Difference between revisions of "Talk:Physics"
(Now, we have Andes in the Data Shop) |
(New section: comment feature) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
That was a leftover from 6 months ago. In the last few weeks, we have finally gotten some real learning curves out. I will make the update. | That was a leftover from 6 months ago. In the last few weeks, we have finally gotten some real learning curves out. I will make the update. | ||
Brett | Brett | ||
| + | |||
| + | == reference to add == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Brett, | ||
| + | |||
| + | Glad to hear about the coming learning curve update. | ||
| + | |||
| + | On a different topic, while not about physics per se, perhaps this paper should be added to the publication list on the page given is was carried out with physics data: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Nwaigwe, Adaeze; Koedinger, Kenneth; VanLehn, Kurt; Hausmann, Robert, Weinstein Anders. (in press). Exploring Alternative Methods for Error Attribution in Learning CurvKes Analysis in Intelligent Tutoring Systems. To appear in the proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education 2007. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ken | ||
| + | |||
| + | P.S. It seems the way these discussion pages go, is that the first page should have been just some generic info and then we should add comments to it or to other comments (using the "+" that appears in the tabs above next to "edit"). | ||
| + | |||
| + | == comment feature == | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Good point (Brett?) about using the comment feature! I'm trying it out ... - Ken | ||
Latest revision as of 19:33, 13 November 2008
The page says the following: "Log file analysis: Andes raw logs can be converted to the DataShop format, but the converted logs do not have the right information in them for the kinds of analysis experimenters want to do."
It would be good to have an example of an analysis that an experimenter wants to do that cannot currently be done in the DataShop.
One prior concern was that the DataShop's use of the "location heuristic" for error attribution would not work well for Andes data and experimenters needs. It need be true for some needs (it would be good to articulate those), but for the purposes of generating "smooth" learning curves, the analysis done in the following paper suggested that the location heuristic does as well or better than alternatives.
Nwaigwe, Adaeze; Koedinger, Kenneth; VanLehn, Kurt; Hausmann, Robert, Weinstein Anders. (in press). Exploring Alternative Methods for Error Attribution in Learning Curves Analysis in Intelligent Tutoring Systems. To appear in the proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education 2007.
There may be other concerns besides this one. It would be good to articulate them.
(I'm not sure what the right procedure is for using the talk pages!?)
- Ken
Ken, That was a leftover from 6 months ago. In the last few weeks, we have finally gotten some real learning curves out. I will make the update. Brett
reference to add
Brett,
Glad to hear about the coming learning curve update.
On a different topic, while not about physics per se, perhaps this paper should be added to the publication list on the page given is was carried out with physics data:
Nwaigwe, Adaeze; Koedinger, Kenneth; VanLehn, Kurt; Hausmann, Robert, Weinstein Anders. (in press). Exploring Alternative Methods for Error Attribution in Learning CurvKes Analysis in Intelligent Tutoring Systems. To appear in the proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education 2007.
Ken
P.S. It seems the way these discussion pages go, is that the first page should have been just some generic info and then we should add comments to it or to other comments (using the "+" that appears in the tabs above next to "edit").
comment feature
Good point (Brett?) about using the comment feature! I'm trying it out ... - Ken
