skip to main content
10.1145/2556288.2557392acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Towards automatic experimentation of educational knowledge

Published:26 April 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

We present a general automatic experimentation and hypothesis generation framework that utilizes a large set of users to explore the effects of different parts of an intervention parameter space on any objective function. We also incorporate importance sampling, allowing us to run these automatic experiments even if we cannot give out the exact intervention distributions that we want. To show the utility of this framework, we present an implementation in the domain of fractions and numberlines, using an online educational game as the source of players. Our system is able to automatically explore the parameter space and generate hypotheses about what types of numberlines lead to maximal short-term transfer; testing on a separate dataset shows the most promising hypotheses are valid. We briefly discuss our results in the context of the wider educational literature, showing that one of our results is not explained by current research on multiple fraction representations, thus proving our ability to generate potentially interesting hypotheses to test.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p3349-sidebyside.mp4

mp4

184.5 MB

References

  1. Ainsworth, S. E., Bibby, P. A., and Wood, D. J. Analysing the costs and benefits of multi-representational learning environments. Learning with multiple representations (1998), 120--134.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, E., Liu, Y.-E., Snider, R., Szeto, R., Cooper, S., and Popović, Z. On the harmfulness of secondary game objectives. In FDG (2011). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Andersen, E., Liu, Y.-E., Snider, R., Szeto, R., and Popović, Z. Placing a value on aesthetics in online casual games. In CHI (2011). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Andersen, E., O'Rourke, E., Liu, Y.-E., Snider, R., Lowdermilk, J., Truong, D., Cooper, S., and Popović, Z. The impact of tutorials on games of varying complexity. In CHI (2012). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., and Pelletier, R. Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 4, 2 (1995), 167--207.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Ansari, D. Effects of development and enculturation on number representation in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9, 4 (2008), 278--291.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Arbreton, A. Student goal orientation and help-seeking strategy use.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Berman, F., Fox, G., and Hey, A. J. Grid computing: making the global infrastructure a reality, vol. 2. Wiley. com, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. BrainPOP. http://www.brainpop.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., and Gosling, S. D. Amazon's mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data Perspectives on Psychological Science 6, 1 (2011), 3--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Churchill, Gilbert A., J. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16, 1 (1979), pp. 64--73.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Efron, B., and Tibshirani, R. An introduction to the bootstrap, vol. 57. CRC press, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Gagatsis, A., and Elia, I. The effects of different modes of representations on mathematical problem solving. In IGPME, vol. 2 (2004), 447--454.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Hastings, W. K. Monte carlo sampling methods using markov chains and their applications. Biometrika 57, 1 (1970), 97--109.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., and Norenzayan, A. The weirdest people in the world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33, 2--3 (2010), 61--83.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Hume, G., Michael, J., Rovick, A., and Evens, M. Hinting as a tactic in one-on-one tutoring. Journal of the Learning Sciences 5, 1 (1996), 23--49.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. King, R. D., Rowland, J., Oliver, S. G., Young, M., Aubrey, W., Byrne, E., Liakata, M., Markham, M., Pir, P., Soldatova, L. N., Sparkes, A., Whelan, K. E., and Clare, A. The automation of science. Science 324, 5923 (2009), 85--89.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Kittur, A., Chi, E. H., and Suh, B. Crowdsourcing user studies with mechanical turk. In CHI (2008). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Kohavi, R., Crook, T., Longbotham, R., Frasca, B., Henne, R., Ferres, J. L., and Melamed, T. Online experimentation at microsoft. In Third Workshop on Data Mining Case Studies and Practice Prize (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Kohavi, R., Henne, R. M., and Sommerfield, D. Practical guide to controlled experiments on the web: listen to your customers not to the hippo. In KDD (2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Langley, P. Scientific discovery: Computational explorations of the creative processes. MIT press, 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Larson, C. N. Locating proper fractions on number lines: Effect of length and equivalence. School Science and Mathematics 80, 5 (1980), 423--428.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Lee, Y., Buchanan, B., and Aronis, J. Knowledge-based learning in exploratory science: Learning rules to predict rodent carcinogenicity. Machine Learning 30, 2--3 (1998), 217--240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Lesh, R., Post, T., and Behr, M. Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (1987), 33--40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Li, L., Chu, W., Langford, J., and Schapire, R. E. A contextual-bandit approach to personalized news article recommendation. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW '10, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2010), 661--670. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Lomas, D., Patel, K., Forlizzi, J. L., and Koedinger, K. R. Optimizing challenge in an educational game using large-scale design experiments. In CHI (2013). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Moss, J., and Case, R. Developing children's understanding of the rational numbers: A new model and an experimental curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 30, 2 (1999), pp. 122--147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Quinlan, J. R. C4. 5: programs for machine learning, vol. 1. Morgan kaufmann, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., and Rummel, N. Intelligent tutoring systems with multiple representations and self-explanation prompts support learning of fractions. In AIED (2009). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Siegler, R. S., Thompson, C. A., and Schneider, M. An integrated theory of whole number and fractions development. Cognitive Psychology 62, 4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Sierpinska, A. On understanding the notion of function. The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy 25 (1992), 23--58.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Singh, K., and Xie, M. Bootstrap: A statistical method, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Stamper, J. C., Lomas, D., Ching, D., Ritter, S., Koedinger, K. R., and Steinhart, J. The rise of the super experiment. In EDM (2012), 196--200.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Towards automatic experimentation of educational knowledge

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '14: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2014
      4206 pages
      ISBN:9781450324731
      DOI:10.1145/2556288

      Copyright © 2014 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 26 April 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '14 Paper Acceptance Rate465of2,043submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI '24
      CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 11 - 16, 2024
      Honolulu , HI , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader