Download pdf - EDM2014 paper: General Features in Knowledge Tracing to Model Multiple Subskills, Temporal Item Response Theory, and Expert Knowledge

General Features in Knowledge Tracing Applications to Multiple Subskills, Temporal IRT & Expert Knowledge

* First authors

Yun Huang, University of Pittsburgh* José P. González-Brenes, Pearson* Peter Brusilovsky, University of Pittsburgh

This talk…

•  What? Determine student mastery of a skill •  How? Novel algorithm called FAST

– Enables features in Knowledge Tracing

•  Why? Better and faster student modeling –  25% better AUC, a classification metric –  300 times faster than popular general purpose

student modeling techniques (BNT-SM)

Outline

•  Introduction •  FAST – Feature-Aware Student Knowledge Tracing •  Experimental Setup •  Applications

1.  Multiple subskills 2.  Temporal Item Response Theory 3.  Paper exclusive: Expert knowledge

•  Execution time •  Conclusion

Motivation

•  Personalize learning of students – For example, teach students new material as

they learn, so we don’t teach students material they know

•  How? Typically with Knowledge Tracing

:

û û ü ü û û ü ü ü

û û ü ü ü

û û ü ü

:

:

:

û û ü ü ü

û û ü ü

Masters a skill or not

•  Knowledge Tracing fits a two-state HMM per skill

•  Binary latent variables indicate the knowledge of the student of the skill

•  Four parameters: 1.  Initial Knowledge 2.  Learning 3.  Guess 4.  Slip

Transition

Emission

What’s wrong?

•  Only uses performance data (correct or incorrect) •  We are now able to capture feature rich data

– MOOCs & intelligent tutoring systems are able to log fine-grained data

– Used a hint, watched video, after hours practice…

•  … these features can carry information or intervene on learning

What’s a researcher gotta do?

•  Modify Knowledge Tracing algorithm •  For example, just on a small-scale

literature survey, we find at least nine different flavors of Knowledge Tracing

So you want to publish in EDM?

1.  Think of a feature (e.g., from a MOOC) 2.  Modify Knowledge Tracing 3.  Write Paper 4.  Publish 5.  Loop!

Are all of those models sooooo different? •  No! we identify three main variants •  We call them the “Knowledge Tracing

Family”

Knowledge Tracing Family

No features Emission (guess/slip)

Transition (learning)

Both (guess/slip and

learning)

•  Item difficulty (Gowda et al ’11; Pardos et al ’11)

•  Student ability (Pardos et al ’10)

•  Subskills (Xu et al ’12)

•  Help (Sao Pedro et al ’13)

•  Student ability (Lee et al ’12; Yudelson et al ’13)

•  Item difficulty (Schultz et al ’13)

•  Help (Becker et al ’08)

k

y

k

y

f

k

y

f

k

y

f f

•  Each model is successful for an ad hoc purpose only – Hard to compare models – Doesn’t help to build a

cognition theory

•  Learning scientists have to worry about both features and modeling

•  These models are not scalable: – Rely on Bayes Net’s

conditional probability tables – Memory performance grows

exponentially with number of features

– Runtime performance grows exponentially with number of features (with exact inference)

Example:

Mastery p(Correct)

False (1) 0.10 (guess)

True (2) 0.85 (1-slip)

20+1 parameters!

Emission probabilities with no features:

Example: Emission probabilities with 1 binary feature:

Mastery Hint p(Correct)

False False (1) 0.06

True False (2) 0.75

False True (3) 0.25

True True (4) 0.99

21+1 parameters!

Example: Emission probabilities with 10 binary features: Mastery F1 … F10 p(Correct)

False False False False (1) 0.06

… …

True True True True (2048) 0.90

210+1 parameters!

Outline


– Multiple subskills – Temporal IRT


Something old… k

y

f f •  Uses the most general model

in the Knowledge Tracing Family

•  Parameterizes learning and emission (guess+slip) probabilities

Something new… k

y

f f •  Instead of using inefficient

conditional probability tables, we use logistic regression [Berg-Kirkpatrick et al’10 ]

•  Exponential complexity -> linear complexity

Example:

# of features # of pararameters in KTF # of parameters in FAST

0 2 2

1 4 3

10 2048 12

25 67,108,864 27

25 features are not that many, and yet they can become intractable with Knowledge Tracing Family

Something blue? k

y

f f •  Not a lot of changes to

implement prediction •  Training requires quite a bit of

changes – We use a recent modification of

the Expectation-Maximization algorithm proposed for Computational Linguistics problems [Berg-Kirkpatrick et al’10 ]

(A parenthesis)

•  Jose’s corollary: Each equation in a presentation would send to sleep half the audience

•  Equations are in the paper!

“Each equaMon I include in the book

would halve the sales”

KT uses Expectation-Maximization

Conditional Probability

Table Lookup

Latent Mastery

E-Step:Forward-Backward algorithm

M-Step: Maximum Likelihood

“Conditional Probability

Table” Lookup

Latent Mastery

Logistic regression

weights

FAST uses a recent E-M algorithm [Berg-Kirkpatrick et al’10 ]

E-step

Slip/guess lookup:

Mastery p(Correct)

False (1)

True (2)

Use the multiple parameters of logistic regression to fill the

values of a “no-features”conditional

probability table! [Berg-Kirkpatrick et al’10 ]

“Conditional Probability

Table” Lookup

Latent Mastery

Logistic regression

weights

FAST uses a recent E-M algorithm [Berg-Kirkpatrick et al’10 ]

observation 1observation 2

observation n

...

featu

re 1

featu

re 2

featu

re k

featu

re 1

featu

re 2

featu

re k

featu

re 1

featu

re 2

featu

re k

... ... ...


observation n

...

