Seal of Good Local Governance (SGLG) 2024Final.pptx
Addictive links: Adaptive Navigation Support in College-Level Courses
1. Addictive Links:
Adaptive Navigation Support
for College-Level Courses
Peter Brusilovsky with:
Sergey Sosnovsky, Michael Yudelson, Sharon Hsiao
School of Information Sciences,
University of Pittsburgh
2. User Model
Collects information
about individual user
Provides
adaptation effect
Adaptive
System
User Modeling side
Adaptation side
User-Adaptive Systems
Classic loop user modeling - adaptation in adaptive systems
3. Adaptive Software Systems
• Intelligent Tutoring Systems
– adaptive course sequencing
– adaptive . . .
• Adaptive Hypermedia Systems
– adaptive presentation
– adaptive navigation support
• Adaptive Help Systems
• Adaptive . . .
4. Adaptive Hypermedia
• Hypermedia systems = Pages + Links
• Adaptive presentation
– content adaptation
• Adaptive navigation support
– link adaptation
5. • Direct guidance
• Hiding, restricting, disabling
• Generation
• Ordering
• Annotation
• Map adaptation
Adaptive Navigation Support
7. Adaptive Link Annotation: InterBook
1. Concept role
2. Current concept state
3. Current section state
4. Linked sections state
4
3
2
1
√"
Metadata-based mechanism
11. The Value of ANS
• Lower navigation overhead
– Access the content at the right time
– Find relevant information faster
• Better learning outcomes
– Achieve the same level of knowledge faster
– Better results with fixed time
• Encourages non-sequential navigation
12. The Case of QuizPACK
• QuizPACK: Quizzes for
Parameterized Assessment of
C Knowledge
• Each question is a pattern of a
simple C program. When it is
delivered to a student the
special parameter is
dynamically instantiated by a
random value within the pre-
assigned borders.
• Used mostly as a self-
assessment tool in two C-
programming courses
13. QuizPACK: Value and Problems
• Good news:
– activity with QuizPACK significantly correlated with
student performance in classroom quizzes
– Knowledge gain rose from 1.94 to 5.37
• But:
– Low success rate - below 40%
– The system is under-used (used less than it deserves)
• Less than 10 sessions at average
• Average Course Coverage below 40%
14. Adding Motivation (2003)
• Students need some better motivation to work with non-
mandatory educational content…
• Added classroom quizzes:
– Five randomly initialized questions out of 20-30 questions
assigned each week
• Good results - activity, percentage of active questions,
course coverage - all increased 2-3 times! But still not as
much as we want. Could we do better?
• Maybe students bump into wrong questions? Too easy?
Too complicated? Discouraging…
• Let’s try something that worked in the past
15. Questions of
the current
quiz, served
by QuizPACK
List of annotated
links to all quizzes
available for a
student in the
current course
Refresh
and help
icons
QuizGuide = QuizPACK+ANS
16. Demo: QuizPack
• KT Portal - http://adapt2.sis.pitt.edu/cbum/
• Create your account or use test / test
18. QuizGuide: Adaptive Annotations
• Target-arrow abstraction:
– Number of arrows – level of
knowledge for the specific
topic (from 0 to 3).
Individual, event-based
adaptation.
– Color Intensity – learning
goal (current, prerequisite
for current, not-relevant,
not-ready). Group, time-
based adaptation.
n Topic–quiz organization:
20. QuizGuide: Motivation
• Adaptive navigation support increased student's
activity and persistence of using the system
Average activity
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2002 2003 2004
Average num. of
sessions
0
5
10
15
20
2002 2003 2004
Average course
coverage
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2002 2003 2004
Active students
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2002 2003 2004
n Within the same class QuizGuide session were much longer than
QuizPACK sessions: 24 vs. 14 question attempts at average.
n Average Knowledge Gain for the class rose from 5.1 to 6.5
21. QuizGuide: Success Rate?
n Well, that worked too, but
the scale is not comparable
n One-way ANOVA shows
that mean success value for
QuizGuide is significantly
larger then the one for
QuizPACK:
F(1, 43) = 5.07
(p-value = 0.03).
22. A new value of ANS?
• The scale of the effect is too large…
May be just a good luck?
• New effect after 15 years of research?
• Not quite new, rather ignored and
forgotten - ELM-ART data
24. Round 2: Let’s Try it Again…
• Maybe the effect could only be discovered in
full-scale classroom studies – while past studies
were lab-based?
