1. DECISION MODULE
Adapting Learning Paths in Serious Games
based on CbKST and teachers’ decisions
Javier Melero & Naïma El-Kechaï
November 20, 2015

2. OVERVIEW
2 | 16
Competence-based Knowledge Space Theory (CbKST)
Requirements from Play Serious Project
for adapting Serious Games (SGs)
To propose an alternative approach
to create competence structures
To propose recommendation strategies
based on teachers’ requirements
To propose a solution to create
well-connected competence structures
Implementation of a Decision Module and an Authoring Tool
based on CbKST and adapted to teachers’ requirements
“Complete” Evaluation of the approaches based on
CbKST and the recommendation strategies
Preliminary Evaluation
CONTEXT
CHALLENGES
PROPOSED SOLUTION
EVALUATION

3. CONTEXT
3 | 16
Competence-based Knowledge Space Theory (CbKST)
Requirements from Play Serious Project
for adapting Serious Games (SGs)
CONTEXT
CbKST (Heller et al., 2006):
• Allows adaptation in SGs by modelling a knowledge domain as a formal structure of
admissible and meaningful competence states on the basis of prerequisite relations
among the competences
• Activities of SGs are related to the competences worked on
• Three main concepts: prerequisite relations, competence states (CSs) and the
competence structure
e
cd
b
a
{ }
{a} {d}
{a, b} {a, d}
{a, b, d}{a, b, c}
{a, b, c, d}
{a, b, c, d, e}
Play Serious Project:
• To propose adaptive tools for modifying
learning paths of SGs
• Teachers’ requirements:
S1. To allow learners progressing
autonomously and gradually to achieve all
competences of a knowledge domain
S2. To allow teachers specifying a subset
of competences to work on, as well as the
degree of achievement as prerequisites to
let their learners move forward in the
following stages
S3. To offer teachers the possibility to
choose specific competences to let their
learners to progress to a higher advanced
competence level
ISSUE: Modelling knowledge domains can be time-consuming and a tough task for experts, mainly
because of the difficulties in defining dependencies between competences of a given domain
(Falmagne et al., 2006)

4. CHALLENGES (1/2)
4 | 16
To propose an alternative approach to
create competence structures
To propose recommendation strategies based
on teachers’ requirements
To propose a solution to create
well-connected competence structures
CHALLENGES
Three strategies proposed:
S1. “Advancing”: Considers the learner’s
proficiency level and proposes activities that
work on the maximum number of
competences
S2. “Reinforcing”: Allows the learner
reinforcing a set of competences that have
not met a minimum threshold
S3. “Deepening”: Allows the learner
becoming expert of certain competences that
has mastered within a knowledge domain
Approach based on the Q-Matrix:
• Complementary and simplified approach to build the competence structure that
considers only the competences worked on in the SG activities
• The Q-matrix (Tatsuoka, 1983) that contains the mapping between activities and
their worked competences
Activities
of a SG
Worked competences
Competence
states
[a]
[e] [f]
[b] [c]
Level 1 X [c]
Level 2 X X [b, c]
Level 3 X X X [b, c, e]
Level 4 X X X [b, c, e]
Level 5 X X X [b, c, e]
Level 6 X X X X [b, c, d, e]
Level 7 X X X X [b, c, d, e]
Level 8 X X X X [b, c, d, e]
Level 9 X X X X [b, c, d, e]
Level 10 X X X X [b, c, d, e]
Table. Example of the proposed Q-Matrix for Blockly: Maze
ISSUE: Competence structures
could be not well-connected
Figure. Example of the competence structure
of Cristaux d’Éhère based on the Q-Matrix

