasped concepts can lead to errors. Teachers play a crucial role in predicting and addressing these difficulties, which directly influence learning outcomes. However, preemptively identifying misconcep- tions leading to errors can be challenging. This study leverages historical data to assist teachers in recognizing common errors and addressing gaps in knowledge through feedback. We present a longitudinal analysis of incorrect answers from the 2015-2020 aca- demic years on two curricula, Illustrative Math and EngageNY, for grades 6, 7, and 8. We find consistent errors across 5 years despite varying student and teacher populations. Based on these Common Wrong Answers (CWAs), we designed a crowdsourcing platform for teachers to provide Common Wrong Answer Feedback (CWAF). This paper reports on an in vivo randomized study testing the ef- fectiveness of CWAFs in two scenarios: next-problem-correctness within-skill and next-problem-correctness within-assignment, re- gardless of the skill. We find that receiving CWAF leads to a signifi- cant increase in correctness for consecutive problems within-skill. However, the effect was not significant for all consecutive problems within-assignment, irrespective of the associated skill. This paper investigates the potential of scalable approaches in identifying Com- mon Wrong Answers (CWAs) and how the use of crowdsourced CWAFs can enhance student learning through remediation. 

Solving mathematical problems is cognitively complex, involving strategy formulation, solution development, and the application of learned concepts. However, gaps in students' knowledge or weakly grasped concepts can lead to errors. Teachers play a crucial role in predicting and addressing these difficulties, which directly influence learning outcomes. However, preemptively identifying misconceptions leading to errors can be challenging. This study leverages historical data to assist teachers in recognizing common errors and addressing gaps in knowledge through feedback. We present a longitudinal analysis of incorrect answers from the 2015-2020 academic years on two curricula, Illustrative Math and EngageNY, for grades 6, 7, and 8. We find consistent errors across 5 years despite varying student and teacher populations. Based on these Common Wrong Answers (CWAs), we designed a crowdsourcing platform for teachers to provide Common Wrong Answer Feedback (CWAF). This paper reports on an in vivo randomized study testing the effectiveness of CWAFs in two scenarios: next-problem-correctness within-skill and next-problem-correctness within-assignment, regardless of the skill. We find that receiving CWAF leads to a significant increase in correctness for consecutive problems within-skill. However, the effect was not significant for all consecutive problems within-assignment, irrespective of the associated skill. This paper investigates the potential of scalable approaches in identifying Common Wrong Answers (CWAs) and how the use of crowdsourced CWAFs can enhance student learning through remediation.