4.3 Article

An analysis of students' gaming behaviors in an intelligent tutoring system: predictors and impacts

期刊

USER MODELING AND USER-ADAPTED INTERACTION
卷 21, 期 1-2, 页码 99-135

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11257-010-9086-0

关键词

Educational data mining; Gaming; Utility of hints; Bayesian network parameter learning

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [0705883, DRL-0910221]
  2. Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center [SBE-0836012]
  3. Direct For Education and Human Resources
  4. Division Of Research On Learning [0910221] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Div Of Information & Intelligent Systems
  6. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr [0705883] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Students who exploit properties of an instructional system to make progress while avoiding learning are said to be gaming the system. In order to investigate what causes gaming and how it impacts students, we analyzed log data from two Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS). The primary analyses focused on six college physics classes using the Andes ITS for homework and test preparation, starting with the research question: What is a better predictor of gaming, problem or student? To address this question, we developed a computational gaming detector for automatically labeling the Andes data, and applied several data mining techniques, including machine learning of Bayesian network parameters. Contrary to some prior findings, the analyses indicated that student was a better predictor of gaming than problem. This result was surprising, so we tested and confirmed it with log data from a second ITS (the Algebra Cognitive Tutor) and population (high school students). Given that student was more predictive of gaming than problem, subsequent analyses focused on how students gamed and in turn benefited (or not) from instructional features of the environment, as well as how gaming in general influenced problem solving and learning outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据