Intelligent tutoring systems (ITSs) teach skills using learning-by-doing principles and provide learners with individualized feedback and materials adapted to their level of understanding. Given a learner's history of past interactions with an ITS, a learner performance model estimates the current state of a learner's knowledge and predicts her future performance. The advent of increasingly large scale datasets has turned deep learning models for learner performance prediction into competitive alternatives to classical Markov process and logistic regression models. In an extensive empirical comparison on nine real-world datasets, we ask which approach makes the most accurate predictions and in what conditions. Logistic regression - with the right set of features - leads on datasets of moderate size or containing or containing a very large number of interactions per student, whereas Deep Knowledge Tracing leads on datasets of large size or where precise temporal information matters most. Markov process methods, like Bayesian Knowledge Tracing, lag behind other approaches. We follow this analysis with ablation studies to determine what components of leading algorithms explain their performance and a discussion of model calibration (reliability), which is crucial for downstream applications of learner performance prediction models.
How to Cite
empirical comparison, knowledge tracing, deep learning
BULL, S. AND KAY, J. 2010. Open learner models. In Advances in Intelligent Tutoring Systems, R. Nkambou, J. Bourdeau, and R. Mizoguchi, Eds. Springer, 301–322.
CHI, M., VANLEHN, K., LITMAN, D., AND JORDAN, P. 2011. Empirically evaluating the application of reinforcement learning to the induction of effective and adaptive pedagogical strategies. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 21, 1-2, 137–180.
CHOFFIN, B., POPINEAU, F., BOURDA, Y., AND VIE, J.-J. 2019. DAS3H: Modeling student learning and forgetting for optimally scheduling distributed practice of skills. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, C. F. Lynch, A. Merceron, M. Desmarais, and R. Nkambou, Eds. 29–39.
CHRYSAFIADI, K. AND VIRVOU, M. 2013. Student modeling approaches: A literature review for the last decade. Expert Systems with Applications 40, 11, 4715–4729.
CLEMENT, B., ROY, D., OUDEYER, P.-Y., AND LOPES, M. 2015. Multi-armed bandits for intelligent tutoring systems. Journal of Educational Data Mining 7, 2, 20–48.
CORBETT, A. T. AND ANDERSON, J. R. 1994. Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 4, 4, 253–278.
DESMARAIS, M. C. AND BAKER, R. S. 2012. A review of recent advances in learner and skill modeling in intelligent learning environments. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 22, 1-2, 9–38.
FENG, M., HEFFERNAN, N., AND KOEDINGER, K. 2009. Addressing the assessment challenge with an online system that tutors as it assesses. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 19, 3, 243–266.
GALYARDT, A. AND GOLDIN, I. 2015. Move your lamp post: Recent data reflects learner knowledge better than older data. Journal of Educational Data Mining 7, 2, 83–108.
GONG, Y., BECK, J. E., AND HEFFERNAN, N. T. 2010. Comparing knowledge tracing and performance factor analysis by using multiple model fitting procedures. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer, 35–44.
GONZÁLEZ -BRENES, J. 2015. Modeling skill acquisition over time with sequence and topic modeling. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. 296–305.
HAO, K. 2019. MIT Technology Review. "China has started a grand experiment in AI education. It could reshape how the world learns". https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614057/china-squirrel-has-started-a-grand-experiment-in-ai-education-it-could-reshape-how-the.
HOCHREITER, S., BENGIO, Y., FRASCONI, P., AND SCHMIDHUBER, J. 2001. Gradient flow in recurrent nets: the difficulty of learning long-term dependencies. In A field guide to dynamical recurrent neural networks, J. F. Kolen and S. C. Kremer, Eds. IEEE Press, 237–243.
KHAJAH, M., LINDSEY, R. V., AND MOZER, M. C. 2016. How deep is knowledge tracing? In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, T. Barnes, M. Chi, and M. Feng, Eds. 94–101.
KINGMA, D. P. AND BA, J. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings, Y. Bengio and Y. LeCun, Eds.
