Abstract
AbstractAs a first step toward automatic feedback based on students’ strategies for solving histogram tasks we investigated how strategy recognition can be automated based on students’ gazes. A previous study showed how students’ task-specific strategies can be inferred from their gazes. The research question addressed in the present article is how data science tools (interpretable mathematical models and machine learning analyses) can be used to automatically identify students’ task-specific strategies from students’ gazes on single histograms. We report on a study of cognitive behavior that uses data science methods to analyze its data. The study consisted of three phases: (1) using a supervised machine learning algorithm (MLA) that provided a baseline for the next step, (2) designing an interpretable mathematical model (IMM), and (3) comparing the results. For the first phase, we used random forest as a classification method implemented in a software package (Wolfram Research Mathematica, ‘Classify Function’) that automates many aspects of the data handling, including creating features and initially choosing the MLA for this classification. The results of the random forests (1) provided a baseline to which we compared the results of our IMM (2). The previous study revealed that students’ horizontal or vertical gaze patterns on the graph area were indicative of most students’ strategies on single histograms. The IMM captures these in a model. The MLA (1) performed well but is a black box. The IMM (2) is transparent, performed well, and is theoretically meaningful. The comparison (3) showed that the MLA and IMM identified the same task-solving strategies. The results allow for the future design of teacher dashboards that report which students use what strategy, or for immediate, personalized feedback during online learning, homework, or massive open online courses (MOOCs) through measuring eye movements, for example, with a webcam.
Funder
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Computational Theory and Mathematics,Education
Reference119 articles.
1. Abrahamson, D., & Sánchez-García, R. (2016). Learning is moving in new ways: The ecological dynamics of mathematics education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 203–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1143370
2. Afonja, T. (2017). Accuracy paradox. TDS. Retrieved June 19, 2020, from https://towardsdatascience.com/accuracy-paradox-897a69e2dd9b
3. Alberto, R. A., Bakker, A., Walker-van Aalst, O., Boon, P. B. J., & Drijvers, P. H. M. (2019). Networking theories in design research: An embodied instrumentation case study in trigonometry. In U. T. Jankvist, M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, & M. Veldhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 3088–3095). Freudenthal Group & Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University and ERME. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02418076/
4. Alemdag, E., & Cagiltay, K. (2018). A systematic review of eye tracking research on multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 125, 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.023
5. Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., & Douglass, S. (2004). Eye movements do not reflect retrieval processes: Limits of the eye-mind hypothesis. Psychological Science, 15(4), 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00656.x
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献