Eye-tracking and artificial intelligence to enhance motivation and learning
Tóm tắt
The interaction with the various learners in a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) is often complex. Contemporary MOOC learning analytics relate with click-streams, keystrokes and other user-input variables. Such variables however, do not always capture users’ learning and behavior (e.g., passive video watching). In this paper, we present a study with 40 students who watched a MOOC lecture while their eye-movements were being recorded. We then proposed a method to define stimuli-based gaze variables that can be used for any kind of stimulus. The proposed stimuli-based gaze variables indicate students’ content-coverage (in space and time) and reading processes (area of interest based variables) and attention (i.e., with-me-ness), at the perceptual (following teacher’s deictic acts) and conceptual levels (following teacher discourse). In our experiment, we identified a significant mediation effect of the content coverage, reading patterns and the two levels of with-me-ness on the relation between students’ motivation and their learning performance. Such variables enable common measurements for the different kind of stimuli present in distinct MOOCs. Our long-term goal is to create student profiles based on their performance and learning strategy using stimuli-based gaze variables and to provide students gaze-aware feedback to improve overall learning process. One key ingredient in the process of achieving a high level of adaptation in providing gaze-aware feedback to the students is to use Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms for prediction of student performance from their behaviour. In this contribution, we also present a method combining state-of-the-art AI technique with the eye-tracking data to predict student performance. The results show that the student performance can be predicted with an error of less than 5%.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Alemdag, E., & Cagiltay, K. (2018). A systematic review of eye tracking research on multimedia learning. Computers in Education, 125, 413–428.
Ashraf, H., Sodergren, M. H., Merali, N., Mylonas, G., Singh, H., & Darzi, A. (2018). Eye-tracking technology in medical education: A systematic review. Medical Teacher, 40(1), 62–69.
Astin, A. W. (1971). Predicting academic performance in college: Selectivity data for 2300 American colleges.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133–149.
Byrne, B., Freebody, P., & Gates, A. (1992). Longitudinal data on the relations of word-reading strategies to comprehension, reading time, and phonemic awareness. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 141–151.
Cennamo, K. S., Savenye, W. C., & Smith, P. L. (1991). Mental effort and video-based learning: The relationship of preconceptions and the effects of interactive and covert practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(1), 5–16.
Choi, H. J., & Johnson, S. D. (2005). The effect of context-based video instruction on learning and motivation in online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(4), 215–227.
Dillenbourg, P., & Traum, D. (2006). Sharing solutions: Persistence and grounding in multimodal collaborative problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 121–151.
Dowhower, S. L. (1987). Effects of repeated Reading on second-grade transitional readers' fluency and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 389–406.
Giannakos, M. N. (2013). Exploring the video-based learning research: A review of the literature. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(6), E191–E195.
Giannakos, M. N., Chorianopoulos, K., & Chrisochoides, N. (2015). Making sense of video analytics: Lessons learned from clickstream interactions, attitudes, and learning outcome in a video-assisted course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 16(1), 260–283.
Good, T. L., & Beckerman, T. M. (1978). Time on task: A naturalistic study in sixth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 78(3), 193–201.
Grabe, M., & Latta, R. M. (1981). Cumulative achievement in a mastery instructional system: The impact of differences in resultant achievement motivation and persistence. American Educational Research Journal, 18(1), 7–13.
Hastie. (1993). In chambers and Hastie (1993) statistical models in S. Chapman and Hall.
Hastie and Tibshirani. (1990). Generalized additive models. Chapman and Hall.
Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., & Van de Weijer, J. Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. OUP Oxford, 2011.
Jermann, P., & Nüssli, M. A. (2012). Effects of sharing text selections on gaze cross-recurrence and interaction quality in a pair programming task. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 1125–1134). ACM.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329.
Kaplan, R. M. (1982). Nader's raid on the testing industry: Is it in the best interest of the consumer? The American Psychologist, 37(1), 15.
Kim, J., Nguyen, P. T., Weir, S., Guo, P. J., Miller, R. C., & Gajos, K. Z. (2014). Crowdsourcing step-by-step information extraction to enhance existing how-to videos. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 4017–4026). ACM.
Kizilcec, R. F., Papadopoulos, K., & Sritanyaratana, L. (2014). Showing face in video instruction: Effects on information retention, visual attention, and affect. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2095-2102). ACM.
Liaw, A., & Wiener, M. (2002). Classification and regression by randomForest. R news, 2(3), 18–22.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.
Millis, K. K., & King, A. (2001). Rereading strategically: The influences of comprehension ability and a prior reading on the memory for expository text. Reading Psychology, 22(1), 41–65.
Moreno-Marcos, P. M., Alario-Hoyos, C., Muñoz-Merino, P. J., & Kloos, C. D. (2018). Prediction in MOOCs: A review and future research directions. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 12(3), 384-401.
Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children's reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child development, 2083–2093.
Pelánek, R. (2015). Metrics for evaluation of student models. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 7(2), 1–19.
Prieto, L. P., Sharma, K., Dillenbourg, P., & Jesús, M. (2016). Teaching analytics: Towards automatic extraction of orchestration graphs using wearable sensors. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (pp. 148–157). ACM.
Rasmussen, C. E. (2003). Gaussian processes in machine learning. In Summer School on machine learning (pp. 63–71). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Reinking, D. (1988). Computer-mediated text and comprehension differences: The role of Reading time, reader preference, and estimation of learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 484–498.
Richardson, D. C., Dale, R., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2007). The art of conversation is coordination. Psychological Science, 18(5), 407–413.
Scholkopf, B., & Smola, A. J. (2001). Learning with kernels: Support vector machines, regularization, optimization, and beyond. MIT press.
Schwartz, D. L., & Hartman, K. (2007). It is not television anymore: Designing digital video for learning and assessment. Video Research in the Learning Sciences edited by Ricki Goldman, Roy Pea, Brigid Barron, Sharon J. Derry, 335–348.
Seaton, D. T., Bergner, Y., Chuang, I., Mitros, P., & Pritchard, D. E. (2014). Who does what in a massive open online course?
Sharma, K., Caballero, D., Verma, H., Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2015a). Looking AT versus looking THROUGH: A dual eye-tracking study in MOOC context. In the proc. of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 205 (pp. 260-267). International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.[ISLS].
Sharma, K., Caballero, D., Verma, H., Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2015b). Shaping learners’ attention in massive open online courses. Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire/International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 12(1–2), 52–61.
Sharma, K., Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2014). “With-me-ness”: A gaze-measure for students’ attention in MOOCs. In Proceedings of international conference of the learning sciences 2014 (no. CONF (pp. 1017–1022). ISLS.
Simonyan, K., & Zisserman, A. (2014). Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556.
Špakov, O., & Miniotas, D. (2007). Visualization of eye gaze data using heat maps. Elektronika ir elektrotechnika, 74, 55–58.
Tibshirani, R. (1996). Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B: Methodological, 58(1), 267–288.
Volery, T., & Lord, D. (2000). Critical success factors in online education. International Journal of Educational Management, 14(5), 216–223.
Wiley, D. E. (1976). Another hour, another day: Quantity of schooling, a potent path for policy. In Schooling and achievement in American society (pp. 225–265).