Sensors Model Student Self Concept in the Classroom

  • David G. Cooper
  • Ivon Arroyo
  • Beverly Park Woolf
  • Kasia Muldner
  • Winslow Burleson
  • Robert Christopherson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5535)

Abstract

In this paper we explore findings from three experiments that use minimally invasive sensors with a web based geometry tutor to create a user model. Minimally invasive sensor technology is mature enough to equip classrooms of up to 25 students with four sensors at the same time while using a computer based intelligent tutoring system. The sensors, which are on each student’s chair, mouse, monitor, and wrist, provide data about posture, movement, grip tension, arousal, and facially expressed mental states. This data may provide adaptive feedback to an intelligent tutoring system based on an individual student’s affective states. The experiments show that when sensor data supplements a user model based on tutor logs, the model reflects a larger percentage of the students’ self-concept than a user model based on the tutor logs alone. The models are further expanded to classify four ranges of emotional self-concept including frustration, interest, confidence, and excitement with over 78% accuracy. The emotional predictions are a first step for intelligent tutor systems to create sensor based personalized feedback for each student in a classroom environment. Bringing sensors to our children’s schools addresses real problems of students’ relationship to mathematics as they are learning the subject.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Koedinger, K.R., Anderson, J.R., Hadley, W.H., Mark, M.A.: Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 8(1), 30–43 (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shute, V.J., Psotka, J.: Intelligent tutoring systems past, present and future. In: Jonassen, D. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Scholastic Publications (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bailenson, J.N., Yee, N.: Digital chameleons. Psychological Science 16(10), 814–819 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Florea, A., Kalisz, E.: Embedding emotions in an artificial tutor. In: SYNASC 2005 (September 2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arroyo, I., Beal, C., Murray, T., Walles, R., Woolf, B.P.: Web-based intelligent multimedia tutoring for high stakes achievement tests. In: Lester, J.C., Vicari, R.M., Paraguaçu, F. (eds.) ITS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3220, pp. 468–477. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhou, J., Wang, X.: Multimodal affective user interface using wireless devices for emotion identification, pp. 7155–7157 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McQuiggan, S., Lee, S., Lester, J.: Early prediction of student frustration. Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, pp. 698–709 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McQuiggan, S., Mott, B., Lester, J.: Modeling self-efficacy in intelligent tutoring systems: An inductive approach. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 18(1), 81–123 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Royer, J.M., Walles, R.: Influences of gender, motivation and socioeconomic status on mathematics performance. In: Berch, D.B., Mazzocco, M.M.M. (eds.) Why is Math so Hard for Some Children, pp. 349–368. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Baltimore (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Catsambis, S.: The path to math: Gender and racial-ethnic differences in mathematics participation from middle school to high school. Sociology of Education 67(3), 199–215 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tobias, S.: Overcoming Math Anxiety, Revised and Expanded. W.W. Norton & Company, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Strauss, M., Reynolds, C., Hughes, S., Park, K., McDarby, G., Picard, R.: The handwave bluetooth skin conductance sensor. In: Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, pp. 699–706 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Qi, Y., Picard, R.: Context-sensitive bayesian classifiers and application to mouse pressure pattern classification. In: Proceedings. 16th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 2002, vol. 3, pp. 448–451 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kapoor, A., Burleson, W., Picard, R.W.: Automatic prediction of frustration. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 65(8), 724–736 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burleson, W., Picard, R.W.: Gender-specific approaches to developing emotionally intelligent learning companions. IEEE Intelligent Systems 22(4), 62–69 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    el Kaliouby, R.: Mind-reading Machines: the automated inference of complex mental states from video. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D’Mello, S., Picard, R.W., Graesser, A.: Toward an affect-sensitive autotutor. IEEE Intelligent Systems 22(4), 53–61 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • David G. Cooper
    • 1
  • Ivon Arroyo
    • 1
  • Beverly Park Woolf
    • 1
  • Kasia Muldner
    • 2
  • Winslow Burleson
    • 2
  • Robert Christopherson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  2. 2.School of Computing and InformaticsArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations