Advertisement

Mitigating Knowledge Decay from Instruction with Voluntary Use of an Adaptive Learning System

  • Andrew J. Hampton
  • Benjamin D. Nye
  • Philip I. Pavlik
  • William R. Swartout
  • Arthur C. Graesser
  • Joseph Gunderson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10948)

Abstract

Knowledge decays across breaks in instruction. Learners lack the metacognition to self-assess their knowledge decay and effectively self-direct review, as well as lacking interactive exercises appropriate to their individual knowledge level. Adaptive learning systems offer the potential to mitigate these issues, by providing open learner models to facilitate learner’s understanding of their knowledge levels and by presenting personalized practice exercises. The current study analyzes differences in knowledge decay between learners randomly assigned to an intervention where they could use an adaptive system during a long gap between courses, compared with a control condition. The experimental condition used the Personal Assistant for Life-Long Learning (PAL3), a tablet-based adaptive learning system integrating multiple intelligent tutoring systems and conventional learning resources. It contained electronics content relevant to the experiment participants, Navy sailors who graduated from apprentice electronics courses (A-School) awaiting assignment to their next training (C-School). The study was conducted over one month, collecting performance data with a counterbalanced pre-, mid-, and post-test. The control condition exhibited the expected decay. The PAL3 condition showed a significant difference from the control, with no significant knowledge decay in their overall knowledge, despite substantial variance in usage for PAL3 (e.g., most of overall use in the first week, with fewer participants engaging as time went on). Interestingly, while overall decay was mitigated in PAL3, this result was primarily through gains in some knowledge offsetting losses in other knowledge. Overall, these results indicate that adaptive study tools can help prevent knowledge decay, even with voluntary usage.

Keywords

Mobile learning ITS Electrical engineering Life-long learning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

PAL3 was supported by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) through Army Research Lab W911NF-04-D-0005 and ONR N00014-12-C-0643. However, the contents of this paper are the responsibility of the authors alone.