{ { {active when

masteredactive when not masteredalways active

Features:Instance weights:

prob

abili

ty o

f no

t mas

terin

gpr

obab

ility

of

mas

terin

g

Slip/Guess logistic regression


observation n

...

featu

re 1

featu

re 2

featu

re k

featu

re 1

featu

re 2

featu

re k

featu

re 1

featu

re 2

featu

re k

... ... ...


observation n

...

{ { {active when

masteredactive when not masteredalways active

Features:Instance weights:

prob

abili

ty o

f no

t mas

terin

gpr

obab

ility

of

mas

terin

g

Slip/Guess logistic regression

When FAST uses only intercept terms as features for the two levels of mastery, it is equivalent to Knowledge Tracing!

Outline

•  Introduction •  FAST – Feature-Aware Student Knowledge Tracing •  Experimental Setup •  Examples

– Multiple subskills – Temporal IRT – Expert knowledge

•  Conclusion

Collected from QuizJET, a tutor for learning Java programming.

March 28, 2014 31

Each question is generated from a template, and students can try multiple attempts

Students give values for a variable or the output

Java code

Tutoring System

March 28, 2014 32

Data

•  Smaller dataset: – ~21,000 observations – First attempt: ~7,000 observations – 110 students

•  Unbalanced: 70% correct •  95 question templates •  “Hierarchical” cognitive model:

19 skills, 99 subskills

•  Predict future performance given history -  Will a student get answer correctly at t=0 ? -  At t =1 given t = 0 performance ? -  At t = 2 given t = 0, 1 performance ? ….

•  Area Under Curve metric -  1: perfect classifier -  0.5: random classifier

March 28, 2014 33

Evaluation

Outline


– Multiple subskills – Temporal IRT – Expert knowledge


Multiple subskills

•  Experts annotated items (question) with a single skill and multiple subskills

Multiple subskills & KnowledgeTracing •  Original Knowledge Tracing can not

model multiple subskills •  Most Knowledge Tracing variants assume

equal importance of subskills during training (and then adjust it during testing)

•  State of the art method, LR-DBN [Xu and

Mostow ’11] assigns importance in both training and testing

FAST can handle multiple subskills

•  Parameterize learning •  Parameterize slip and guess

•  Features: binary variables that indicate presence of subskills

FAST vs Knowledge Tracing: Slip parameters of subskills

•  Conventional Knowledge assumes that all subskills have the same difficulty (red line)

•  FAST can identify different difficulty between subskills

•  Does it matter?

subskills within a skill:

State of the art (Xu & Mostow’11)

•  The 95% of confidence intervals are within +/- .01 points

Model AUC

LR-DBN .71

KT - Weakest .69 KT - Multiply .62

Benchmark Model AUC

LR-DBN .71 Single-skill KT .71 KT - Weakest .69 KT - Multiply .62

•  The 95% of confidence intervals are within +/- .01 points •  We are testing on non-overlapping students, LR-DBN was

designed/tested in overlapping students and didn’t compare to single skill KT

!

Benchmark Model AUC

LR-DBN .71 Single-skill KT .71 KT - Weakest .69 KT - Multiply .62

•  The 95% of confidence intervals are within +/- .01 points •  We are testing on non-overlapping students, LR-DBN was

designed/tested in overlapping students and didn’t compare to single skill KT

!

Benchmark


Model AUC FAST .74 LR-DBN .71 Single-skill KT .71 KT - Weakest .69 KT - Multiply .62

Outline




Two paradigms: (50 years of research in 1 slide) •  Knowledge Tracing

– Allows learning – Every item = same difficulty – Every student = same ability

•  Item Response Theory – NO learning – Models items difficulties – Models student abilities

Can FAST help merging the paradigms?

Item Response Theory

•  The simplest of its forms, it’s the Rasch model

•  The Rasch can be formulated in many ways: – Typically using latent variables – Logistic regression

•  a feature per student •  a feature per item •  We end up with a lot of features! – Good thing we

are using FAST ;-)

Results AUC

Knowledge Tracing .65

FAST + student .64 FAST + item .73 FAST + IRT .76


25% improvement

Disclaimer

•  In our dataset, most students answer items in the same order

•  Item estimates are biased •  Future work: define continuous IRT

difficulty features –  It’s easy in FAST ;-)

Outline




March 28, 2014 50

7,100 11,300 15,500 19,8000

10

20

30

40

50

60

23

28

46

54

0.08 0.10 0.12 0.15

# of observations

exe

cutio

n tim

e (

min

.)

BNT−SM (no feat.)

FAST (no feat.)

FAST is 300x faster than BNT-SM!

LR-DBN vs FAST

•  We use the authors’ implementation of LR-DBN

•  LR-DBN takes about 250 minutes •  FAST only takes about 44 seconds •  15,500 datapoints •  This is on an old laptop, no parallelization,

nothing fancy •  (details on the paper)

Outline

•  Introduction •  FAST – Feature-Aware Student Knowledge Tracing •  Experimental Setup •  Examples


•  Conclusion

Comparison of existing techniques

March 28, 2014 53

allows features

slip/ guess

recency/ordering learning

FAST ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

PFA Pavlik et al ’09

✓ ✗ ✗ ✓

Knowledge Tracing Corbett & Anderson ’95

✗ ✓ ✓ ✓

Rasch Model Rasch ’60

✓ ✗ ✗ ✗

•  FAST lives by its name •  FAST provides high flexibility in utilizing

features, and as our studies show, even with simple features improves significantly over Knowledge Tracing

•  The effect of features depends on how smartly they are designed and on the dataset

•  I am looking forward for more clever uses of feature engineering for FAST in the community