Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
AAAI workshop proposal on Educational Data Mining Workshop topic This workshop will bring together researchers interested in educational data mining—using artificial intelligence and statistical analysis to answer questions about how people learn. One important issue we will address in this workshop is how researchers can learn from the data collected by computer tutors and standardized tests, including a learner’s responses to questions, mouse clicks, and mouse movements recorded at a fine time-scale. Computer tutors are now generating data at a pace exceeding the ability of researchers to analyze it. Tutors often gather up to a year’s worth of instruction with hundreds or thousands of users. The challenge is to determine which tools are most appropriate for making sense of these data and to discover which investigations we can make with a goal of understanding student learning at a fine-grained level. This workshop will focus on tools and techniques for educational data mining and ask questions such as: Which AI techniques are most appropriate, e.g., from information retrieval, data mining or machine learning.? What are the limitations of each tool? Educational data mining data from computer tutors differs from classic data mining in that the software (computer tutor) has probably been explicitly instrumented to make mining easier, and there are sometimes strong, pre-existing psychological theories of how people learn can augment the techniques. Do these advantages provide us with any new capabilities? Although this workshop will accept submissions from all areas of educational data mining, the primary focus of the workshop will be on techniques for modeling student performance. Specifically we are interested in approaches that have not been used before, and in comparing known approaches with competing techniques. For example, at the AAAI 20005 workshop on this topic, there was interesting discussion comparing the assumptions of q-matrices and standard factor analysis. The other specific area of emerging interest is privacy of student’s records. One problem of sharing student data within the community is student confidentiality. Therefore, the workshop is interested in both protocols for recording data so as to prevent identifying students (but still retain capabilities of merging records from different sources) as well as best practices for storing information on centralized servers to prevent unauthorized access of data. Why the topic is interesting now Educational data mining for studying learning processes is relevant now due to the scaling up of the number of students using intelligent computer tutors. When the field of computer-based education was new, the main challenges of artificial intelligence were to construct approaches to plan tutorial interactions and to build a model of the student’s competencies. Few students used such systems, and controlled studies were of brief duration and had relatively few users. In the present, studies involving computer tutors have scaled up in scope both longitudinally and in the number of users. This increase in scale has created a problem: what to do with the data? For the first time we have the ability to answer educational questions about how to best teach individual students, or to answer subtle questions about learning. The missing ingredient is the computational toolkit to organize, visualize, and learn from the data. This topic is of increasing interest to educational research communities as well. At the past two IERI (Interagency Educational Research Initiative) PI meetings there have been sessions on Educational Data Mining. At the 2004 meeting there was a breakout session on the topic. At the 2005 session there was panel. IERI researchers have (for the most part) not connected with the existing educational data mining research communities. Given the current and increasing interest in the IERI community, a workshop next summer would be well timed. Educational data mining at the institutional level is also of particular interest now because of increasing emphasis on educational standards. These standards have led to an increased repository of data on standardized tests. These data do not lend themselves to traditional analyses. Data mining is particularly suited to solving problems in the educational field, where standard assumptions rarely apply. Workshop format We expect that one-day is an appropriate length for the workshop. We will have an invited speaker, and a panel discussion on new directions and applications of educational data mining. Likely panel members are those in the IERI community who would not normally attend an artificial intelligence conference. We will solicit papers for presentation at the workshop. The advantage of the workshop is that it permits an in-depth presentation of the subject matter, with substantial time for comments afterwards. Therefore, we will have fewer presentations, but more time for each presentation. Our proposed format is to budget 30 minutes for a presentation, with 10 of those minutes devoted to questions. We will group papers by themes, and have a discussant lead a session that compares/contrasts the papers in the area and discusses remaining open issues. We used this format at the AAAI 2005 workshop on this topic and it worked quite well. If we receive many strong submissions, we will have a poster session to allow informal discussion among researchers working on related problems. Organizing committee Joseph E. Beck [email protected] Phone: 412 268 5726; Fax: 412 268 6436 Postal: NSH 4215 Carnegie Mellon University 5000 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Joseph Beck is faculty at the Center for Automated Learning and Discovery at Carnegie Mellon University. He has a Ph.D. in computer science, and works in intelligent tutoring systems, student modeling, and specializes in educational data mining. He has organized and chaired workshops on applying machine learning approaches to improving computer tutors at ITS2000, ITS2004, and AAAI2005. Tiffany Barnes [email protected] Phone: 704 687 6403 Postal: Department of Computer Science University of North Carolina at Charlotte 9201 University City Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28223 Tiffany Barnes is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Science at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. She received her PhD in Computer Science from North Carolina State University in December 2003. Her PhD work investigated several aspects of the Q-matrix method, an innovative tool for data mining and understanding student knowledge and augmenting tutorial systems to be adaptive. Dr. Barnes's research interests include Artificial Intelligence, Bioinformatics, Human-Computer Interaction, Data Mining and KDD, Diversity in Technology, and the use of Technology in Education. Esma Aimeur [email protected] Phone: +1 (514) 343-6794; Fax: +1 (514) 343-5834 Université de Montréal Département d'informatique et de recherche opérationnelle Pavillon André-Aisenstadt C.P. 6128, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montréal (QC) H3C 3J7 Canada Esma Aimeur is Associate Professor at the department of Computer Science and Operations Research of the University of Montreal. She received her Masters Degree in 1990 and her PhD degree in 1994 from the University of Paris 6 in the field of Artificial Intelligence. Her research domains are numerous, including: Artificial Intelligence (Machine Learning, Knowledge Acquisition, Case-Based Reasoning …), Intelligent Tutoring Systems (Curriculum, Pedagogical Strategies, Learner Model …) and Electronic Commerce. She published about one hundred papers (refereed international journals and international conferences) and she is and has been member of the program and organizational committees of many international conferences. Possible attendees The first AAAI workshop on Educational Data Mining (at AAAI2005) had about two dozen attendees. We’re hoping for higher attendance this year. One reason attendance was lower was a similar workshop was held at approximately the same time in Europe; as a result there were no European attendees at the workshop (and some U.S. members couldn’t make the trip to Pittsburgh due to tight scheduling with the European conference). This year there is no such workshop in Europe, so attendance should be better. Pre-registrants for last year’s workshop were Andrew Arnold, Ryan Baker, Tiffany Barnes, Joseph E. Beck, Ted Carmichael, Hao Cen, Kai-min Chang, Mingyu Feng, Joao Furtado, Janice Gobert, Paul Horwitz, Jeff Johns, Tara Madhysatha, Jack Mostow, Jiang Su, Titus Winters, and Weixiong Zhang (there were additional attendees at the workshop). The 2005 workshop did a good job of bringing in attendees who would not have otherwise attended the AAAI conference (based on polling those there) and who were not aware of existing community for this work. One goal of the 2006 workshop is to get higher participation from IERI members. At the past IERI PI meeting (August 2005) there was a panel on Educational Data Mining that was well received.