Abstract
AbstractWhile the potential of personalized education has long been emphasized, the practical adoption of adaptive learning environments has been relatively slow. Discussion about underlying reasons for this disparity often centers on factors such as usability, the role of teachers, or privacy concerns. Although these considerations are important, I argue that a key factor contributing to this relatively slow progress is the inherent complexity of developing adaptive learning environments. I focus specifically on the modeling techniques that provide the foundation for adaptive behavior. The design of these models presents us with numerous challenges, nuances, and trade-offs. Awareness of these challenges is essential for guiding our efforts, both in the practical development of our systems and in our research endeavors.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference63 articles.
1. Arroyo, I., Woolf, B. P., Burelson, W., Muldner, K., Rai, D., & Tai, M. (2014). A multimedia adaptive tutoring system for mathematics that addresses cognition, metacognition and affect. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24, 387–426.
2. Ayers, E., Junker, B. (2006). Do skills combine additively to predict task difficulty in eighth grade mathematics. In: Proc. of Educational Data Mining: Papers from the AAAI Workshop
3. Baker, R., Walonoski, J., Heffernan, N., Roll, I., Corbett, A., & Koedinger, K. (2008). Why students engage in “gaming the system” behavior in interactive learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(2), 185–224.
4. Baker, R. S. (2016). Stupid tutoring systems, intelligent humans. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26, 600–614.
5. Baker, R. S., Hawn, A. (2021). Algorithmic bias in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education pp 1–41