Submitted:
29 December 2025
Posted:
30 December 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
- RQ1:
- How can a fast and efficient Knowledge Tracing model, based on BoW-inspired representation of student knowledge, be developed to effectively identify learning gaps through pre- and Post- test assessments?
- RQ2:
- What is the impact of personalized content recommendations generated by the DK-PRACTICE platform, and how do they improve learning outcomes?
- RQ3:
- How could the DK-PRACTICE platform enhance the educational process, and how could its use be extended to other educational topics?
2. Related Works
3. Background Technologies
4. The DK-PRACTICE Platform
- Accurately estimate students’ current knowledge states,
- Predict their future performance on subsequent personalized questions,
- Recommend targeted instructional content to address specific learning objectives, concepts, and skills where deficiencies have been identified,
- Support users’ roles.
4.1. The DK-PRACTICE Platform Architecture and Functionalities
- The Knowledge Tracing component to predict student’s performance and to estimate the student’s knowledge state.
- The Recommendation component to produce educational content recommendations.
4.2. Data Model
- Examination questions,
- The corresponding underlying concepts,
- The chapters containing the educational content of the course,
- Students’ submitted answers across different examination periods.
4.3. Knowledge Tracing Component
- If (incorrect answer), then and .
- If , (correct answer) then and .
- A subset of 10 questions is randomly selected to form the query set for training. The remaining questions are designated as the evaluation set.
- The PB-BoW vector representation, , is generated for the query set. This vector has a length of and serves as the input to the classification module.
- The target vector, , for the classification module is constructed using the responses from the evaluation set. All elements of are equal to except for each evaluation question with response , where we set . Therefore, unanswered questions have target value , allowing us to exclude them when calculating the loss of the classifier.
| Algorithm 1 Generate Training Samples for PB-BoW KT |
![]() |
4.3.1. The Classification Module
- Input Layer: neurons
-
Hidden Layers: Three fully-connected hidden layers.
- -
- Layer 1: 15 neurons.
- -
- Layer 2: 10 neurons.
- -
- Layer 3: 5 neurons.
- Output Layer: neurons. Each neuron corresponds to a question, and its value between 0 and 1, predicts the probability of a correct response.
4.4. Recommendation Component
4.4.1. Next Question Recommendation
- the set of Potential questions, , which remain eligible to be asked as the next question;
- the set of Answered questions that are ineligible to be asked again.
- The asked question is moved from to :
- For each , the recommendation model computes the predicted probability of a correct response based on the student’s estimated knowledge state vector :
- The next question is selected as the one whose probability of correct response is closest to 0.5:thereby targeting questions for which the model is maximally uncertain.
4.4.2. Educational Content Recommendation
4.5. Knowledge Tracing Experiments and Results
4.6. The DK-PRACTICE Platform Implementation
- with the “administrator” role (Figure 5). Beyond the general oversight of the platform, the administrator is tasked with the: (a) establishment of courses, (b) the registration of tutors, and (c) the allocation of course management responsibilities to the corresponding tutors.
- with the “tutor” role have the permissions to create a test (Figure 6) by entering all the relevant information and to set parameters such as starting and ending date and time (Figure 7), and monitor the students’ performance individually and in groups per Test (Figure 8). The ability to monitor test results enables the teacher to have an overview of the class’s knowledge state regarding the specific course, and indeed for each educational object or concept.
-
with the “student” role can choose the course (Figure 9) and perform the tests set by corresponding “tutor” (Figure 10). Additionally, each “student” has access to previous test performances to view the results. In Figure 11, the results of the user Student 1 are shown after running a Test (for example, the Test on 01-05-2025):
- –
- The success rate in the test, and whether the questions were answered correctly or incorrectly (green color - correct answer, red color - incorrect answer)
- –
- Personalized recommendations are generated by incorporating educational content and estimating the rate of knowledge mastering through the knowledge tracing component. A lower percentage associated with a given educational content item corresponds to a larger proportion of red in the visual bar representation, indicating knowledge gaps in the concepts associated with this educational content.
- –
- The knowledge state, represented as the percentage of mastery for each concept, is derived from the knowledge tracing component following the completion of the test. The green segment of the bar chart visualizes the proportion of knowledge acquired in the concepts taught within the specific course.
5. The Case Study
5.1. Pre-Test Description
-
Pre-Test User Experience
- (a)
- Navigation on the platform was smooth and seamless
- (b)
- The platform’s features met my expectations
- (c)
- Using the platform was easy and intuitive
- (d)
- The design of the platform is pleasant and user-friendly
- (e)
- The layout of the environment was logical and clear.
-
Knowledge Assessment and Impact on Learning
- (a)
- The test accurately captured my knowledge in the course
- (b)
- The platform was able to identify my strengths and weaknesses
- (c)
- I trust the knowledge assessment process followed by the platform
- (d)
- This experience helped me understand where I needed improvement
- (e)
- I felt that the platform was adapted to my needs
-
Willingness to Use the Platform in the Future
- (a)
- I would continue to use the platform in other courses
- (b)
- I would recommend the platform to other students
5.2. Post-Test Description
-
Post-Test User Experience
- (a)
- The presentation of the material was organized and understandable
- (b)
- I would use the platform again to test my knowledge
- (c)
- My overall experience with the platform has been positive
- (d)
- Use of the platform was pleasant
- (e)
- I felt that the platform understood my learning needs
- (f)
- I feel that the platform has contributed to my progress
- (g)
- I have a better picture of my weaknesses after this experience
- (h)
- The personalization of the proposals was evident and useful
- (i)
- I feel that I am better prepared for the exam
-
Effectiveness of Recommendations
- (a)
- The content was relevant to the points I was lacking
- (b)
- The suggested material helped me to better understand the subject matter
- (c)
- The test of the second experiment recorded my progress
- (d)
- The proposals met my real needs
- (e)
- My progress from the first to the second test was evident
- (f)
- I would use the platform again to test my knowledge
-
Willingness to use the platform by students
- (a)
- I would continue to use the platform in other courses
- (b)
- I would recommend the platform to other students
5.3. Evaluation
-
User Experience: In terms of user experience, the evaluation was conducted in two phases. The first phase was implemented during the final stage of system development, during which the platform was subjected to testing to identify usability-related improvements. The evaluation highlighted issues concerning the visual presentation of questions, the display of results upon test completion, and the functionality of the password recovery mechanism. Following the incorporation of the necessary modifications, these issues were resolved, thereby ensuring the platform’s readiness for deployment in the “Computer Organization and Architecture” course.The second phase of the usability evaluation was carried out by the students who engaged with the platform during the two testing sessions. In both evaluations, students reported a positive user experience with the DK-PRACTICE platform.The survey results of the “Pre-Test”, presented in the chart (Figure 14) demonstrate an overall positive evaluation of the intelligent knowledge tracing platform by higher education students. The highest levels of agreement were recorded for the statement “Using the platform was easy and intuitive”, with 48.39% agreeing and 38.71% strongly agreeing, indicating that the platform’s usability is one of its strongest features. Similarly, the layout of the environment was well received, with 41.94% agreeing and 38.71% strongly agreeing that it was logical and clear.The design of the platform was also evaluated positively, with 29.03% agreement and 38.71% strong agreement, though this item received the highest proportion of neutral responses (29.03%). Regarding functionality, 35.48% of students agreed and another 35.48% strongly agreed that the platform’s features met their expectations, although 9.68% disagreed, suggesting some room for improvement. Navigation was perceived as smooth and seamless by most respondents (32.26% agreed, 38.71% strongly agreed), although 25.81% remained neutral. In summary, the findings show that the DK-PRACTICE platform is largely intuitive, user-friendly, and effective, with only a small minority reporting dissatisfaction. These results highlight strengths in ease of use and logical design, while pointing to opportunities for further refinement of features and overall design appeal.Based on questionnaire answers after the “Post-Test” (Figure 15, most respondents expressed satisfaction, with notable percentages agreeing or strongly agreeing with key statements about platform usefulness. Specifically, 72.06% felt the material was well-organized, understandable, and enjoyable to use. Additionally, students overwhelmingly believed the platform was beneficial for their learning; a combined 73.53% of users agreed or strongly agreed that it contributed to their progress and helped them identify their weaknesses more effectively. The most positive feedback centered on the intention to reuse the platform, as 70.59% of respondents would use it again to test their knowledge, demonstrating strong support for its effectiveness as a learning tool.
-
Platform Effectiveness: This axis relates to the effectiveness of the services offered, specifically the assessment of knowledge state and the educational recommendations during Pre-/Post- tests performed by students.The findings of the quality assurance questionnaire after “Pre-Test” indicate that students mostly viewed the intelligent knowledge tracing platform DK-PRACTICE primarily positively (Figure 16). Most respondents chose “Agree” on all five items, with especially high agreement for the statements “This experience helped me understand where I needed improvement” and “I trust the knowledge assessment process followed by the platform”, both surpassing 60%. A significant number of students also strongly agreed, especially regarding the platform’s ability to identify individual strengths and weaknesses and accurately assess their knowledge. Neutral responses were moderate, while reports of disagreement or strong disagreement were minimal. These results show that students generally see the platform as effective, reliable, and helpful for their learning, highlighting its potential value in higher education.The “Post-Test” quality assurance questionnaire, given to higher education students, highlights both the high use and perceived effectiveness of the DK-PRACTICE platform’s recommendation system. As shown in Figure 17, most respondents actively engaged with the recommendations. Specifically, 36.76% reported a moderate level of use (score of 3 on a 5-point scale), while a significant number of students indicated a high degree of use, with 30.88% selecting a score of 4 and 16.18% choosing the highest score of 5. These results suggest that the platform’s recommendations were considered valuable enough to encourage active engagement, supporting the platform’s role as a tool for personalized learning.Further analysis of the survey data, as shown in Figure 18, confirms the high effectiveness of these recommendations from the students’ point of view. Most students agreed or strongly agreed with the statements, indicating a positive user experience. Notably, over 50% of respondents agreed that “The content was relevant to the points I was lacking” and that “The proposals met my real needs”. Additionally, a large percentage of students felt that the “suggested material helped me to understand the subject matter better” and that “The test of the second experiment recorded my progress”.These results collectively highlight the platform’s success in providing targeted and useful content that genuinely helps students improve academically.
6. Results and Discussion
7. Conclusions and Future Works
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| KT | Knowledge Tracing |
| PB-BoW | Paired-Bipolar Bag-of-Words |
| BoW | Bag of Words |
| RNN | Recurrent Neural Network |
| ML | Machine Learning |
| AI | Artificial Intelligence |
| BKT | Bayesian Knowledge Tracing |
| IRT | Item Response Theory |
| DKT | Deep Knowledge Tracing |
| DKVMN | Key-Value Memory Networks |
| SAKT | Self-Attentive Knowledge Tracing |
| GIKT | Graph-based Knowledge Tracing |
| KSGAN | Knowledge Structure-aware Graph Attention Network |
| EKT | Exercise-Enhanced Sequential Modeling |
| KT-BiGRU | Knowledge Tracing Bidirectional Gated Recurrent Unit |
| GPU | Graphics Processing Unit |
References
- Anbu, K. Enhancing physics education through artificial intelligence tools. Scientia: The International Journal for Research 2025, 2, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- PhET Interactive Simulations. University of Colorado Boulder, 2018. Available online: https://phet.colorado.edu.
- Labster Virtual Labs. 2025. Available online: https://www.labster.com (accessed on July 2025).
- ChatGPT by OpenAI. Accessed July 2025. 2022.
- Squirrel AI Learning. 2025. Available online: https://www.squirrelai.com.
- IBM Watson Education. 2025. Available online: https://www.ibm.com/watson-education.
- Corbett, A.T.; Anderson, J.R. Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 1995, 4, 253–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, F.B. The basics of item response theory. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Piech, C.; Bassen, J.; Huang, J.; Ganguli, S.; Sahami, M.; Guibas, L.; Sohl-Dickstein, J. Deep knowledge tracing. Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2015, Vol. 28, 505–513. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Y.; Shen, J.; Qu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Wang, K.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, W.; Yu, Y. GIKT: A graph-based interaction model for knowledge tracing. arXiv arXiv:2009.05991. [CrossRef]
- Knewton Alta. 2020. Available online: https://www.knewton.com.
- Carnegie Learning – MATHia. 2025. Available online: https://www.carnegielearning.com.
- Fu, S.; et al. AdvKT: An Adversarial Multi-Step Training Framework for Knowledge Tracing. arXiv arXiv:2401.12578.
- Ghosh, S.; Ranjan, P.; Drachsler, H.; Iqbal, Q.; Chakraborty, S.; Yau, J.Y.K. TrueLearn: A family of Bayesian algorithms to match lifelong learners to open educational resources. Proceedings of the Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2020, Vol. 34, 3555–3562. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Z.; Yazdanpanah, V.; Wang, J.; Gu, W.; Shi, L.; Cristea, A.I.; Kiden, S.; Stein, S. TutorLLM: Customizing learning recommendations with knowledge tracing and retrieval-augmented generation. arXiv arXiv:2502.15709.
- Wang, H.; Wu, Q.; Bao, C.; Ji, W.; Zhou, G. Research on knowledge tracing based on learner fatigue state. Complex & Intelligent Systems 2025, 11, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corbett, A.T.; Anderson, J.R. Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User modeling and user-adapted interaction 1994, 4, 253–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Shi, X.; King, I.; Yeung, D.Y. Dynamic key-value memory networks for knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW), 2017; ACM; pp. 765–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandey, S.; Karypis, G. Self-attentive knowledge tracing. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM), 2019; pp. 384–389. [Google Scholar]
- Tong, S.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, E.; Nie, J.Y. EKT: Exercise-enhanced sequential modeling for student performance prediction. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 2020, 34, 2340–2353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delianidi, M.; Diamantaras, K.I. KT-Bi-GRU: Student Performance Prediction with a Bi-Directional Recurrent Knowledge Tracing Neural Network. Journal of Educational Data Mining 2023, 15, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
- Reddy, A.A.; Harper, M. ALEKS-based Placement at the University of Illinois. In Knowledge Spaces: Applications in Education; Falmagne, J.C., Albert, D., Doble, C., Eppstein, D., Hu, X., Eds.; Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013; pp. 51–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Settles, B.; Meeder, B. A Trainable Spaced Repetition Model for Language Learning. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics; Berlin, Germany, Erk, K., Smith, N.A., Eds.; 2016; Volume 1, pp. 1848–1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mao, S.; Zhan, J.; Deng, Y.; Qin, Y.; Jiang, Y. Improving exercise-level knowledge tracing via knowledge concept-based memory network. Expert Systems with Applications 2025, 284, 127825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Long, T.; Yin, L.; Chang, Y.; Xia, W.; Yu, Y. Simulating Question-answering Correctness with a Conditional Diffusion. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025, New York, NY, USA, 2025; pp. 5173–5182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, C.; Liu, X.; Tang, M.; Li, X. The impact of AI-based adaptive learning technologies on motivation and engagement of higher education students. Computers & Education 2025. [Google Scholar]
