한국수학교육학회지시리즈A:수학교육 (The Mathematical Education)

  • 제61권2호
  • /
  • Pages.257-271
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 1225-1380(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-9633(eISSN)
한국수학교육학회 (Korean Society of Mathematical Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

학업성취도 예측 요인 분석 및 인공지능 예측 모델 개발 - 블렌디드 수학 수업을 중심으로

Analysis of achievement predictive factors and predictive AI model development - Focused on blended math classes

  • 투고 : 2022.02.17
  • 심사 : 2022.03.17
  • 발행 : 2022.05.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 학습분석학을 기반으로 블렌디드 수학 수업에서 발생하는 학습 데이터를 활용하여 수학 학업성취도를 예측하는 요인이 무엇인지 탐색하고, 그 결과를 활용하여 수학 학업성취도를 예측하는 인공지능 모델을 개발하고자 하였다. 초등학교 5~6학년 학생 205명의 수학 학습 성향, LMS 데이터, 평가 결과를 수집하여 랜덤포레스트 모델을 분석하였다. 수학 학습성향에는 수학학습 자신감, 수학불안, 수학교과 흥미, 수학학습 자기관리, 수학학습 전략이 포함되었다. LMS 데이터로 e학습터의 진도율, 학습 횟수, 학습 시간을 수집하였다. 평가는 진단평가와 각 단원의 단원평가 결과를 사용하였다. 분석 결과 수학 학습성향 중 수학 학습 전략이 저성취 학생을 예측에 가장 중요한 요인으로 나타났다. LMS 학습 데이터는 예측에 미미한 영향을 주었다. 본 연구는 인공지능 모델이 블렌디드 수학 수업에서 발생하는 학습 데이터로 저성취 학생을 예측할 수 있음을 시사한다. 또한 분석 결과를 통해 교사가 학생을 평가하고 피드백하는 데 구체적인 정보를 제공하여 교사의 평가 활동에 보조적인 역할을 할 수 있을 것으로 기대한다.

