Optimizing instructional policies

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages

  Lindsey, Robert V ^a   Mozer, Michael C ^a   Huggins, William J ^a   Pashler, Harold ^b  

^a University of Colorado   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ISOMERS;

BEHAVIORAL STUDIES; EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS; EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES; OPTIMIZATION METHOD; OPTIMIZATION PROBLEMS; STUDENT PERFORMANCE; SURROGATE-BASED OPTIMIZATION; TRAINING SEQUENCES;

OPTIMIZATION;

EID: 84899029927     PISSN: 10495258     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (25)

1. Anderson, E. J., & Ferris, M. C. (2001). A direct search algorithm for optimization with noisy function evaluations. SIAM Journal of Optimization, 11, 837-857.
2. Anderson, J. R., Conrad, F. G., & Corbett, A. T. (1989). Skill acquisition and the LISP tutor. Cognitive Science, 13, 467-506.
3. Bengio, Y., Louradour, J., Collobert, R., & Weston, J. (2009, June). Curriculum learning. In L. Bottou & M. Littman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th international conference on machine learning (pp. 41-48). Montreal: Omnipress.
4. Boeck, P. D., & Wilson, M. (2004). Explanatory item response models. a generalized linear and nonlinear approach. New York: Springer.
5. Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2011, November). Stimulus similarity relations modulate benefits for blocking versus interleaving during category learning. (Presentation at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomics Society, Seattle, WA)
6. Chi, M., VanLehn, K., Litman, D., & Jordan, P. (2011). Empirically evaluating the application of reinforcement learning to the induction of effective and adaptive pedagogical strategies. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction. Special Issue on Data Mining for Personalized Educational Systems, 21, 137-180.
7. Christian, B. (2012). The A/B test: Inside the technology that's changing the rules of business. Wired, 20(4).
8. de Jonge, M., Tabbers, H. K., Pecher, D., & Zeelenberg, R. (2012). The effect of study time distribution on learning and retention: A goldilocks principle for presentation rate. J. Exp. Psych.: Learning, Mem., & Cog., 38, 405-412.
9. Forrester, A. I. J., & Keane, A. J. (2009). Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 45, 50-79.
10. Goldstone, R. L., & Steyvers, M. (2001). The sensitization and diffrentiation of dimensions during category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 116-139.
11. Kang, S. H. K., & Pashler, H. (2011). Learning painting styles: Spacing is advantageous when it promotes discriminative contrast. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 97-103.
12. Khan, F., Zhu, X. J., & Mutlu, B. (2011). How do humans teach: On curriculum learning and teaching dimension. In J. Shawe-Taylor, R. Zemel, P. Bartlett, F. Pereira, & K. Weinberger (Eds.), Adv. in NIPS 24 (pp. 1449-1457). La Jolla, CA: NIPS Found.
13. Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. T. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning science to the classroom. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 61-78). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
14. Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the enemy of induction? Psychological Science, 19, 585-592.
15. Martin, J., & VanLehn, K. (1995). Student assessment using bayesian nets. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 42, 575-591.
16. Minear, M., & Park, D. C. (2004). A lifespan database of adult facial stimuli. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 630-633.
17. Murray, I., Adams, R. P., & MacKay, D. J. (2010). Elliptical slice sampling. J. of Machine Learn. Res., 9, 541-548.
18. Osborne, M. A., Garnett, R., & Roberts, S. J. (2009, January). Gaussian processes for global optimization. In 3d intl. conf. on learning and intell. opt. Trento, Italy.
19. Pashler, H., & Mozer, M. C. (in press). Enhancing perceptual category learning through fading: When does it help? J. of Exptl. Psych.: Learning, Mem., & Cog..
20. Rafferty, A. N., Brunskill, E. B., Griffiths, T. L., & Shafto, P. (2011). Faster teaching by POMDP planning. In Proc. of the 15th intl. conf. on AI in education.
21. Sacks, J., Welch, W. J., Mitchell, T. J., & Wynn, H. P. (1989). Design and analysis of computer experiments. Statistical Science, 4, 409-435.
22. Salmon, J. P., McMullen, P. A., & Filliter, J. H. (2010). Norms for two types of manipulability (graspability and functional usage), familiarity, and age of acquisition for 320 photographs of objects. Behavioral Research Methods, 42, 82-95.
23. Schloss, K. B., & Palmer, S. E. (2011). Aesthetic response to color combinations: preference, harmony, and similarity. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 551-571.
24. Srinivas, N., Krause, A., Kakade, S., & Seeger, M. (2010). Gaussian process optimization in the bandit setting: No regret and experimental design. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on machine learning. Haifa, Israel.
25. Whitehill, J., & Movellan, J. R. (2010). Optimal teaching machines (Tech. Rep.). La Jolla, CA: Department of Computer Science, UCSD.