PRE2017 3 Groep14: Difference between revisions

From Control Systems Technology Group
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(105 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:
|-
|-
| Ellen Mans
| Ellen Mans
|  
| 0956433
|}
|}


= Learning with Smart Home for Kids =
='''Process'''=
[[Process Group 14]]


= Problem Statement =
='''Report'''=
[[Report group 14]]


== Intelligent Quiz Master ==
='''Peer review and Contributions'''=
'''Idea.''' Use a set of arithmic questions (addition, subtraction, fractions) since then it is easy for us to check if it makes sense.
==Peer review==
Also, since most children have difficulties with arithmic this is actually useful.
As all of us have contributed a lot to this project, there was good communication and we do not have any negative remarks about each other, we decided that each of us deserves the same result. This is why we decided on the following peer review results:
* Abby: 7,5
* Christine: 7,5
* Dennis: 7,5
* Ellen: 7,5
* Sophie: 7,5
Of course there is always room for improvement and our project could have been better, which is why we think 7,5 is a good representation of what we have done.


Given a set of questions, the quiz master will test the knowledge of a child, and help the child improve by asking the right questions at the right time.
==Contributions==
We will build an application that selects the next question to ask the child, based on the previous answers the child gave to previous questions.  
We also had 6 hours of meetings each week, so that makes 7*6 = 42 hours extra for everyone.


The quiz master has to:
* Abby
 
** State of the art - 10 hours
* Find out the level of knowledge the child has, and ask questions that are on the 'edge' of a childs knowledge in order to improve their knowledge.
** Desk research - 5 hours
* Optionally invent new questions, similar to the already existing questions.
** Programming - 40 hours
 
** Wiki - 10 hours
In order to do so, we must:
* Christine
 
** State of the art - 10 hours
* Define '''distance''' (or '''question similarity''') between questions, which questions are of similar difficulty. So cluster questions based on their difficulty. Note that this will vary per child.
** Desk research - 30 hours
* Simulate the (increasing/decreasing) knowledge of different children. (To be able to train our app.)
** Survey - 15 hours
* Construct a (large enough) data set to use parts of it for training and validation.
** Wiki - 10 hours
* Find out what the next '''right''' question would be. Our app should do this, based on the question similarity for a certain child. Educational/psychological: what are the best questions to ask?
** Program design - 5 hours
 
* Dennis
= Users =
** State of the art - 10 hours
* Children
** Presentation - 8 hours
* Parents
** Programming - 45 hours
* Teachers
** Wiki - 10 hours
 
* Ellen
== User Requirements ==
** State of the art - 10 hours
 
** Desk research - 30 hours
 
** Survey - 15 hours
= Approach =
** Wiki - 10 hours
 
** Presentation - 5 hours
== Milestones ==
* Sophie
 
** State of the art - 10 hours
== Deliverables ==
** Presentation slides and demo - 5 hours
 
** Programming - 45 hours
 
** Wiki - 10 hours
= Who does what? Planning =
 
 
= State of the Art Literature Study =
 
About similar questions, though used more on Q&A sites to find similar questions. This is not based on difficulty.
<ref> A Topic Clustering Approach to Finding Similar Questions from Large Question and Answer Archives, from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071511&type=printable</ref>
<ref> ''Deepa Paranjpe'', Clustering Semantically Similar and Related Questions, from https://nlp.stanford.edu/courses/cs224n/2007/fp/paranjpe.pdf</ref>
 
Chapter 7 and/or 8, about knowledge and learning paths (mathematically).
<ref> Knowledge Spaces, Chapters 7,8, from https://link-springer-com.dianus.libr.tue.nl/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-58625-5.pdf</ref>
 
Shows that nowadays the educational aspects in interactive systems is often too separate ("chocolate-covered broccoli") and extrinsic. To create learning systems that work it is important to make them intrinsically motivating. You have to keep in mind that people have to actually use the system, so make it in such a way that they want to. Remember, the primary users will be children.
<ref> ''Habgood, M.P.J. and Ainsworth, S.E.'', Motivating children to learn effectively: exploring the value
of intrinsic integration in educational games, from http://shura.shu.ac.uk/3556/1/Habgood_Ainsworth_final.pdf</ref>
 