KOEDINGER, K. R., BAKER, R. S., CUNNINGHAM, K., SKOGSHOLM, A., LEBER, B., AND STAMPER, J. 2010. A data repository for the EDM community: the PSLC DataShop. In Handbook of Educational Data Mining, C. Romero, S. Ventura, M. Pechenizkiy, and R. Baker, Eds. Chapman & Hall/CRC Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Series. Taylor & Francis, 43–56.
KOEDINGER, K. R., BOOTH, J. L., AND KLAHR, D. 2013. Instructional complexity and the science to constrain it. Science 342, 6161, 935–937.
KOEDINGER, K. R., BRUNSKILL, E., BAKER, R. S., MCLAUGHLIN, E. A., AND STAMPER, J. 2013. New potentials for data-driven intelligent tutoring system development and optimization. AI Magazine 34, 3, 27–41.
KOEDINGER, K. R., CORBETT, A. T., AND PERFETTI, C. 2012. The knowledge-learning-instruction framework: Bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognitive Science 36, 5, 757–798.
KOEDINGER, K. R., MCLAUGHLIN, E. A., AND STAMPER, J. C. 2012. Automated student model improvement. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, K. Yacef, O. Zaı̈ane, A. Hershkovitz, M. Yudelson, and J. Stamper, Eds. 17–24.
LAN, A. S. AND BARANIUK, R. G. 2016. A contextual bandits framework for personalized learning action selection. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, T. Barnes, M. Chi, and M. Feng, Eds. 424–429.
LEE, J. AND YEUNG, D.-Y. 2019. Knowledge query network for knowledge tracing: How knowledge interacts with skills. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge. ACM, 491–500.
LINDSEY, R. V., KHAJAH, M., AND MOZER, M. C. 2014. Automatic discovery of cognitive skills to improve the prediction of student learning. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems - Volume 1. NIPS'14. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1386–1394.
MONTERO, S., ARORA, A., KELLY, S., MILNE, B., AND MOZER, M. 2018. Does deep knowledge tracing model interactions among skills? In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, K. E. Boyer and M. Yudelson, Eds. 462–467.
PANDEY, S. AND KARYPIS, G. 2019. A self-attentive model for knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, C. F. Lynch, A. Merceron, M. Desmarais, and R. Nkambou, Eds. 384–389.
PARDOS, Z. A. AND HEFFERNAN, N. T. 2010. Modeling individualization in a Bayesian networks implementation of knowledge tracing. In International Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization. Springer, 255–266.
PARDOS, Z. A. AND HEFFERNAN, N. T. 2011. KT-IDEM: introducing item difficulty to the knowledge tracing model. In International Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization. Springer, 243–254.
PASZKE, A., GROSS, S., CHINTALA, S., CHANAN, G., YANG, E., DEVITO, Z., LIN, Z., DESMAISON, A., ANTIGA, L., AND LERER, A. 2017. Automatic differentiation in PyTorch. In Autodiff Workshop at the 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017). Long Beach, CA, USA.
PAVLIK, P. I., CEN, H., AND KOEDINGER, K. R. 2009. Performance factors analysis –a new alternative to knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: Building Learning Systems That Care: From Knowledge Representation to Affective Modelling. IOS Press, 531–538.
PEDREGOSA, F., VAROQUAUX, G., GRAMFORT, A., MICHEL, V., THIRION, B., GRISEL, O., BLONDEL, M., PRETTENHOFER, P., WEISS, R., DUBOURG, V., VANDERPLAS, J., PASSOS, A., COURNAPEAU, D., BRUCHER, M., PERROT, M., AND DUCHESNAY, E. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12, 2825–2830.
PELÁNEK, R. 2015. Metrics for evaluation of student models. Journal of Educational Data Mining 7, 2, 1–19.
PELÁNEK, R. 2017. Bayesian knowledge tracing, logistic models, and beyond: an overview of learner modeling techniques. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 27, 3-5, 313–350.
PELÁNEK, R., RIHÁK, J., AND PAPOUŠEK, J. 2016. Impact of data collection on interpretation and evaluation of student models. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge. LAK '16. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 40–47.
