This paper introduces a method for mining multiple-choice assessment data for similarity of the concepts represented by the multiple choice responses. The resulting similarity matrix can be used to visualize the distance between concepts in a lower-dimensional space. This gives an instructor a visualization of the relative difficulty of concepts among the students in the class. It may also be used to cluster concepts, to understand unknown responses in the context of previously identified concepts.
How to Cite
student modeling, diagnostic assessment, misconceptions, concept similarity, visualization, individual differences
CHAMPAGNE, A., KLOPFER, L.E. and ANDERSON, J. 1980. Factors Influencing the Learning of Classical Mechanics. American Journal of Physics 48, 1074-1079.
CLEMENT, J. 1982. Students' Preconceptions in Introductory Mechanics. American Journal of Physics 50, 66-71.
DESMARAIS, M.C., MALUF, A. and LIU, J. 1995. User-expertise modeling with empirically derived probabilistic implication networks. User Modeling and User- Adapted Interaction 5, 283-315.
ELBY, A. 2000. What students' learning of representations tells us about constructivism. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior 19, 481-502.
FALMAGNE, J.-C., KOPPEN, M., VILLANO, M., DOIGNON, J.-P. and JOHANNESEN, L. 1990. Introduction to knowledge spaces: How to build, test, and search them. Psychological Review 97, 201-224.
FLEISS, J.L., LEVIN, B., PAIK, M.C. and FLEISS, J. 2003. Statistical Methods for Rates & Proportions. Wiley-Interscience.
FOSATTI, D. 2008. The role of positive feedback in intelligent tutoring systems. In Proceedings of the ACL-08: HLT Student Research Workshop (Companion Volume) Association for Computational Linguistics, Columbus.
GRAF, E.A. 2008. Approaches to the Design of Diagnostic Item Models Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.
HAMZA, K.M. and WICKMAN, P.-O. 2008. Describing and analyzing learning in action: An empirical study of the importance of misconceptions in learning science. Science Education 92, 141-164.
HESTENES, D. 1992. Force Concept Inventory. Physics Teacher 30, 141-158.
HUANG, C.-W. 2003. Psychometric Analysis Based on Evidence-Centered Design and Cognitive Science of Learning to Explore Student's Problem-Solving in Physics, University of Maryland.
HUNT, E. and MINSTRELL, J. 1996. Effective instruction in science and mathematics: Psychological principles and social constraints. Issues in Education 2, 123-162.
ICHISE, R., TAKEDA, H. and HONIDEN, S. 2003. Integrating multiple internet directories by instance-based learning. In: Proceedings of the eighteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. (2003, 22--30.
KIRSTEN, T., THOR, A. and RAHM, E. 2007. Instance-Based Matching of Large Life Science Ontologies. In Data Integration in the Life Sciences, 172-187.
LEGREE, P., PSOTKA, J., TREMBLE, T. and BOURNE, D. 2005. Applying Consensus- Based Measurement to the Assessment of Emerging Domains, Army Research Institute for the Behavioral And Social Sciences.
MCCLOSKEY, M. 1993. Naive theories of motion. In Mental Models, D. GENTNER and A.L. STEVENS Eds. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale and London, 299-324.
MCDERMOTT, L.C. and REDISH, E.F. 1999. RL- PER1: Resource Letter on Physics Education Research. American Journal of Physics 67, 755--767.
MCDERMOTT, L.C., ROSENQUIST, M.L. and ZEE, E.H.V. 1987. Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics 55, 503-513.
MINSTRELL, J. 2001. Facets of students' thinking: Designing to cross the gap from research to standards-based practice. In Designing for Science: Implications for Professional, Instructional, and Everyday Science, K. CROWLEY, C.D. SCHUNN and T. OKADA Eds., Mawah, NJ.
R. DEVELOPMENT CORE TEAM, 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, http://www.R-project.org, Vienna, Austria.
SCALISE, K., MADHYASTHA, T., MINSTRELL, J. and WILSON, M. in press. Improving Assessment Evidence in e-Learning Products: Some Solutions for Reliability. International Journal of Learning Technology (IJLT).
STAMPER, J. and BARNES, T. 2009. An Unsupervised, Frequency-based Metric for Selecting Hints in an MDP-based Tutor. In Educational Data Mining 2009: 2nd International Conference on Educational Data Mining, Proceedings, T. BARNES, M. DESMARAIS and S. VENURA Eds., Cordoba, Spain.
TROWBRIDGE, D. and MCDERMOTT, L.C. 1981. Investigation of Student Understanding of the Concept of Acceleration in One Dimension. American Journal of Physics 49, 242-253.
VIENNOT, L. 1979. Spontaneous Reasoning in Elementary Dynamics. European Journal of Science Education 1, 205-221.
WILSON, M. 2004. Constructing Measures: An Item Response Modeling Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum.
WILSON, M. and SLOANE, K. 2000. From Principles to Practice: An Embedded Assessment System. Applied Measurement in Education 13.
WRIGHT, B.D. and MASTERS, G.N. 1982. Rating Scale Analysis. Pluribus.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
- Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
- The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons 4.0 License (Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International), or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
- Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
- Noncommercial—other users (including Publisher) may not use this Work for commercial purposes;
- No Derivative Works—other users (including Publisher) may not alter, transform, or build upon this Work,with the understanding that any of the above conditions can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
- The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
- Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
- The Author represents and warrants that:
- the Work is the Author’s original work;
- the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
- the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
- the Work has not previously been published;
- the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
- the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
- The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.