References

  1. 1.
    Arthur Jr., W., Bennett Jr., W., Day, E.A., McNelly, T.L.: Skill decay: a comparative assessment of training protocols and individual differences in the loss and reacquisition of complex skills. Air Force Research Lab Mesa AZ Human Effectiveness Directorate (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Averell, L., Heathcote, A.: The form of the forgetting curve and the fate of memories. J. Math. Psychol. 55, 25–35 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bull, S., Kay, J.: Open learner models. In: Nkambou, R., Bourdeau, J., Mizoguchi, R. (eds.) Advances in Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 308, pp. 301–322. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14363-2_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chou, C.-Y., Chan, T.-W., Lin, C.-J.: Redefining the learning companion: the past, present, and future of educational agents. Comput. Educ. 40, 255–269 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., Greathouse, S.: The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: a narrative and meta-analytic review. Rev. Educ. Res. 66, 227–268 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Custers, E.J.: Long-term retention of basic science knowledge: a review study. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 15, 109–128 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Graesser, A.C.: Conversations with AutoTutor help students learn. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 26, 124–132 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Graesser, A.C.: Reflections on serious games. In: Wouters, P., van Oostendorp, H. (eds.) Instructional Techniques to Facilitate Learning and Motivation of Serious Games. AGL, pp. 199–212. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39298-1_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Graesser, A.C., Hu, X., Nye, B., Sottilare, R.: Intelligent tutoring systems, serious games, and the Generalized Intelligent Framework for Tutoring (GIFT). In: O’Neil, H.F., Baker, E.L., Perez, R.S. (eds.) Using games and simulation for teaching and assessment, pp. 58–79. Routledge, Abingdon (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hacker, D.J., Dunlosky, J., Graesser, A.C.: Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice. Routledge, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., Sarsa, H.: Does gamification work?–A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In: 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 3025–3034. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jackson, G.T., Boonthum, C., McNamara, D.S.: iSTART-ME: situating extended learning within a game-based environment. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Educational Games at the 14th Annual Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, AIED, Brighton, pp. 59–68 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jackson, G.T., Dempsey, K.B., McNamara, D.S.: Short and long term benefits of enjoyment and learning within a serious game. In: Biswas, G., Bull, S., Kay, J., Mitrovic, A. (eds.) AIED 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6738, pp. 139–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21869-9_20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jackson, G.T., McNamara, D.S.: Motivational impacts of a game-based intelligent tutoring system. In: FLAIRS Conference, pp. 1–6 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jarvis, P.: Adult Education and Lifelong Learning: Theory and Practice. Routledge, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klamma, R., Chatti, M.A., Duval, E., Hummel, H., Hvannberg, E.T., Kravcik, M., Law, E., Naeve, A., Scott, P.: Social software for life-long learning. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 10, 72–83 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koedinger, K.R., Corbett, A.T., Perfetti, C.: The knowledge-learning-instruction framework: bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognit. Sci. 36, 757–798 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krawczyk, S.: MCPON Launches eSailor Initiative at RTC (2015). Navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=86458
  19. 19.
    Kruger, J., Dunning, D.: Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77, 1121 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Levinstein, I.B., Boonthum, C., Pillarisetti, S.P., Bell, C., McNamara, D.S.: iSTART 2: improvements for efficiency and effectiveness. Behav. Res. Methods 39, 224–232 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lüftenegger, M., Schober, B., Van de Schoot, R., Wagner, P., Finsterwald, M., Spiel, C.: Lifelong learning as a goal–do autonomy and self-regulation in school result in well prepared pupils? Learn. Instruct. 22, 27–36 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McCombs, J.S., Augustine, C.H., Schwartz, H.L.: Making summer count: how summer programs can boost children’s learning. Rand Corporation (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    McNamara, D.S., Levinstein, I.B., Boonthum, C.: iSTART: Interactive strategy training for active reading and thinking. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 36, 222–233 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McQuiggan, S.W., Robison, J.L., Lester, J.C.: Affective transitions in narrative-centered learning environments. Educ. Technol. Soc. 13, 40–53 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Millis, K., Forsyth, C., Wallace, P., Graesser, A.C., Timmins, G.: The impact of game-like features on learning from an intelligent tutoring system. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 22, 1–22 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Newell, A.: Unified theories of Cognition. Harvard University Press (1994)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    O’Rourke, E., Peach, E., Dweck, C.S., Popovic, Z.: Brain points: a deeper look at a growth mindset incentive structure for an educational game. In: Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale, pp. 41–50. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pavlik, P.I., Kelly, C., Maass, J.K.: The mobile fact and concept training system (MoFaCTS). In: Micarelli, A., Stamper, J., Panourgia, K. (eds.) ITS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9684, pp. 247–253. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39583-8_25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pearson: Pearson, Duolingo Partner to Enhance Mobile Learning in College and University Language Courses. https://www.pearson.com/corporate/news/media/news-announcements/2017/08/pearson--duolingo-partner-to-enhance-mobile-learning--in-college.html
  30. 30.
    Pintrich, P.R.: Multiple goals, multiple pathways: the role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 92, 544 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rosé, C.P., Carlson, R., Yang, D., Wen, M., Resnick, L., Goldman, P., Sherer, J.: Social factors that contribute to attrition in MOOCs. In: Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale Conference, pp. 197–198. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sabourin, J.L., Rowe, J.P., Mott, B.W., Lester, J.C.: Considering alternate futures to classify off-task behavior as emotion self-regulation: a supervised learning approach. JEDM. J. Educ. Data Min. 5, 9–38 (2013)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sharples, M.: The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. Comput. Educ. 34, 177–193 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Swartout, W.R., Gratch, J., Hill Jr., R.W., Hovy, E., Marsella, S., Rickel, J., Traum, D.: Toward virtual humans. AI Mag. 27, 96 (2006)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Swartout, W.R., Nye, B.D., Hartholt, A., Reilly, A., Graesser, A.C., VanLehn, K., Wetzel, J., Liewer, M., Morbini, F., Morgan, B.: Designing a personal assistant for life-long learning (PAL3). In: FLAIRS Conference, pp. 491–496 (2016)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    VanLehn, K., Wetzel, J., Grover, S., Van De Sande, B.: Learning how to construct models of dynamic systems: an initial evaluation of the Dragoon intelligent tutoring system. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 10, 154–167 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Xiong, X., Wang, Y., Beck, J.B.: Improving students’ long-term retention performance: a study on personalized retention schedules. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, pp. 325–329. ACM (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew J. Hampton
    • 1
  • Benjamin D. Nye
    • 2
  • Philip I. Pavlik
    • 1
  • William R. Swartout
    • 2
  • Arthur C. Graesser
    • 1
  • Joseph Gunderson
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute for Intelligent SystemsUniversity of MemphisMemphisUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Creative TechnologiesUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.California State Polytechnic UniversityPomonaUSA

Personalised recommendations