Instructional factors analysis: A cognitive model for multiple instructional interventions

Min Chi, Kenneth Koedinger, Geoff Gordon, Pamela Jordan, Kurt VanLehn

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In this paper, we proposed a new cognitive modeling approach: Instructional Factors Analysis Model (IFM). It belongs to a class of Knowledge-Component- based cognitive models. More specifically, IFM is targeted for modeling student's performance when multiple types of instructional interventions are involved and some of them may not generate a direct observation of students' performance. We compared IFM to two other pre-existing cognitive models: Additive Factor Models (AFMs) and Performance Factor Models (PFMs). The three methods differ mainly on how a student's previous experience on a Knowledge Component is counted into multiple categories. Among the three models, instructional interventions without immediate direct observations can be easily incorporate into the AFM and IFM models. Therefore, they are further compared on two important tasks-unseen student prediction and unseen step prediction-and to determine whether the extra flexibility afforded by addi- tional parameters leads to better models, or just to over fitting. Our results suggested that, for datasets involving multiple types of learning interventions, dividing student learning opportunities into multiple categories is beneficial in that IFM out-performed both AFM and PFM models on various tasks. However, the relative performance of the IFM models depends on the specific prediction task; so, experimenters facing a novel task should engage in some measure of model selection.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationEDM 2011 - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Educational Data Mining
Pages61-70
Number of pages10
StatePublished - 2011
Event4th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, EDM 2011 - Eindhoven, Netherlands
Duration: Jul 6 2011Jul 8 2011

Other

Other4th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, EDM 2011
CountryNetherlands
CityEindhoven
Period7/6/117/8/11

Fingerprint

Factor analysis
Students

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Computer Science Applications
  • Information Systems

Cite this

Chi, M., Koedinger, K., Gordon, G., Jordan, P., & VanLehn, K. (2011). Instructional factors analysis: A cognitive model for multiple instructional interventions. In EDM 2011 - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 61-70)

Instructional factors analysis : A cognitive model for multiple instructional interventions. / Chi, Min; Koedinger, Kenneth; Gordon, Geoff; Jordan, Pamela; VanLehn, Kurt.

EDM 2011 - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Educational Data Mining. 2011. p. 61-70.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Chi, M, Koedinger, K, Gordon, G, Jordan, P & VanLehn, K 2011, Instructional factors analysis: A cognitive model for multiple instructional interventions. in EDM 2011 - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Educational Data Mining. pp. 61-70, 4th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, EDM 2011, Eindhoven, Netherlands, 7/6/11.
Chi M, Koedinger K, Gordon G, Jordan P, VanLehn K. Instructional factors analysis: A cognitive model for multiple instructional interventions. In EDM 2011 - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Educational Data Mining. 2011. p. 61-70
Chi, Min ; Koedinger, Kenneth ; Gordon, Geoff ; Jordan, Pamela ; VanLehn, Kurt. / Instructional factors analysis : A cognitive model for multiple instructional interventions. EDM 2011 - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Educational Data Mining. 2011. pp. 61-70
@inproceedings{be5e56be77cf4247807c1ceee7d9074d,
title = "Instructional factors analysis: A cognitive model for multiple instructional interventions",
abstract = "In this paper, we proposed a new cognitive modeling approach: Instructional Factors Analysis Model (IFM). It belongs to a class of Knowledge-Component- based cognitive models. More specifically, IFM is targeted for modeling student's performance when multiple types of instructional interventions are involved and some of them may not generate a direct observation of students' performance. We compared IFM to two other pre-existing cognitive models: Additive Factor Models (AFMs) and Performance Factor Models (PFMs). The three methods differ mainly on how a student's previous experience on a Knowledge Component is counted into multiple categories. Among the three models, instructional interventions without immediate direct observations can be easily incorporate into the AFM and IFM models. Therefore, they are further compared on two important tasks-unseen student prediction and unseen step prediction-and to determine whether the extra flexibility afforded by addi- tional parameters leads to better models, or just to over fitting. Our results suggested that, for datasets involving multiple types of learning interventions, dividing student learning opportunities into multiple categories is beneficial in that IFM out-performed both AFM and PFM models on various tasks. However, the relative performance of the IFM models depends on the specific prediction task; so, experimenters facing a novel task should engage in some measure of model selection.",
author = "Min Chi and Kenneth Koedinger and Geoff Gordon and Pamela Jordan and Kurt VanLehn",
year = "2011",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9789038625379",
pages = "61--70",
booktitle = "EDM 2011 - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Educational Data Mining",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Instructional factors analysis

T2 - A cognitive model for multiple instructional interventions

AU - Chi, Min

AU - Koedinger, Kenneth

AU - Gordon, Geoff

AU - Jordan, Pamela

AU - VanLehn, Kurt

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - In this paper, we proposed a new cognitive modeling approach: Instructional Factors Analysis Model (IFM). It belongs to a class of Knowledge-Component- based cognitive models. More specifically, IFM is targeted for modeling student's performance when multiple types of instructional interventions are involved and some of them may not generate a direct observation of students' performance. We compared IFM to two other pre-existing cognitive models: Additive Factor Models (AFMs) and Performance Factor Models (PFMs). The three methods differ mainly on how a student's previous experience on a Knowledge Component is counted into multiple categories. Among the three models, instructional interventions without immediate direct observations can be easily incorporate into the AFM and IFM models. Therefore, they are further compared on two important tasks-unseen student prediction and unseen step prediction-and to determine whether the extra flexibility afforded by addi- tional parameters leads to better models, or just to over fitting. Our results suggested that, for datasets involving multiple types of learning interventions, dividing student learning opportunities into multiple categories is beneficial in that IFM out-performed both AFM and PFM models on various tasks. However, the relative performance of the IFM models depends on the specific prediction task; so, experimenters facing a novel task should engage in some measure of model selection.

AB - In this paper, we proposed a new cognitive modeling approach: Instructional Factors Analysis Model (IFM). It belongs to a class of Knowledge-Component- based cognitive models. More specifically, IFM is targeted for modeling student's performance when multiple types of instructional interventions are involved and some of them may not generate a direct observation of students' performance. We compared IFM to two other pre-existing cognitive models: Additive Factor Models (AFMs) and Performance Factor Models (PFMs). The three methods differ mainly on how a student's previous experience on a Knowledge Component is counted into multiple categories. Among the three models, instructional interventions without immediate direct observations can be easily incorporate into the AFM and IFM models. Therefore, they are further compared on two important tasks-unseen student prediction and unseen step prediction-and to determine whether the extra flexibility afforded by addi- tional parameters leads to better models, or just to over fitting. Our results suggested that, for datasets involving multiple types of learning interventions, dividing student learning opportunities into multiple categories is beneficial in that IFM out-performed both AFM and PFM models on various tasks. However, the relative performance of the IFM models depends on the specific prediction task; so, experimenters facing a novel task should engage in some measure of model selection.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84857471334&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84857471334&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Conference contribution

AN - SCOPUS:84857471334

SN - 9789038625379

SP - 61

EP - 70

BT - EDM 2011 - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Educational Data Mining

ER -