As information and communication technologies are being developed so rapidly, education research is actively conducted to provide optimal learning for each student using big data and artificial intelligence technology. In this study, using the mathematics learning data of elementary school 5th to 6th graders conducting blended mathematics classes, we tried to find out what factors predict mathematics academic achievement and developed an artificial intelligence model that predicts mathematics academic performance using the results. Math learning propensity, LMS data, and evaluation results of 205 elementary school students had analyzed with a random forest model. Confidence, anxiety, interest, self-management, and confidence in math learning strategy were included as mathematics learning disposition. The progress rate, number of learning times, and learning time of the e-learning site were collected as LMS data. For evaluation data, results of diagnostic test and unit test were used. As a result of the analysis it was found that the mathematics learning strategy was the most important factor in predicting low-achieving students among mathematics learning propensities. The LMS training data had a negligible effect on the prediction. This study suggests that an AI model can predict low-achieving students with learning data generated in a blended math class. In addition, it is expected that the results of the analysis will provide specific information for teachers to evaluate and give feedback to students.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Ahn, M. L., Choi, Y. Y., Bae, Y. H., & Kim, M. H. (2016). A Literature Review on Learning Analytics: Exploratory study of empirical researches utilizing log data in Korea. Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 253-291. https://doi.org/10.17232/KSET.32.2.253
  2. Alharbi, S., & Drew, S. (2014). Using the technology acceptance model in understanding academics' behavioural intention to use learning management systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 5(1), 143-155. https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2014.050120
  3. Biau, G., & Scornet, E. (2016). A random forest guided tour. Test, 25(2), 197-227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11749-016-0488-0
  4. Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Stone, C. J., & Olshen, R. A. (1984). Classification and regression trees. CRC press.
  5. Breiman, L. (1996). Bagging predictors. Machine Learning. 24(2), 123-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00058655
  6. Breiman, L. (2001). Random Forests. Machine Learning. 45(1), 5-32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324
  7. Bureau, A., Dupuis, J., Falls, K., Lunetta, K. L., Hayward, B., Keith, T. P., & Van, E. P. (2005). Identifying SNPs predictive of phenotype using random forests. Genetic Epidemiology: The Official Publication of the International Genetic Epidemiology Society, 28(2), 171-182. https://doi.org/10.1002/gepi.20041
  8. Charles, R. I., & Lester, F. K. (1984). An evaluation of a process-oriented instructional program in mathematical problem solving in grades 5 and 7. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15(1), 15-34. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.15.1.0015
  9. Dani, A. (2016). Students' patterns of interaction with a mathematics intelligent tutor: Learning analytics application. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.07284. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijite.2016.5201
  10. Elias, T. (2011). Learning analytics: Definitions, process and potential. Learning, 23.
  11. Friedman, J. H. (2001). Greedy Function Approximation: A Gradient Boosting Machine. Annals of Statistics, 1189-1232. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1013203451
  12. Hong, H. J. (2017). The Effect of Self Efficacy and Self-Regulated Learning on Learning Persistence in Blended Learning Based Basic Mathematics Class. Journal of Educational Technology, 20(6), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.18108/jeer.2017.20.6.3
  13. Jo, I. H. (2012). Proposal of LAPA (Learning Analytics for Prediction & Action) model. Review of Korean Society of Management Information System Research Seminar 2012, Seoul.
  14. Jo, I. H. (2015). Learning analysis department, learning design, and development of its convergence topography. Review of Conference of Korean Society of Educational Technology, 2015(2), 422-434.
  15. Jo, I. H., Park, Y. J., & KIM, J. H. (2019). Understanding Learning Analytics. Park Young Story
  16. Jo, I., Park, Y., Yoon, M., & Sung, H. (2016). Evaluation of Online log variables that estimate learner's time management in a Korean online learning context. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(1), 195-213. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i1.2176
  17. Jo, Y. S. (2014). Potential and Prospects of Learning Analytics Technology Utilization. Information and Communications Magazine, 31(12), 73-80.
  18. Jordan, M. M., & Duckett, N. D. (2018). Universities Confront 'Tech Disruption': Perceptions of Student Engagement Online Using Two Learning Management Systems. The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology, 10(1), 4.
  19. Kakasevski, G., Mihajlov, M., Arsenovski, S., & Chungurski, S. (2008, June). Evaluating usability in learning management system Moodle. In Iti 2008-30th international conference on information technology interfaces(pp.613-618). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITI.2008.4588480
  20. Ko, H. K., Yang, K. S., & Lee, H. Y. (2015). Development of the Diagnostic Worksheet for Mathematics Academic Counseling. Communications of Mathematical Education, 29(4), 723-743. https://doi.org/10.7468/jksmee.2015.29.4.723
  21. Kim, A. N. (2021). Analysis of Learner Behavior and Learning Performance using LMS Big Data in the COVID-19: Focused on J-University. Korean Association For Learner-Centered Curriculum And Instruction, 21(6), 565-579. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2021.21.8.565
  22. Kim, H. K. (2020). Meta analysis on the improvement of academic performance by the teaching method for underachievers of learning mathematics. The Mathematical Education, 59(1), 31-45. https://doi.org/10.7468/mathedu.2020.59.1.31
  23. Lang, L., & Pirani. J, A. (2014). The Learning Management System Evolution. Research bulletin. Louisville, CO: ECAR, May 20, 2014.
  24. Lim, J. H. (2009). A Study on the Design Strategies of Teaching and Learning Model for Mobile Learning, The Journal of Korean Educational Practice, 8(1), 101-124.
  25. McMillan, J. H. (2014). Classroom Assessment: Principles and Practice for Effective Standards-Based Instruction, 6th Edition. Pearson.
  26. Ministry of Education (2020, May 26). Science, Mathematics, Information, Convergence Education Comprehensive Plan ('20~'24). Ministry of Education. https://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/viewRenew.do?boardID=294&lev=0&statusYN=W&s=moe&m=020402&opType=N&boardSeq=80718
  27. Montebello, M. (2021, August). Personalized Learning Environments. In 2021 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET) (pp. 134-138). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISET52350.2021.00036
  28. Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Herengracht 487, Amsterdam, 1017 BT, The Netherlands.
  29. Murshitha, S. M. (2013). The effect of lecturers' performance on students' LMS adoption. In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium 2013, 19-24.
  30. Nagy, J. (2016). Using learning management systems in business and economics studies in Hungarian higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 21(4), 897-917. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9360-6
  31. Nichols, M. (2003). A theory for eLearning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 6(2), 1-10.
  32. Oviatt, S. (2013, December). Problem solving, domain expertise and learning: Ground-truth performance results for math data corpus. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM on International conference on multimodal interaction (pp. 569-574). https://doi.org/10.1145/2522848.2533791
  33. Park, H. S. (2019). Do it! Introduction to deep learning that you can learn coding honestly. Easyspublishing.
  34. Park, M., Lim H., Kim, J. Y., Lee, K. H., & Kim, M. (2020). The effects on the personalized learning platform with machine learning recommendation modules: Focused on learning time, self-directed learning ability, attitudes toward mathematics, and mathematics achievement. The Mathematical Education, 59(4), 373-387. https://doi.org/10.7468/mathedu.2020.59.4.373
  35. Romero, C., & Ventura, S. (2006). Data mining in e-learning(Vol. 4). Wit Press. https://doi.org/10.2495/1-84564-152-3
  36. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Making sense of "out loud" problem-solving protocols. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 4(2), 171-191.
  37. Shin, S. B., & Cho, H. J. (2021). Correlated variable importance for random forests. The Korean Journal of Applied Statistics, 34(2), 177-190. https://doi.org/10.5351/KJAS.2021.34.2.177
  38. Siemens, G., & Long, P. (2011). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSE review, 46(5), 30.
  39. Tempelaar, D. T., Heck, A., Cuypers, H., Kooij H., & Vrie. E. (2013, April). Formative assessment and learning analytics. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge. Association for Computing Machinery, USA, 205-209. https://doi.org/10.1145/2460296.2460337
  40. Tempelaar, D. T., Rienties, B., & Giesbers, B. (2014). Computer assisted, formative assessment and dispositional Learning Analytics in learning mathematics and statistics. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 439, 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08657-6_7
  41. Wolff, A., Zdrahal, Z., Nikolov, A., & Pantucek, M. (2013, April). Improving retention: predicting at-risk students by analysing clicking behaviour in a virtual learning environment. In Proceedings of the third international conference on learning analytics and knowledge. Association for Computing Machinery, USA, 145-149. https://doi.org/10.1145/2460296.2460324
  42. Qi, Y. (2012). Random forest for bioinformatics. In Zhang, C., Ma, Y. (eds) Ensemble Machine Learning (pp. 307-323). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9326-7_11