research-article

Public Access

The relationship between confusion and metacognitive strategies in Betty's Brain

Authors:

Jaclyn Ocumpaugh,

Gautam BiswasAuthors Info & Claims

LAK '20: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge

Pages 276 - 284

https://doi.org/10.1145/3375462.3375518

Published: 23 March 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Confusion has been shown to be prevalent during complex learning and has mixed effects on learning. Whether confusion facilitates or hampers learning may depend on whether it is resolved or not. Confusion resolution, behind which is the resolution of cognitive disequilibrium, requires learners to possess some skills, but it is unclear what these skills are. One possibility may be metacognitive strategies (MS), strategies for regulating cognition. This study examined the relationship between confusion and actions related to MS in Betty's Brain, a computer-based learning environment. The results revealed that MS behavior differed during and outside confusion. However, confusion resolution was not related to MS behavior, and MS did not moderate the effect of confusion on learning.

References

[1]

Craig, S., Graesser, A., Sullins, J., & Gholson, B. (2004). Affect and learning: an exploratory look into the role of affect in learning with AutoTutor. Journal of Educational Media, 29(3), 241--250.

[2]

D'Mello, S., Lehman, B., Pekrun, R., & Graesser, A. (2014). Confusion can be beneficial for learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 153--170.

[3]

D'Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2014). Confusion and its dynamics during device comprehension with breakdown scenarios. Acta Psychologica, 151, 106--116.

[4]

Lehman, B., & Graesser, A. (2014). Impact of agent role on confusion induction and learning. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2014). Springer, Honolulu, HI, USA, 45--54.

Digital Library

[5]

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801--813.

[6]

Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6--25.

[7]

Ohtani, K., & Hisasaka, T. (2018). Beyond intelligence: a meta-analytic review of the relationship among metacognition, intelligence, and academic performance. Metacognition and Learning, 13(2), 179--212.

[8]

Muis, K. R., Psaradellis, C., Lajoie, S. P., Di Leo, I., & Chevrier, M. (2015). The role of epistemic emotions in mathematics problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 172--185.

[9]

Di Leo, I., Muis, K. R., Singh, C. A., & Psaradellis, C. (2019). Curiosity ... Confusion? Frustration! The role and sequencing of emotions during mathematics problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 121--137.

[10]

Arguel, A., Lockyer, L., Kennedy, G., Lodge, J. M., & Pachman, M. (2019). Seeking optimal confusion: a review on epistemic emotion management in interactive digital learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(2), 200--210.

[11]

Silvia, P. J. (2010). Confusion and interest: The role of knowledge emotions in aesthetic experience. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(2), 75--80.

[12]

Pekrun, R., & Stephens, E. J. (2012). Academic emotions. In K. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham & J. Royer (Eds.), Individual Differences and Cultural and Contextual factors. APA Educational Psychology Handbook. Vol. 2 (pp. 3--31). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

[13]

Yang, D., Kraut, R., & Rose, C. P. (2016). Exploring the effect of student confusion in massive open online courses. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 8(1), 52--83.

[14]

D'Mello, S. (2013). A selective meta-analysis on the relative incidence of discrete affective states during learning with technology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1082--1094.

[15]

Rodrigo, M., & Baker, R. (2011). Comparing learners' affect while using an intelligent tutor and an educational game. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 6(1), 43--66.

[16]

Mandler, G. (1990). Interruption (discrepancy) theory: Review and extensions. In S. Fisher & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), On the move: The Psychology of Change and Transition (13--32). Chichester: Wiley.

[17]

D'Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2014). Confusion. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International Handbook of Emotions in Education (289--310). New York: Routledge.

[18]

Lehman, B., D'Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2012). Confusion and complex learning during interactions with computer learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 184--194.

[19]

Muis, K. R., Chevrier, M., & Singh, C. A. (2018). The role of epistemic emotions in personal epistemology and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 53(3), 165--184.

[20]

Chevrier, M., Muis, K. R., Trevors, G. J., Pekrun, R., & Sinatra, G. M. (2019). Exploring the antecedents and consequences of epistemic emotions. Learning and Instruction, 63, 101209.

[21]

D Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2012). Dynamics of affective states during complex learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 145--157.

[22]

Caprara, G. V., Fida, R., Vecchione, M., Del Bove, G., Vecchio, G. M., Barbaranelli, C., ... Bandura, A. (2008). Longitudinal analysis of the role of perceived self-efficacy for self-regulated learning in academic continuance and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 525--534.

[23]

Yang, D., Wen, M., Howley, I., Kraut, R., & Rose, C. (2015). Exploring the effect of confusion in discussion forums of massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the Second ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 121--130.

Digital Library

[24]

Muis, K. R., Pekrun, R., Sinatra, G. M., Azevedo, R., Trevors, G., Meier, E., ... Heddy, B. C. (2015). The curious case of climate change: Testing a theoretical model of epistemic beliefs, epistemic emotions, and complex learning. Learning and Instruction, 39, 168--183.

[25]

Lehman, B., D Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2013). Who benefits from confusion induction during learning? An individual differences cluster analysis. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED 2013). Springer, Memphis, TN, USA, 51--60.

[26]

Bosch, N., D Mello, S., & Mills, C. (2013). What emotions do novices experience during their first computer programming learning session? In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED 2013). Springer, Memphis, TN, USA, 11--20.