- Hegde, V.; Vishrutha, M.; Shanthappa, P.M.; Bhat, R.; Raveendran, N.; Roshin, C. Analysing learning behaviour: A data-driven approach to improve time management and active listening skills in students. MethodsX 2025, 14, 103262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kotsiantis, S.; Pierrakeas, C.; Pintelas, P. Predicting Students’ Performance in Distance Learning Using Machine Learning Techniques. Applied Artificial Intelligence 2004, 18, 411–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holmes, W.; Bialik, M.; Fadel, C. Artificial intelligence in education promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Cybenko, G. Approximations by superpositions of a sigmoidal function. Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems 1989, 2, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hornik, K.; Stinchcombe, M.; White, H. Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators. Neural Networks 1989, 2, 359–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- LeCun, Y.; Bengio, Y.; Hinton, G. Deep learning. nature 2015, 521, 436–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krizhevsky, A.; Sutskever, I.; Hinton, G.E. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems 2012, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodfellow, I.; Bengio, Y.; Courville, A. Deep Learning; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, W.; Yang, T. A recommendation system of personalized resource reliability for online teaching system under large-scale user access. Mobile Networks and Applications 2023, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hukkeri, G.S.; Goudar, R. Machine Learning-Based Personalized Recommendation System for E-Learners. In Proceedings of the 2022 Third International Conference on Smart Technologies in Computing, Electrical and Electronics (ICSTCEE), 2022; IEEE; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Da Silva, F.L.; Slodkowski, B.K.; Da Silva, K.K.A.; Cazella, S.C. A systematic literature review on educational recommender systems for teaching and learning: research trends, limitations and opportunities. Education and information technologies 2023, 28, 3289–3328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Deschênes, M. Recommender systems to support learners’ Agency in a Learning Context: a systematic review. International journal of educational technology in higher education 2020, 17, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Troussas, C.; Krouska, A. Path-Based Recommender System for Learning Activities Using Knowledge Graphs. Information 2023, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, T.Y.; McCalla, G. Smart recommendation for an evolving e-learning system: Architecture and experiment. Proceedings of the International Journal on E-Learning 2005, Vol. 4, 105–129. [Google Scholar]
- Manouselis, N.; Drachsler, H.; Verbert, K.; Duval, E. Recommender Systems for Learning; Springer, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roy, D.; Dutta, M. A systematic review and research perspective on recommender systems. Journal of Big Data 2022, 9, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qader, W.A.; Ameen, M.M.; Ahmed, B.I. An Overview of Bag of Words;Importance, Implementation, Applications, and Challenges. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Engineering Conference (IEC), 2019; pp. 200–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
| 1 |
if , and 0 otherwise. |
| 2 | |
| 3 | Welcome to Flask - Flask documentation, https://flask.palletsprojects.com/en/3.0.x/
|
| 4 | Welcome to Flask - Sequrity documentation, https://flask-security-too.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
|




















| Dataset | Questions | Students | Interactions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Train | Test | Total | Train | Test | ||
| ASSISTment 2009 | 101 | 818 | 556 | 262 | 23,722 | 16,511 | 7,211 |
| ASSISTment 2017 | 101 | 1,641 | 1,144 | 497 | 69,712 | 47,856 | 21,856 |
| COaA Course | 120 | 1,115 | 891 | 224 | 19,339 | 15,555 | 3,784 |
| Dataset | PB-BoW KT model | KT-BiGRU model | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC | Accuracy | AUC | Accuracy | |
| ASSISTment 2009 | 0.765 | 0.760 | 0.753 | 0.713 |
| ASSISTment 2017 | 0.733 | 0.700 | 0.716 | 0.686 |
| COaA Course | 0.805 | 0.787 | 0.736 | 0.706 |
| Concept_name | Chapter | Concept_name | Chapter |
|---|---|---|---|
| CPU structure, | 1.1 | Interrupts, | 3.2 |
| Organization & Architecture. | Instruction cycles, | ||
| Microelectronics, | 1.2 | Instruction phases. | |
| Moore’s Law. | QPI. | 3.5 | |
| History. | 1.3 | PCI. | 3.6 |
| Embedded systems, | 1.5 | Cache mapping. | 4.3 |
| Microcontrollers. | Semiconductor memory, | 5.1 | |
| ARM architecture. | 1.6 | ROM. | |
| Cloud computing. | 1.7 | Error correction. | 5.2 |
| Design for performance, | 2.1 | DDR Memory, | 5.3 |
| Performance balance. | SDRAM. | ||
| Performance laws. | 2.3 | Flash memory. | 5.4 |
| Execution rate, | 2.4 | Magnetic disk organization. | 6.1 |
| Processor performance, | RAID. | 6.2 | |
| Performance measures, | Programmed I/O. | 7.3 | |
| Order execution rate. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
