Comparison of traditional assessment with dynamic testing in a tutoring system

EDM 2011 - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Educational Data Mining

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 295-299

  Feng, Mingyu ^a   Heffernan, Neilt ^b   Pardos, Zacharya ^b   Heffernan, Cristina ^b  

^a SRI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^b Worcester Polytechnic Institute   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Dynamic metrics; Tutoring system

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT; DYNAMIC METRICS; DYNAMIC TESTING; MAIN EFFECT; RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIALS; STUDENT PERFORMANCE; TRADITIONAL ASSESSMENT; TUTORING SYSTEM;

DATA MINING; RATING; TESTING;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84857482593     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (12)

1. Baker, R. S., Corbett, A.T., Koedinger, K. R., & Wagner, A. Z. (2004). Off-task behavior in the Cognitive Tutor Classroom: When Students "game the system". Proceedings of the ACM CHI 2004: Computer - Human Interaction. (pp. 383-390). New York: ACM.
2. Breiman, L. (2001) Random forests. Machine Learning, 45(1):5-32, 2001.
3. Campione. J. C. & Brown. A. L. (1985). Dynamic Assessment: One Approach and some Initial Data. Technical Report. No. 361. Cambridge, MA. Illinois University, Urbana, Center for the Study of Reading. ED 269735.
4. Campione. J. C., Brown. A. L., & Bryant. N. R. (1985). Individual Differences in Learning and Memory. In R.J. Steinberg (Ed.). Human Abilities: An Information Processing Approach, 103-126, New York, W. H. Freeman.
5. Feng, M., Heffernan. N. T. & Koedinger. K. R. (2009). Addressing the assessment challenge in an online system that tutors as it assesses. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction: The Journal of Personalization Research. 19(3). 2009.
6. Feng. M., Heffernan. N. T., (2010). Can We Get Better Assessment From A Tutoring System Compared to Traditional Paper Testing? Can We Have Our Cake (better assessment) and Eat it too (student learning during the test)? In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Educational Data Mining, 41-50.
7. Grigerenko, E. L. & Steinberg, R. J. (1998). Dynamic Testing. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 75-111.
8. Fuchs. L. S., Compton. D. L. Fuchs. D., Hollenbeck. K. N., Craddock. C. F., & Hamlett. C. L. (2008). Dynamic Assessment of Algebraic Learning in Predicting Third Graders' of Mathematical Problem Solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 829-850.
9. U.S. Department of Education (2011). National Educational Technology Plan 2010. http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010.
10. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Seaman, M. A. (1995). The effect of time constraints and statistics test anxiety on test performance in a statistics course. Journal of Experimental Education, 63, 115-124.
11. Razzaq. L., Feng M., Nuzzo-Jones. G., Heffernan. N. T., Koedinger. K. R., Junker. B., Ritter. S., Knight A., Aniszczyk. C., Choksey. S., Livak. T., Mercado. E., Turner. T. E., Upalekar R., Walonoski. J.A., Macasek. M. A., & Rasmussen. K. P. (2005). The Assistment Project: Blending Assessment and Assisting. In C. K. Looi, G. McCalla, B. Bredeweg, & J. Breuker (Eds). Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Amesterdam. ISO Press, pp 555- 562.
12. th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Christchurch, New Zealand.