• Another study with the same system
– QuizGuide+QuizPACK vs. QuizPACK
• A study with another system using similar kinds
of adaptive navigation support
– NavEx+WebEx vs. WebEx
• NavEx - a value-added ANS front-end for
WebEx - interactive example exploration system
26. Concept-based student modeling
Example 2
Example M
Example 1
Problem 1
Problem 2
Problem K
Concept 1
Concept 2
Concept 3
Concept 4
Concept 5
Concept N
Examples
Problems
Concepts
28. Does it work?
• The increase of the amount of work for the
course
Clicks - Overall
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Non-adaptive Adaptive
Examples
Quizzes
Lectures - Overall
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Non-adaptive Adaptive
Examples
Quizzes
Learning Objects - Overall
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Non-adaptive Adaptive
Examples
Quizzes
29. Is It Really Addictive?
• Are they coming more often? Mostly, but there
is no stable effect
• But when they come, they stay… like with an
addictive game
Clicks - Per Session
0
5
10
15
20
Non-adaptive Adaptive
Examples
Quizzes
Learning Objects - Per
Session
0
1
2
3
4
Non-adaptive Adaptive
Examples
Quizzes
30. Why It Is Working?
• Progress-based annotation
– Displays the progress achieved so far
– Does it work as a reward mechanism?
– Open Student Modeling
• State-based annotation
– Not useful, ready, not ready
– Access activities in the right time
– Appropriate difficulty, keep motivation
32. The Diversity of Work
• C-Ratio: Measures the breadth of exploration
• Goal distance: Measures the depth
Self-motivated Work - C-Ratio
(%)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Non-adaptive Adaptive
Quizzes
Examples
Self-motivated Work - Goal
Distance (LO's)
0
5
10
15
20
Non-adaptive Adaptive
Quizzes
Examples
33. Round 3: Trying another domain…
• Is it something relevant to C programming or to
simple kind of content?
• New changes:
– SQL Programming instead of C
– Programming problems (code writing) instead of
questions (code evaluation)
– Comparison of concept-based and topic-based
mechanisms in the same domain and with the same
kind of content
34. • SQL-KnoT delivers online SQL problems, checks student’s
answers and provides a corrective feedback
• Every problem is dynamically generated using a template
and a set of
databases
• All problems have
been assigned to 1
of the course
topics and
indexed with
concepts from the
SQL ontology
SQL Knowledge Tester
35. • To investigate possible influence of concept-based
adaptation in the present of topic-based adaptation we
developed two versions of QuizGuide:
Topic-based Topic-based+Concept-Based
Concept-based vs Topic-based ANS
36. • Two Database Courses (Fall 2007):
§ Undergraduate (36 students)
§ Graduate (38 students)
• Each course divided into two groups:
§ Topic-based navigation
§ Topic-based + Concept-Based Navigation
• All students had access to the same set of SQL-
KnoT problems available in adaptive
(QuizGuide) and in non-adaptive mode (Portal)
Study Design
37. • Total number of attempts made by all students:
in adaptive mode (4081), in non-adaptive mode (1218)
• Students in general were much more willing to access
the adaptive version of the system, explored more
content with it and to stayed with it longer:
Questions
0
25
50
75
100
Quizzes
0
5
10
15
20
25
Topics
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Sessions
0
1
2
3
4
5 Session Length
0
5
10
15
20
25
Adaptive
Non-adaptive
It works again! Like magic…
38. • Did concept-based adaptation increase the
magnitude of the motivational effect?
§ No significant difference in the average numbers of attempts,
problems answered, topics explored
§ No significant difference in the session length
• Was there any other observable difference?
§ Average number of attempts per question
§ Resulting Knowledge Level
(averaged across all concepts)
Attempts per
question
0
2
4
6
Knowledge level
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Combined
Topic-based
Concept-based ANS: Added Value?
42. • Difference in the ratio of Repetition1 pattern
explains:
§ difference in the average number of attempts per question
§ difference in the cumulative resulting knowledge level
§ Students repeat the same question again and
again:
§ They “get addicted“ to the concept-based icons
§ Is it a good thing for us?
− YES – they react to the navigational cues, they work more
− NO – we expect them to concentrate on those questions where they have
smaller progress instead of drilling in the same question
Discussion
43. Round 4: The Issue of Complexity
• Let’s now try it for Java…
• What is the research goal?
• Java is a more sophisticated domain than C
– OOP versus Procedural
– Higher complexity
• Will it work for complex
questions?
