Artificial Neural Networks in Mathematical Mini-Games for Automatic Students’ Learning Styles Identification: A First Approach

  • Richard Torres-MolinaEmail author
  • Jorge Banda-Almeida
  • Lorena Guachi-Guachi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11872)


The lack of customized education results in low performance in different subjects as mathematics. Recognizing and knowing student learning styles will enable educators to create an appropriate learning environment. Questionnaires are traditional methods to identify the learning styles of the students. Nevertheless, they exhibit several limitations such as misunderstanding of the questions and boredom in children. Thus, this work proposes a first automatic approach to detect the learning styles (Activist, Reflector, Theorist, Pragmatist) based on Honey and Mumford theory through the use of Artificial Neural Networks in mathematical Mini-Games. Metrics from the mathematical Mini-Games as score and time were used as input data to then train the Artificial Neural Networks to predict the percentages of learning styles. The data gathered in this work was from a pilot study of Ecuadorian students with ages between 9 and 10 years old. The preliminary results show that the average overall difference between the two techniques (Artificial Neural Networks and CHAEA-Junior) is 4.13%. Finally, we conclude that video games can be fun and suitable tools for an accurate prediction of learning styles.


Artificial Neural Networks Learning Styles Video games 



We would like to thank the directors Msc. Carlos Verdesoto and Arch Marco Lafuente from the schools “Teodoro Gómez de la Torre” and “San Francisco” (Ibarra-Ecuador) who have contributed in the data gathered in this work.


  1. 1.
    Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E.: Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review, 1st edn. Learning and Skills Research Centre, London (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kelly, D.: Adapting to intelligence profile in an adaptive educational system. Interact. Comput. 18(3), 385–409 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Feldman, J.: Automatic detection of learning styles: state of the art. Artif. Intell. Rev. 44(2), 157–186 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jia, L., Pai, S.: Identification of learning styles online by observing learners’ browsing behaviour through a neural network. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 36(16), 43–55 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Torres, R., Ríofrio, A., Bustamante, C., Ortega, F.: Prediction of learning improvement in mathematics through a video game using neurocomputational models. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence, pp. 554–559. SciTePress, Prague (2019)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Latham, A., Crockett, K., Mclean, D.: Profiling student learning styles with multilayer perceptron neural networks. In: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Systems. Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 2510–2515. IEEE, Manchester (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Olguín, J.A.M., García, F.J.C., de la Luz Carrillo González, M., Medina, A.M., Cortés, J.Z.G.: Expert system To Engage CHAEA learning styles, ACRA learning strategies and learning objects into an e-learning platform for higher education students. Advances on P2P, Parallel, Grid, Cloud and Internet Computing. LNDECT, vol. 1, pp. 913–922. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dorça, F.A.: Automatic student modeling in adaptive educational systems through probabilistic learning style combinations: a qualitative comparison between two innovative stochastic approaches. J. Braz. Comput. Soc. 19(1), 43–58 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mumford, A.: Questions and answers on learning styles questionnaire. Ind. Commer. Training 24(7), 10–13 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dziedzic, M., de Oliveira, F.B., Janissek, P.R., Dziedzic, R.M.: Comparing learning styles questionnaire. In: 2013 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), pp. 973–978. IEEE, Oklahoma (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sotillo, J.: CHAEA-Junior Survey or how to diagnose elementary and secondary students’ learning styles. J. Learn. Styles 7(1), 182–201 (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stash, N., De Bra, P.: Incorporating cognitive styles in AHA! (the adaptive hypermedia architecture). In: Proceedings of the Iasted International Conference Web-Based Education, pp. 378–383. Innsbruck (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chang, B.: The influences of an interactive group-based video game: cognitive styles vs. prior ability. Comput. Educ. 88, 399–407 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bontchev, B.: Playing styles based on experiential learning theory. Comput. Hum. Behav. 85, 319–328 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Torres, R., Guachi, L., Guachi, R., Stefani, P., Ortega, F.: Learning style identification by CHAEA junior questionnaire and artificial neural network method: a case study. In: 1st International Conference on Advances in Emerging Trends and Technologies. Springer, Quito (2019)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bernard, J.: Learning style identifier: improving the precision of learning style identification through computational intelligence algorithms. Expert Syst. Appl. 75, 94–108 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rivas, A.: Latin America after PISA: Lessons Learned about Education in Seven Countries, 1st edn. CIPPEC-Natura-Instituto Natura, Buenos Aires (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smart Math Labs. Accessed 4 July 2019
  19. 19.
    Aleksieva, A., Petrov, M.: ADOPTA model of learner and educational game structure. In: 12th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies, pp. 636–640. ACM, Vienna (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Yachay Tech UniversitySan JoséEcuador
  2. 2.SDAS Research GroupUrcuquíEcuador

Personalised recommendations