The Interplay between Inspectable Student Models and Didactics of Statistics
Tóm tắt
Statistics is a challenging subject for many university students. In addition to dedicated methods of didactics of statistics, adaptive educational technologies can also offer a promising approach to target this challenge. Inspectable student models provide students with information about their mastery of the domain, thus triggering reflection and supporting the planning of subsequent study steps. In this article, we investigate the question of whether insights from didactics of statistics can be combined with inspectable student models and examine if the two can reinforce each other. Five inspectable student models were implemented within five didactically grounded online statistics modules, which were offered to 160 Social Sciences students as part of their first-year university statistics course. The student models were evaluated using several methods. Learning curve analysis and predictive validity analysis examined the quality of the student models from the technical point of view, while a questionnaire and a task analysis provided a didactical perspective. The results suggest that students appreciated the overall design, but the learning curve analysis revealed several weaknesses in the implemented domain structure. The task analysis revealed four underlying problems that help to explain these weaknesses. Addressing these problems improved both the predictive validity of the adjusted student models and the quality of the instructional modules themselves. These results provide insight into how inspectable student models and didactics of statistics can augment each other in the design of rich instructional modules for statistics.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Aberson, C., Berger, D., Healy, M., & Romero, V. (2003). Evaluation of an interactive tutorial for teaching hypothesis testing concepts. Teaching of Psychology, 30(1), 75–78.
Arroyo, I., Ferguson, K., Johns, J., Dragon, T., Meheranian, H., Fisher, D., Barto, A., Mahadevan, S., & Woolf, B. (2007). Repairing disengagement with non-invasive interventions. In R. Luckin, K. Koodiger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Building technology rich learning contexts that work (pp. 195–202). The Netherlands: IOS Press.
Barnes, T. (2005). The Q-matrix method: Mining student response data for knowledge. Paper presented at the American Association for Artificial Intelligence 2005 Educational Data Mining Workshop. Pittsburgh .
Ben-Zvi, D. (2000). Toward understanding the role of technological tools in statistical learning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2(1–2), 127–155.
Bokhove, C., & Drijvers, P. (2012). Effects of feedback in an online algebra intervention. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 17(1–2), 43–59.
Brusilovsky, P., & Millán, E. (2007). User models for adaptive hypermedia and adaptive educational systems. In P. Brusilovsky, A. Kobsa, & W. Nejdl (Eds.), The adaptive web (pp. 3–53). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Brusilovsky, P., Sosnovsky, S., & Yudelson, M. (2009). Addictive links: The motivational value of adaptive link annotation. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 15(1), 97–118.
Bull, S. (2004). Supporting learning with open learner models. In Proceedings of the 4th Hellenic Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in Education (pp. 47–61). Greece: Athens.
Bull, S. & Kay, J. (2007). Student models that invite the learner in: The open learner modelling framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 17(2), 89–120.
Carr, B., & Goldstein, I. (1977). Overlays: A theory of modelling for computer-aided instruction. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Artificial Intelligence Lab.
Castro Sotos, A., Vanhoof, S., van den Noortgate, W., & Onghena, P. (2007). Students’ misconceptions of statistical inference: A review of the empirical evidence from research on statistics education. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 98–113.
Corbett, A., & Anderson, J. (1995). Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 4(4), 253–278.
Dimitrova, V., Self, J., & Brna, P. (2001). Applying interactive open learner models to learning technical terminology. In M. Bauer, P. Gmytrasiewicz, & J. Vassileva (Eds.), User modeling 2001: 8th international conference. Proceedings (pp. 148–157). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Drijvers, P., Boon, P., Doorman, M., Bokhove, C., & Tacoma, S. (2013). Digital design: RME principles for designing online tasks. In C. Margolinas (Ed.), Proceedings of ICMI study 22 task Design in Mathematics Education (pp. 55–62). Clermont-Ferrand: ICMI.
Evans, J. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Garfield, J., & Ahlgren, A. (1988). Difficulties in learning basic concepts in probability and statistics: Implications for research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(1), 44–63.
Garfield, J., Aliaga, M., Cobb, G., Cuff, C., Gould, R., Lock, R., ... Utts, J. (2005). GAISE college report. Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/education/gaise/GaiseCollege_Full.pdf
Herder, E., Sosnovsky, S., & Dimitrova, V. (2017). Adaptive intelligent learning environments. In E. Duval, M. Sharples, & R. Sutherland (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning: Research themes (pp. 109–114). Cham: Springer.
Long, Y., & Aleven, V. (2011). Students’ understanding of their student model. In G. Biswas, S. Bull, J. Kay, & A. Mitrovic (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: 15th international conference (pp. 179–186). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Lovett, M., & Greenhouse, J. (2000). Applying cognitive theory to statistics instruction. The American Statistician, 54(3), 196–206.
Martin, B., Mitrovic, A., Koedinger, K., & Mathan, S. (2011). Evaluating and improving adaptive educational systems with learning curves. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 21(3), 249–283.
Mitrovic, A. & Martin, B. (2002). Evaluating the effects of open student models on learning. In P. de Bra, P. Brusilovsky & R. Conejo (Eds), Adaptive hypermedia and adaptive web-based systems: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference (pp. 296–305). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Murtonen, M., & Lehtinen, E. (2003). Difficulties experienced by education and sociology students in quantitative methods courses. Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 171–185.
Pavlik, P., Cen, H., & Koedinger, K. (2009). Performance factors analysis: A new alternative to knowledge tracing. In V. Dimitrova, R. Mizoguchi, B. du Boulay, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Proceedings of the 14 th international conference (pp. 531–538). The Netherlands: IOS Press.
Sosnovsky, S., & Brusilovsky, P. (2015). Evaluation of topic-based adaptation and student modeling in QuizGuide. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 25(4), 371–424.
Stacey, K., & Wiliam, D. (2013). Technology and assessment in mathematics. In M. Clements, A. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 721–751). New York: Springer.
Tatsuoka, K. (1983). Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20(4), 345–354.
Tishkovskaya, S., & Lancaster, G. (2012). Statistical education in the 21st century: A review of challenges, teaching innovations and strategies for reform. Journal of Statistics Education, 20(2), 1–55.
Zapata-Rivera, D., & Greer, J. (2002). Exploring various guidance mechanisms to support interaction with inspectable learner models. In S. Cerri, G. Gouardères, & F. Paraguaçu (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems: 6th international conference proceedings (pp. 442–452). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.