Randomized trial assesses a new knowledge tracing model's performance in predicting student outcomes, indicating effectiveness in enhancing predictions.
Knowledge tracing aims to predict students’ future performance based on their historical learning interactions, thereby supporting learner modeling in online learning platforms and intelligent tutoring systems. Recent deep learning-based knowledge tracing models have achieved strong predictive performance, but many of them rely on increasingly complex architectures or additional optimization objectives, which may increase training difficulty and computational cost. To examine whether recurrent models can remain competitive when equipped with more effective exercise representation, this paper proposes ExerCAKT, an Exercise Context-Aware Knowledge Tracing model based on gated recurrent units. Different from conventional GRU-based knowledge tracing models that mainly use interaction sequences to update students’ knowledge states, ExerCAKT explicitly separates knowledge-state modeling and exercise-context modeling through two GRU-based feature extractors. The knowledge-state feature extractor captures students’ evolving mastery patterns, while the exercise feature extractor models contextual exercise information to enhance question-level prediction without introducing extra optimization objectives. Experiments on four public knowledge tracing datasets show that ExerCAKT achieves the best AUC results in six out of seven evaluation settings and obtains similar advantages in ACC. At the question level, ExerCAKT improves AUC by 2.00%–4.71% over DKT on AL2005, AS2009, and NIPS34. At the knowledge-concept level on AS2009, AL2005, and NIPS34, it improves AUC by 0.24%–1.95% over AKT. These results suggest that recurrent knowledge tracing models can still achieve competitive performance when exercise contextualization is explicitly modeled.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: