Predicting University Students’ Exam Performance Using a Model-Based Adaptive Fact-Learning System




adaptive learning, technology-enhanced learning, cognitive tutor, cognitive model, rate of forgetting, academic achievement, research paper


Modern educational technology has the potential to support students to use their study time more effectively. Learning analytics can indicate relevant individual differences between learners, which adaptive learning systems can use to tailor the learning experience to individual learners. For fact learning, cognitive models of human memory are well suited to tracing learners’ acquisition and forgetting of knowledge over time. Such models have shown great promise in controlled laboratory studies. To work in realistic educational settings, however, they need to be easy to deploy and their adaptive components should be based on individual differences relevant to the educational context and outcomes. Here, we focus on predicting university students’ exam performance using a model-based adaptive fact-learning system. The data presented here indicate that the system provides tangible benefits to students in naturalistic settings. The model’s estimate of a learner’s rate of forgetting predicts overall grades and performance on individual exam questions. This encouraging case study highlights the value of model-based adaptive fact-learning systems in classrooms.


Anderson, J. R. (2007). How Can the Human Mind Occur in the Physical Universe? New York: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Lebiere, C., & Matessa, M. (1998). An integrated theory of list memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(4), 341–380.

Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444.

Blasiman, R. N., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2017). The what, how much, and when of study strategies: Comparing intended versus actual study behaviour. Memory, 25(6), 784–792.

Bloom, B. S. (1974). Time and learning. American Psychologist, 29(9), 682–688.

Boulton, C. A., Kent, C., & Williams, H. T. P. (2018). Virtual learning environment engagement and learning outcomes at a “bricks-and-mortar” university. Computers & Education, 126, 129–142.

Dempster, F. N. (1988). The spacing effect: A case study in the failure to apply the results of psychological research. American Psychologist, 43(8), 627–634.

Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2015). Practice tests, spaced practice, and successive relearning: Tips for classroom use and for guiding students’ learning. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 72–78.

Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Guay, F. (1995). Academic motivation and school performance: Toward a structural model. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(3), 257–274.

Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2006). Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Goldstone, R. L., & Lupyan, G. (2016). Discovering psychological principles by mining naturally occurring data sets. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(3), 548–568.

Griffiths, T. L. (2015). Manifesto for a new (computational) cognitive revolution. Cognition, 135, 21–23.

Gurung, R. A. R., Weidert, J., & Jeske, A. (2012). Focusing on how students study. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1), 28–35. Retrieved from

Hartwig, M. K., & Dunlosky, J. (2012). Study strategies of college students: Are self-testing and scheduling related to achievement? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(1), 126–134.

Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009). The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practise retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17(4), 471–479.

Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865), 966–968.

Kim, A. S. N., Wiseheart, M., & Rosenbaum, R. S. (2019). The spacing effect stands up to big data. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 1485–1497.

Klinkenberg, S., Straatemeier, M., & Van der Maas, H. L. J. (2011). Computer adaptive practice of maths ability using a new item response model for on the fly ability and difficulty estimation. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1813–1824.

Kornell, N. (2009). Optimizing learning using flashcards: Spacing is more effective than cramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1297–1317.

Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2007). The promise and perils of self-regulated study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 219–224.

Kornell, N., & Son, L. K. (2009). Learners’ choices and beliefs about self-testing. Memory, 17(5), 493–501.

McAndrew, M., Morrow, C. S., Atiyeh, L., & Pierre, G. C. (2016). Dental student study strategies: Are self-testing and scheduling related to academic performance? Journal of Dental Education, 80(5), 542–552.

Meehan, M., & McCallig, J. (2019). Effects on learning of time spent by university students attending lectures and/or watching online videos. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(2), 283–293.

Mettler, E., Massey, C. M., & Kellman, P. J. (2016). A comparison of adaptive and fixed schedules of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(7), 897–917.

Nijboer, M. (2011). Optimal Fact Learning: Applying Presentation Scheduling to Realistic Conditions. University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. (Unpublished master’s thesis.)

Pavlik, P. I., & Anderson, J. R. (2005). Practice and forgetting effects on vocabulary memory: An activation-based model of the spacing effect. Cognitive science, 29(4), 559–586.

Pavlik, P. I., & Anderson, J. R. (2008). Using a model to compute the optimal schedule of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(2), 101–117.

Putnam, A. L., Sungkhasettee, V.W., & Roediger, H. L. (2016). Optimizing learning in college: Tips from cognitive psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(5), 652–660.

Ridgeway, K., Mozer, M. C., & Bowles, A. R. (2017). Forgetting of foreign-language skills: A corpus-based analysis of online tutoring software. Cognitive Science, 41(4), 924–949.

Ritter, S., Anderson, J. R., Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. (2007). Cognitive Tutor: Applied research in mathematics education. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 249–255.

Sense, F., Behrens, F., Meijer, R. R., & van Rijn, H. (2016). An individual’s rate of forgetting is stable over time but differs across materials. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 305–321.

Sense, F., Meijer, R. R., & van Rijn, H. (2018). Exploration of the rate of forgetting as a domain-specific individual differences measure. Frontiers in Education, 3(112).

Settles, B., & Meeder, B. (2016). A trainable spaced repetition model for language learning. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 7–12 August 2016, Berlin, Germany (pp. 1848–1858). Association for Computational Linguistics.

Shmueli, G. (2010). To explain or to predict? Statistical Science, 25(3), 289–310.

Taraban, R., Maki, W. S., & Rynearson, K. (1999). Measuring study time distributions: Implications for designing computer-based courses. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(2), 263–269.

Taraban, R., Rynearson, K., & Stalcup, K. A. (2001). Time as a variable in learning on the World-Wide Web. Behavior Research Methods, 33(2), 217–225.

Tibshirani, R. (1996). Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 58(1), 267–288.

van den Broek, G. S. E., Takashima, A., Wiklund-H¨ornqvist, C., Karlsson Wirebring, L., Segers, E., Verhoeven, L., & Nyberg, L. (2016). Neurocognitive mechanisms of the “testing effect”: A review. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 5(2), 52–66.

VanLehn, K. (2006). The behavior of tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16, 227–265. Retrieved from

van Rijn, H., van Maanen, L., & van Woudenberg, M. (2009). Passing the test: Improving learning gains by balancing spacing and testing effects. In A. Hoses, D. Peebles, & R. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, 24–26 July 2009, Manchester, UK (pp. 110–115). Retrieved from

Wise, A. F., & Shaffer, D. W. (2015). Why theory matters more than ever in the age of big data. Journal of Learning Analytics, 2(2), 5–13.

Wissman, K. T., Rawson, K. A., & Pyc, M. A. (2012). How and when do students use flashcards? Memory, 20(6), 568–579.




How to Cite

Sense, F., van der Velde, M., & van Rijn, H. (2021). Predicting University Students’ Exam Performance Using a Model-Based Adaptive Fact-Learning System. Journal of Learning Analytics, 8(3), 155-169.