Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Deep Knowledge Tracking Model Integrating Difficulty Factors

Song, Zhuoqing, Huang, Sirui, Zhou, Ya·2021·The 2nd International Conference on Computing and Data Science

Abstract

With the rapid development of artificial intelligence education, it is of great significance to establish a scientific and effective model of learners' knowledge mastery state. Knowledge tracking (KT) as a modeling method for learners to infer knowledge level based on their learning achievements, plays a key role in intelligent education system. There are some problems in the existing knowledge tracking models, such as incomplete input features and unstable model. In order to improve the accuracy of the prediction of learners' learning effect, this paper proposes a deep knowledge tracking model (DDKT) based on the comprehensive difficulty of the topic. The model mainly includes two parts: on the one hand, the construction of the comprehensive difficulty model, on the other hand, the improvement of the model. The model combines topic difficulty with deep knowledge tracking model, enriches learners' learning process dimensions and improves the generalization ability of the model. Through comparative experiments, it is proved that the DDKT model has achieved better results.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3448734.3450792

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Romero C., 2011, Handbook of Educational Data Mining
  2. 10.5555/2969239.2969296 · doi:10.5555/2969239.2969296
  3. 10.1016/j.neucom.2012.03.002 · DOI
  4. Direnga J., 2015, REES 2015, Research in Engineering Education Symposium
  5. Fouh E., 2016, Educational Data Mining
  6. Corbett A. T., 1994, Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale, 4, 253
  7. 10.1145/3231644.3231647 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Wauters K., 2011, Proceedings of the 4th international conference on educational data mining, 121
  9. 10.5555/3298239.3298437 · doi:10.5555/3298239.3298437
  10. 10.1177/0146621611407305 · DOI
  11. 10.1109/CIST.2018.8596370 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Song, Z., Huang, S., & Zhou, Y.
Affiliations
  • Guilin University of Electronic Technology
  • University College London
Venue
The 2nd International Conference on Computing and Data Science
Publisher
ACM
Published
2021-01-28
Pages
1-5
Cited by
2
References
0

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.