Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2026
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.01690 |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866911694942371840 |
|---|---|
| author | Lee, Hansol Lichand, Guilherme Barnard, Cristina Klotz, Lucas Thille, Candace Kim, Yunsung Domingue, Benjamin W. |
| author_facet | Lee, Hansol Lichand, Guilherme Barnard, Cristina Klotz, Lucas Thille, Candace Kim, Yunsung Domingue, Benjamin W. |
| contents | Mixed-effects models fit to observational practice data are widely used in learning analytics to estimate student-level variation in initial knowledge and learning rate, and the resulting estimates increasingly inform substantive claims about learners. We examine whether such estimates can be read as properties of learners or whether they depend on choices about which observations the model is fit to. As a case study, we revisit the ``astonishing regularity'' reported by Koedinger et al. (2023): that students vary substantially in initial knowledge but much less in learning rate. The finding is based on fits of the individual Additive Factors Model (iAFM) to 27 educational datasets, and rests on a model-derived estimate of student-level learning-rate variation being small in absolute terms. We refit the same model on the same datasets under two specifications, each varying how much of each student's practice on a given skill is used in fitting. The estimate of student-level variation in initial knowledge stays approximately stable across both specifications. The estimate of student-level variation in learning rate does not: it inflates by a median of 118\% under one specification and is several times larger under the other. The same model, fit to the same data, returns substantially different estimates of how much students vary in learning rate depending on which observations are included. When estimates from mixed-effects models on observational practice data are used to support substantive claims about learners, sensitivity to such choices deserves a central place in how those estimates are reported and read. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2605_01690 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Revisiting the Regularity of Student Learning Rate: Sensitivity to Which Observations Are Included Lee, Hansol Lichand, Guilherme Barnard, Cristina Klotz, Lucas Thille, Candace Kim, Yunsung Domingue, Benjamin W. Computers and Society Mixed-effects models fit to observational practice data are widely used in learning analytics to estimate student-level variation in initial knowledge and learning rate, and the resulting estimates increasingly inform substantive claims about learners. We examine whether such estimates can be read as properties of learners or whether they depend on choices about which observations the model is fit to. As a case study, we revisit the ``astonishing regularity'' reported by Koedinger et al. (2023): that students vary substantially in initial knowledge but much less in learning rate. The finding is based on fits of the individual Additive Factors Model (iAFM) to 27 educational datasets, and rests on a model-derived estimate of student-level learning-rate variation being small in absolute terms. We refit the same model on the same datasets under two specifications, each varying how much of each student's practice on a given skill is used in fitting. The estimate of student-level variation in initial knowledge stays approximately stable across both specifications. The estimate of student-level variation in learning rate does not: it inflates by a median of 118\% under one specification and is several times larger under the other. The same model, fit to the same data, returns substantially different estimates of how much students vary in learning rate depending on which observations are included. When estimates from mixed-effects models on observational practice data are used to support substantive claims about learners, sensitivity to such choices deserves a central place in how those estimates are reported and read. |
| title | Revisiting the Regularity of Student Learning Rate: Sensitivity to Which Observations Are Included |
| topic | Computers and Society |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.01690 |