journal article·2019-10-14Open access

Computer Adaptive Testing Using Upper-Confidence Bound Algorithm for Formative Assessment

Jaroslav Melesko, Vitalij Novickij

Applied Sciences· Volume 9· Issue 20

Abstract

There is strong support for formative assessment inclusion in learning processes, with the main emphasis on corrective feedback for students. However, traditional testing and Computer Adaptive Testing can be problematic to implement in the classroom. Paper based tests are logistically inconvenient and are hard to personalize, and thus must be longer to accurately assess every student in the classroom. Computer Adaptive Testing can mitigate these problems by making use of Multi-Dimensional Item Response Theory at cost of introducing several new problems, most problematic of which are the greater test creation complexity, because of the necessity of question pool calibration, and the debatable premise that different questions measure one common latent trait. In this paper a new approach of modelling formative assessment as a Multi-Armed bandit problem is proposed and solved using Upper-Confidence Bound algorithm. The method in combination with e-learning paradigm has the potential to mitigate such problems as question item calibration and lengthy tests, while providing accurate formative assessment feedback for students. A number of simulation and empirical data experiments (with 104 students) are carried out to explore and measure the potential of this application with positive results.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning · Online Learning and Analytics · Educational Technology and Assessment

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Information Technologies, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania

Institute of High Magnetic Fields, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania

References (43)

Show source-provided references
1. Assessment and Classroom Learning
2. Formative assessment: A critical review
3. Guskey, T. (2005, January 11–15). Formative Classroom Assessment and Benjamin S. Bloom: Theory, Research, and Implications. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, QC, Canada.
4. Dunn, K.E., and Mulvenon, S.W. (2009). A Critical Review of Research on Formative Assessments: The Limited Scientific Evidence of the Impact of Formative Assessments in Education. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval.
5. Scriven, M. (1967). The Methodology of Evaluation, Purdue University. Social Science Education Consortium.
6. Bloom, B.S. (1969). Some theoretical issues relating to educational evaluation. Educational Evaluation: New Roles, New Means: The 63rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education Part II, University of Chicago Press.
7. Bloom, B.S. (1971). Mastery learning: Theory and practice. Mastery Leazrning, Holt Rinehart & Winston.
8. Formative Assessment: Revisiting the territory
9. Moss, C.M., and Brookhart, S.M. (2019). Advancing Formative Assessment in Every Classroom: A Guide for Instructional Leaders, ASCD.
10. Reclaiming an important teacher competency: The lost art of formative assessment10.1007/s11092-007-9044-5 ↗
11. Group, A.R. (1999). Assessment for Learning: Beyond the Black Box, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
12. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems10.1007/BF00117714 ↗
13. Marzano, R., Pickering, D., and Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement, Pearson.
14. Focus on formative feedback10.3102/0034654307313795 ↗
15. The Power of Feedback10.3102/003465430298487 ↗
16. Nicol, D., and Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Rethinking Formative Assessment in HE: A Theoretical Model and Seven Principles of Good Feedback Practice, Higher Education Academy.10.1080/03075070600572090 ↗
17. Guskey, T.R., and Bailey, J.M. (2001). Developing Grading and Reporting Systems for Student Learning, Corwin Press.
18. On the development of a computer-based tool for formative student assessment: Epistemological, methodological, and practical issues10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02245 ↗
19. Lord, F.M. (1980). Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems, Routledge.
20. An adaptive testing system for supporting versatile educational assessment10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.007 ↗
21. The impact of individual differences on the equivalence of computer-based and paper-and-pencil educational assessments10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00032-5 ↗
22. Wainer, H. (2001). Computer-Adaptive Testing: A Primer, Erlbaum. Lang. Learn. Technol.10.4324/9781410605931 ↗
23. The past and future of multidimensional item response theory10.1177/0146621697211002 ↗
24. Elo, A.E. (1978). The Rating Of Chess Players, Past & Present, Ishi Press.
25. Wauters, K., Desmet, P., and Noortgate, W. (2011, January 6–8). Monitoring learners’ proficiency: Weight adaptation in the Elo rating system. Proceedings of the EDM 2011—Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
26. Brinkhuis, M., and Maris, G. (2009). Dynamic Parameter Estimation in Student Monitoring Systems, CITO. Measurement and Research Department Reports.
27. Applications of the Elo rating system in adaptive educational systems10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.017 ↗
28. Adaptive experiments with a multivariate Elo-type algorithm10.3758/s13428-014-0478-7 ↗
29. Desmarais, M.C., and Baker, R.S.J.D. (2012). A review of recent advances in learner and skill modeling in intelligent learning environments. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interactiont, Springer.10.1007/s11257-011-9106-8 ↗
30. Pavlik, P.I., Cen, H., and Koedinger, K.R. (2009). Performance factors analysis—A new alternative to knowledge tracing. Proceedings of the Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, IOS Press.
31. Corbett, A.T., and Anderson, J.R. (1994). Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interactiont, Springer.10.1007/BF01099821 ↗
32. Asymptotically efficient adaptive allocation rules10.1016/0196-8858(85)90002-8 ↗
33. Sample mean based index policies by O(log n) regret for the multi-armed bandit problem10.2307/1427934 ↗
34. Vermorel, J., and Mohri, M. (2005, January 3–7). Multi-armed bandit algorithms and empirical evaluation. Proceedings of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science Oun (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Porto, Portugal.10.1007/11564096_42 ↗
35. Bubeck, S., and Cesa-Bianchi, N. (2012). Regret Analysis of Stochastic and Nonstochastic Multi-Armed Bandit Problems, Foundations and Trends® In Machine Learning.10.1561/9781601986276 ↗
36. Clement, B., Roy, D., Oudeyer, P.-Y., and Lopes, M. (2013). Multi-armed bandits for intelligent tutoring systems. arXiv.10.1109/DEVLRN.2014.6983019 ↗
37. Clement, B., Roy, D., Oudeyer, P.-Y., and Lopes, M. (2014, January 4–7). Online optimization of teaching sequences with multi-armed bandits. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, London, UK.
38. Clement, B., Roy, D., Lopes, M., Oudeyer, P., Clement, B., Roy, D., Lopes, M., and Optimization, P.O.O. (2014, January 4–7). Online Optimization and Personalization of Teaching Sequences to Cite This Version. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, London, UK.
39. Lan, A.S., and Baraniuk, R.G. (July, January 29). A Contextual Bandits Framework for Personalized Learning Action Selection. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, Raleigh, NC, USA.
40. Szepesvari, C., and Lattimore, T. (2019). Bandit Algorithms, Foundations and Trends® In Machine Learning.10.1017/9781108571401 ↗
41. Student Time Allocation and Educational Production Functions10.2307/23646328 ↗
42. Marzano, R.J., Gaddy, B.B., and Dean, C. (2000). What Works in Classroom Instruction, Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. Classr. Instr. That Work.
43. Developing argumentation processing agents for computer-supported collaborative learning10.1016/j.eswa.2008.01.036 ↗