5. CHALLENGES (2/2)
5 | 16
To propose an alternative approach to
create competence structures
To propose recommendation strategies based
on teachers’ requirements
To propose a solution to create
well-connected competence structures
CHALLENGES
Preliminary Evaluation:
• Preliminary evaluation of the strategies in the SG Cristaux d’Ehere:
• From an algorithmic point of view, The results obtained by the
strategies were validated compared with the expected results
• A co-designer involved in the implementation of the SG also validated
the obtained results
Lessons learnt from building the competence structures of 3 SGs:
• The competence structure obtained from the domain model can be used as
an approach to validate the design of SG activities
• The competence structures derived by Q-Matrices are simpler than those
generated by domain models
• Competence structures derived by domain models are more complete
since they cover a larger scope than those derived by Q-Matrices
• All CSs of a competence structure built by the Q-Matrix contain activities
since each CS is built by the set of competences worked on by the SG
activities
• Competence structures built by domain models may contain a large
number of CSs that are not linked to activities
• The competences have to be described at a suitable level of granularity
• There can be gaps between CSs in both approaches
CONTRIBUTION AT (submitted):
• 23rd Conference on User Modelling, Adaptation and Personalization [UMAP 2015]
CONTRIBUTIONS AT (submitted):
• 7ème Conférence sur les Environnements Informatiques pour l’Apprentissage
Humain [EIAH 2015]
• 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education [CSEDU 2015]
Current
competence
state
Subset of
competences
(if applicable)
Activities
done
System
confidence
Suggested activity
Advancing Deeping Reinforcing
Initial state =ø - None - La porte gelée None None
Initial state =ø -
La porte
gelée
-
Les
thermomètres
None None
{h, i}
“h” (Reinforcing)
“i” (Deepening)
None
0.3 : “h”
0.7 : “i”
La machine à
cube
Remédiation
La porte
gelée
{h, i}
“h” (Reinforcing)
“i” (Deepening)
La machine
à cube
0.3 : “h”
0.7 : “i”
Les deux fluides Remédiation
La porte
gelée

6. PROPOSED SOLUTION (1/10)
6 | 16
Implementation of a Decision Module and an Authoring Tool based on CbKST and adapted to teachers’ requirements
PROPOSED SOLUTION
Decision Module:
Adapted from the model proposed by
Kopeinik et al. (2012). Main differences:
• Recreational activities
• Teachers’ decisions
Main Components of the Decision
Module:
• The Domain Model of a SG
• The recreational competences
• The list of activities (or levels)
• The Learner Model
• The recommendation strategies
that the teacher can choose
Authoring Tool:
Teachers can specified the following
information:
• The CbKST approach to build the
competence structure
• The recommendation strategies
• Sorting activities by difficulty
• The subset of competences to be trained
and the threshold value to suggest
potential next activities
Domain Model
Pedagogical competences and
prerequisite relations
Learner Model
Competence performance values
(confidence)
Pedag. Competence 1[0,1]
Pedag. Competence 2[0,1]
Pedag. Competence 3[0,1]
Pedag. Competence 4[0,1]
List of SG activities
Activity 1 (Pedag. competences)
Activity 2 (Pedag. competences)
Activity 3 (Recr. competences)
Activity 4 (Pedag. and recr.
competences)
Adaptation Strategies
“ADVANCING” – “REINFORCING” – “DEEPENING”
NEXT ACTIVITY
Recreational
Competences
ThresholdSubset of competences Sort activities by difficulty
Teacher’s decisions

7. PROPOSED SOLUTION (2/10)
7 | 16
Implementation of a Decision Module and an Authoring Tool based on CbKST and adapted to teachers’ requirements
PROPOSED SOLUTION
Implementation of the “Advancing” Strategy:
Activity done
NEXT ACTIVITY SUGGESTED
1
{ }
{a} {d}
{a, b} {a, d}
{a, b, d}{a, b, c}
{a, b, c, d}
{a, b, c, d, e}
Current
competence state
{ }
{a} {d}
{a, b} {a, d}
{a, b, d}{a, b, c}
{a, b, c, d}
{a, b, c, d, e}
Possible next competence
states
{ }
{a} {d}
{a, b} {a, d}
{a, b, d}{a, b, c}
{a, b, c, d}
{a, b, c, d, e}
Selected
competence state
Activity
1
Activity
N
2 3

8. PROPOSED SOLUTION (3/10)
8 | 16
Implementation of a Decision Module and an Authoring Tool based on CbKST and adapted to teachers’ requirements
PROPOSED SOLUTION
Implementation of the “Reinforcing” and “Deepening” Strategies:
1
{ }
{a} {d}
{a, b} {a, d}
{a, b, d}{a, b, c}
{a, b, c, d}
{a, b, c, d, e}
Current
competence state
2
{ }
{a} {d}
{a, b} {a, d}
{a, b, d}{a, b, c}
{a, b, c, d}
{a, b, c, d, e}
Selected
competence
Possible states to
look for activities that
work the selected
competence
3
{ }
{a} {d}
{a, b} {a, d}
{a, b, d}{a, b, c}
{a, b, c, d}
{a, b, c, d, e}
Activity
1
Activity
N
NEXT
ACTIVITY
SUGGESTEDactivity done
Competence state that
contains the selected
competence and activities
to be performed
NOTE: The percentage of achievement of
competence ‘a’ is below above a certain
threshold indicated by the teacher