"Based on the gathered information the next scene presented to the player should be determined in a way such that the learner is neither unchallenged nor overwhelmed by the complexity of the contained tasks. It should rather be ensured that the learner’s knowledge is steadily increased up to full knowledge mastery."
<ref> ''Göbel, S., Wendel, V., Ritter, C., and Steinmetz, R.'', Personalized, Adaptive Digital Educational Games using Narrative Game-based Learning Objects, from ftp://dmz02.kom.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de/papers/GWRS10_507.pdf</ref>
This line perfectly captures what we want to achieve. This paper is about how we can make systems adaptive in such a way that they can adapt to the needs and level of its user.
 
80Days is a game that is comparable to what we want to achieve. However this is a full on computer game while we want an interactive home system. The adaptation principle is relatable which is why it could be nice to base our system on this game.
<ref> ''Kickmeier-Rust, M.D., Göbel, S., and Albert, D.'', 80Days: Melding Adaptive Educational Technology and Adaptive and Interactive Storytelling in Digital Educational Games, from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-386/p02.pdf</ref>
 
In the ELEKTRA game they use unobtrusive knowledge assessment to see the user's level of knowledge.
<ref> ''Kickmeier-Rust, M. D., Hockemeyer, C., Albert, D., & Augustin, T.'', Micro adaptive, non-invassive assessment in educational games, from http://css-kti.tugraz.at/research/cssarchive/publicdocs/publications/kickmeier-rust_adaptivity.pdf</ref>
They do this by observing the user's behaviour in the game. If we can do something similar but in real life, as a smart home will be able to notice the residents behaviour, we can use this technology to assess the childs level and what he needs from the educational system such that he will get personalized assignments.
 
Paper about using smart homes to learn about human behaviour.
<ref> ''Brdiczka, O., Langet, M., Miasonnasse, J., and Crowley, J.L.'', Detecting Human Behavior Models From Multimodal Observation in a Smart Home, from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1fa3/5bbda418228e59ab49bb4aff302701f21583.pdf</ref>
This could be used for multiple things in our project like the knowledge assessment mentioned above, or checking whether or not the user (child) has some free time that he can use interacting with the system and thus learning. There is a need for pattern recognition in this behaviour.
 
= References =
<references/>


='''Coaching Questions'''=
[[Coaching Questions Group 14]]
[[Coaching Questions Group 14]]

Latest revision as of 14:21, 4 April 2018

Student Student Number
Abby Berkers 0951825
Dennis van den Berg 0949036
Sophie van den Eerenbeemt 0954445
Christine Ingwersen 0952530
Ellen Mans 0956433

Process

Process Group 14

Report

Report group 14

Peer review and Contributions

Peer review

As all of us have contributed a lot to this project, there was good communication and we do not have any negative remarks about each other, we decided that each of us deserves the same result. This is why we decided on the following peer review results:

  • Abby: 7,5
  • Christine: 7,5
  • Dennis: 7,5
  • Ellen: 7,5
  • Sophie: 7,5

Of course there is always room for improvement and our project could have been better, which is why we think 7,5 is a good representation of what we have done.

Contributions

We also had 6 hours of meetings each week, so that makes 7*6 = 42 hours extra for everyone.

  • Abby
    • State of the art - 10 hours
    • Desk research - 5 hours
    • Programming - 40 hours
    • Wiki - 10 hours
  • Christine
    • State of the art - 10 hours
    • Desk research - 30 hours
    • Survey - 15 hours
    • Wiki - 10 hours
    • Program design - 5 hours
  • Dennis
    • State of the art - 10 hours
    • Presentation - 8 hours
    • Programming - 45 hours
    • Wiki - 10 hours
  • Ellen
    • State of the art - 10 hours
    • Desk research - 30 hours
    • Survey - 15 hours
    • Wiki - 10 hours
    • Presentation - 5 hours
  • Sophie
    • State of the art - 10 hours
    • Presentation slides and demo - 5 hours
    • Programming - 45 hours
    • Wiki - 10 hours

Coaching Questions

Coaching Questions Group 14

Retrieved from "https://dsdwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep14&oldid=53836"