PIECH, C., BASSEN, J., HUANG, J., GANGULI, S., SAHAMI, M., GUIBAS, L. J., AND SOHLDICKSTEIN, J. 2015. Deep knowledge tracing. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28, C. Cortes, N. D. Lawrence, D. D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, and R. Garnett, Eds. Curran Associates, Inc., 505–513.
QIU, Y., QI, Y., LU, H., PARDOS, Z. A., AND HEFFERNAN, N. T. 2011. Does time matter? modeling the effect of time with Bayesian knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, M. Pechenizkiy, T. Calders, C. Conati, S. Ventura, C. Romero, and J. Stamper, Eds. 139–148.
RITTER, S., YUDELSON, M., FANCSALI, S. E., AND BERMAN, S. R. 2016. How mastery learning works at scale. In Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale. L@S '16. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 71–79.
ROLLINSON, J. AND BRUNSKILL, E. 2015. From predictive models to instructional policies. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, O. C. Santos, J. G. Boticario, C. Romero, M. Pechenizkiy, A. Merceron, P. Mitros, J. M. Luna, C. Mihaescu, P. Moreno, A. Hershkovitz, S. Ventura,, and M. Desmarais, Eds. 179–196.
ROSÉ, C. P., MCLAUGHLIN, E. A., LIU, R., AND KOEDINGER, K. R. 2019. Explanatory learner models: Why machine learning (alone) is not the answer. British Journal of Educational Technology 50, 6, 2943–2958.
SETTLES, B. 2009. Active learning literature survey. Tech. rep., University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Computer Sciences.
STAMPER, J., NICULESCU-MIZIL, A., RITTER, S., GORDON, G., AND KOEDINGER, K. 2010. Algebra I 2005-2006 and Bridge to Algebra 2006-2007. Development data sets from KDD Cup 2010 Educational Data Mining Challenge. http://pslcdatashop.web.cmu.edu/KDDCup/downloads.jsp.
VAN DER LINDEN, W. J. AND HAMBLETON, R. K. 2013. Handbook of modern item response theory. Springer Science & Business Media, New York.
VANLEHN, K. 2011. The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist 46, 4, 197–221.
WILSON, K. H., KARKLIN, Y., HAN, B., AND EKANADHAM, C. 2016. Back to the basics: Bayesian extensions of IRT outperform neural networks for proficiency estimation. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, T. Barnes, M. Chi, and M. Feng, Eds. 539– 544.
WILSON, K. H., XIONG, X., KHAJAH, M., LINDSEY, R. V., ZHAO, S., KARKLIN, Y., VAN INWEGEN, E. G., HAN, B., EKANADHAM, C., BECK, J. E., HEFFERNAN, N., AND MOZER, M. C. 2016. Estimating student proficiency: Deep learning is not the panacea. In Workshop on Machine Learning for Education at the 30th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2016).
XIONG, X., ZHAO, S., VAN INWEGEN, E. G., AND BECK, J. E. 2016. Going deeper with deep knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, T. Barnes, M. Chi, and M. Feng, Eds. 545–550.
YEUNG, C.-K. AND YEUNG, D.-Y. 2018. Addressing two problems in deep knowledge tracing via prediction-consistent regularization. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale. L@S '18. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA.
YUDELSON, M. V., KOEDINGER, K. R., AND GORDON, G. J. 2013. Individualized bayesian knowledge tracing models. In Artificial Intelligence in Education, H. C. Lane, K. Yacef, J. Mostow, and P. Pavlik, Eds. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 171–180.
ZHANG, J., SHI, X., KING, I., AND YEUNG, D.-Y. 2017. Dynamic key-value memory networks for knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web. WWW '17. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, 765–774.
ZHOU, G., AZIZSOLTANI, H., AUSIN, M. S., BARNES, T., AND CHI, M. 2019. Hierarchical reinforcement learning for pedagogical policy induction. In Artificial Intelligence in Education, S. Isotani, E. Millán, A. Ogan, P. Hastings, B. McLaren, and R. Luckin, Eds. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 544–556.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
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.