9. PROPOSED SOLUTION (4/10)
9 | 16
Implementation of a Decision Module and an Authoring Tool based on CbKST and adapted to teachers’ requirements
PROPOSED SOLUTION
Implementation of the competence structure based on the Q-Matrix: Overview (1/7)
Create competence states
End
Start
Build the competence structure
Is there a CS
with all the competences?
Create a competence state that contains all the competences from the list of SG activities
no
yes
Do all CSs contain successors?
Do all CSs contain predecessors?
yes
yes
Look at the successors of all competence states
Look at the predecessors of all competence states
Creates new predecessors if the competence state does not have
no
no
Creates new successors if the competence state does not have

10. PROPOSED SOLUTION (5/10)
10 | 16
Implementation of a Decision Module and an Authoring Tool based on CbKST and adapted to teachers’ requirements
PROPOSED SOLUTION
Implementation of the competence structure based on the Q-Matrix : Creation of Successors (2/7)
1
CSs without successors

11. PROPOSED SOLUTION (6/10)
11 | 16
Implementation of a Decision Module and an Authoring Tool based on CbKST and adapted to teachers’ requirements
PROPOSED SOLUTION
Implementation of the competence structure based on the Q-Matrix : Creation of Successors (3/7)
[a], [b], [c]
[e]
Competences different
from the CS not linked:
Competences from the
CS not linked:CS not linked
Closest
successors
2 3

12. PROPOSED SOLUTION (7/10)
12 | 16
Implementation of a Decision Module and an Authoring Tool based on CbKST and adapted to teachers’ requirements
PROPOSED SOLUTION
Implementation of the competence structure based on the Q-Matrix : Creation of Successors (4/7)
[a], [b], [c]
[e]
Competences different from the CS not linked:
Competences from the CS not linked:
COMBINATIONS OF COMPETENCES TO
GENERATE NEW CSs
These competences are
fixed in the combinations
These competences vary
in the combinations
[b, e] [a, e] [c, e]
4

13. PROPOSED SOLUTION (8/10)
13 | 16
Implementation of a Decision Module and an Authoring Tool based on CbKST and adapted to teachers’ requirements
PROPOSED SOLUTION
Implementation of the competence structure based on the Q-Matrix : Creation of Predecessors (5/7)
CSs without predecessors
1

14. PROPOSED SOLUTION (9/10)
14 | 16
Implementation of a Decision Module and an Authoring Tool based on CbKST and adapted to teachers’ requirements
PROPOSED SOLUTION
Implementation of the competence structure based on the Q-Matrix : Creation of Predecessors (6/7)
[f], [i], [j]
[e]
Competences different from
the “closest” previous CS:
Competences from the
“closest” previous CS :
CS not linked
“Closest” previous CS in
which all its competences
are in the CS not linked
2 3

15. PROPOSED SOLUTION (10/10)
15 | 16
Implementation of a Decision Module and an Authoring Tool based on CbKST and adapted to teachers’ requirements
PROPOSED SOLUTION
Implementation of the competence structure based on the Q-Matrix : Creation of Predecessors (7/7)
4
[f], [i], [j]
[e]
Competences different from the “closest” previous CS:
Competences from the “closest” previous CS :
COMBINATIONS OF COMPETENCES TO
GENERATE NEW CSs
These competences are
fixed in the combinations
These competences vary
in the combinations

16. CONTRIBUTIONS
16 | 16
Competence-based Knowledge Space Theory (CbKST)
Requirements from Play Serious
Project for adapting Serious Games
(SGs)
To propose an alternative
approach to create
competence structures
To propose recommendation
strategies based on teachers’
requirements
To propose a solution to create
well-connected competence
structures
Implementation of a Decision Module and an Authoring Tool
based on CbKST and adapted to teachers’ requirements
“Complete” Evaluation of the approaches based
on CbKST and the recommendation strategies
Preliminary Evaluation and Testing with
Blockly Maze, Cristaux d’Éhère, and Refraction
CONTEXT
CHALLENGES
PROPOSED SOLUTION
EVALUATION
CONTRIBUTIONS AT (submitted):
[EIAH 2015]
7ème Conférence sur les Environnements
Informatiques pour l’Apprentissage Humain
[CSEDU 2015]
7th International Conference on Computer
Supported Education
[UMAP 2015]
23rd Conference on User Modelling,
Adaptation and Personalization
CONTRIBUTIONS:
• Software
• Technical Documentation
EXPECTED CONTRIBUTION:
• Journal Paper with the “Complete”
Evaluation





17. THANKS!
DECISION
MODULE
Javier Melero & Naïma El-Kechaï
November 20, 2015