• Will it work similarly? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
C
Java
language complexity
Easy
Moderate
Hard
47. !! !!
JavaGuide
(Fall 2008)
QuizJET
(Spring 2008)
!! parameters (n=22) (n=31)
Overall User
Statistics
Attempts 125.50 41.71
Success Rate 58.31% 42.63%
Distinct Topics 11.77 4.94
Distinct Questions 46.18 17.23
Average
User Session
Statistics
Attempts 30.34 21.50
Distinct Topics 2.85 2.55
Distinct Questions 11.16 8.88
Magic… Here We Go Again!
48. • Significantly more Attempts
on the easy questions in
JavaGuide than in QuizJET
• F(1, 153) = 7.081, p = .009, partial η2 = .044
The Effect Depends on Complexity
49. • Significant higher
Success Rate
• F(1, 153) = 40.593, p .001, partial η2 = .210
• On average 2.5 times
more likely to answer a
quiz correctly with
adaptive navigation
support
68.73%
67.00%
39.32%38.00%
28.23%
11.90%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Easy Moderate Hard
SuccessRate
Complexity Level
Success Rate
JavaGuide
QuizJET
Different Pattern For Success Rate
50. 0.94
0.61
0.29
1.85
1.01
0.44
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Easy Moderate Hard
Attempts/Question
Complexity Level
Average Attempts per
Question
68.73%
67.00%
39.32%38.00%
28.23%
11.90%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Easy Moderate Hard
SuccessRate
Complexity Level
Success Rate
JavaGuide
QuizJET
Prerequisite-based guidance prepared students to attempt complex questions after exploring easier ones
Putting it Together…
51. Round 5: Social Navigation
• Concept-based and topic-based navigation support
work well to increase success and motivation
• Knowledge-based approaches require some
knowledge engineering – concept/topic models,
prerequisites, time schedule
• In our past work we learned that social navigation –
guidance extracted from the work of a community of
learners – might replace knowledge-based guidance
• Social wisdom vs. knowledge engineering
52. Open Social Student Modeling
• Key ideas
– Assume simple topic-based design
– No prerequsites or concept modeling
– Show topic- and content- level knowledge progress of
a student in contrast to the same progress of the class
• Main challenge
– How to design the interface to show student and class
progress over topics?
– We went through several attempts
56. Class vs. Peers
• Peer progress was important, students
frequently accessed content using peer models
• The more the students compared to their peers,
the higher post-quiz scores they received (r=
0.34 p=0.004)
• Parallel IV didn’t allow to recognized good peers
before opening the model
• Progressor added clear peer progress
58. Why It Is Important?
• Many systems demonstrated their educational
effectiveness in a lab-like settings: once the students
are pushed to use it - it benefits their learning
• However, once released to real classes, these systems
are under-used - most of them offer additional non-
mandatory learning opportunities
• “Students are only interested in points and grades”
• Convert all tools into credit-bearing activities?
• Or use alternative approaches to increase motivation
62. Take-home messages
• A combination of progress-based and state-
based adaptive link annotation increases the
amount and the diversity of student work with
non-mandatory educational content
• The effect is stable and the scale of it is quite
large
• Properly organized Social Navigation might be
at least as successful as the knowledge-based
• Requires a long-term classroom study to
observe
63. What we are doing now?
• Exploring new generation of open social
modeling tools in wide variety if classes and
domains from US to Nigeria
– Interested to be a pilot site?
• Exploring more advanced guidance and
modeling approaches based on large volume of
social data
• Applying open social modeling to motivate
readings
64. Acknowledgements
• Joint work with
– Sergey Sosnovsky
– Michael Yudelson
– Sharon Hsiao
• Pitt “Innovation in Education” grant
• NSF Grants
– EHR 0310576
– IIS 0426021
– CAREER 0447083
65. Try It!
• http://adapt2.sis.pitt.edu/kt/
• Brusilovsky, P., Sosnovsky, S., and Yudelson, M. (2009)
Addictive links: The motivational value of adaptive link annotation.
New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 15 (1), 97-118.
• Hsiao, I.-H., Sosnovsky, S., and Brusilovsky, P. (2010) Guiding
students to the right questions: adaptive navigation support in an E-
Learning system for Java programming. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning 26 (4), 270-283.
• Hsiao, I.-H., Bakalov, F., Brusilovsky, P., and König-Ries, B. (2013)
Progressor: social navigation support through open social student
modeling. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia [PDF]
Read About It!