[27]

Lehman, B., & Graesser, A. (2015). To resolve or not to resolve? That is the big question about confusion. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED 2015). Springer, Madrid, Spain, 216--225.

[28]

Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? Educational Research Review, 1(1), 3--14.

[29]

Dent, A. L., & Koenka, A. C. (2016). The relation between self-regulated learning and academic achievement across childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 425--474.

[30]

Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1990). What influences learning? A content analysis of review literature. The Journal of Educational Research, 84(1), 30--43.

[31]

Hargrove, R. A., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2015). The impact of metacognitive instruction on creative problem solving. The Journal of Experimental Education, 83(3), 291--318.

[32]

Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, 125--173.

[33]

Baker, R. S., D'Mello, S. K., Rodrigo, M. M. T., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Better to be frustrated than bored: The incidence, persistence, and impact of learners' cognitive-affective states during interactions with three different computer-based learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(4), 223--241.

Digital Library

[34]

Biswas, G., Segedy, J. R., & Bunchongchit, K. (2016). From design to implementation to practice a learning by teaching system: Betty's brain. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 350--364.

[35]

Ocumpaugh, J., Baker, R. S., & Rodrigo, M. M. T. B. (2015). Baker Rodrigo Ocumpaugh monitoring protocol (BROMP) 2.0 technical and training manual. Technical Report. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. Manila, Philippines: Ateneo Laboratory for the Learning Sciences.

[36]

Ocumpaugh, J., Baker, R. S., Rodrigo, M. M., Salvi, A., Van Velsen, M., Aghababyan, A., ... Martin, T. (2015). HART: The human affect recording tool. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual International Conference on the Design of Communication (SIGDOC '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 24, 6 pages.

Digital Library

[37]

Meany Daboul, M. G., Roscoe, E. M., Bourret, J. C., & Ahearn, W. H. (2007). A comparison of momentary time sampling and partial-interval recording for evaluating functional relations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(3), 501--514.

[38]

Segedy, J. R., Kinnebrew, J. S., & Biswas, G. (2015). Using coherence analysis to characterize self-regulated learning behaviours in open-ended learning environments. Journal of Learning Analytics, 2(1), 13--48.

[39]

Cicchinelli, A., Veas, E., Pardo, A., Pammer-Schindler, V., Fessl, A., Barreiros, C., ... Lindstädt, S. (2018). Finding traces of self-regulated learning in activity streams. In Proceedings of the 10^th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (LAK'20). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 191--200.

Digital Library

[40]

Botelho, A. F., Baker, R. S., Ocumpaugh, J., & Heffernan, N. T. (2018). Studying affect dynamics and chronometry using sensor-free detectors. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM 2018). International Educational Data Mining Society, Buffalo, NY, USA, 157--166.

[41]

Liu, Z., Pataranutaporn, V., Ocumpaugh, J., & Baker, R. S. (2013). Sequences of Frustration and Confusion, and Learning. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM 2013). International Educational Data Mining Society, Memphis, TN, USA, 114--120.

[42]

Noguchi, K., Gel, Y. R., Brunner, E., & Konietschke, F. (2012). nparLD: An R software package for the nonparametric analysis of longitudinal data in factorial experiments. Journal of Statistical Software, 50(12), 1--23.

[43]

Azevedo, R., Behnagh, R., Duffy, M., Harley, J., & Trevors, G. (2012). Metacognition and self-regulated learning in student-centered leaning environments. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of student-centered learning environments (2ed., pp. 171--197). New York: Routledge.

[44]

Kinnebrew, J. S., Segedy, J. R., & Biswas, G. (2014). Analyzing the temporal evolution of students' behaviors in open-ended learning environments. Metacognition and learning, 9(2), 187--215.

[45]

van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. V. (2014). Metacognitive skills and intellectual ability of young adolescents: A longitudinal study from a developmental perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 29(1), 117--137.

Cited By

Lee HBosch N(2024)Subtopic-specific heterogeneity in computer-based learning behaviorsInternational Journal of STEM Education10.1186/s40594-024-00519-x11:1Online publication date: 24-Dec-2024
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00519-x
Kunjuzwa NChinyamurindi WCilliers L(2023)Determinants of Attitudes and Intentions to Use a Digital Library System: The Role of Meta-cognitive Strategies Amongst End-Users at a Historically Disadvantaged University in South AfricaDigital-for-Development: Enabling Transformation, Inclusion and Sustainability Through ICTs10.1007/978-3-031-28472-4_3(35-45)Online publication date: 18-Mar-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28472-4_3
Zhou GUmada TD'Mello SBellogin ABoratto LSantos OArdissono LKnijnenburg B(2022)What do Students’ Interactions with Online Lecture Videos Reveal about their Learning?Proceedings of the 30th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization10.1145/3503252.3531315(295-305)Online publication date: 4-Jul-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3503252.3531315
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

The relationship between confusion and metacognitive strategies in Betty's Brain
1. Applied computing
  1. Education
    1. Computer-assisted instruction
    2. E-learning

Recommendations

Affect Sequences and Learning in Betty's Brain
LAK19: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge

Education research has explored the role of students' affective states in learning, but some evidence suggests that existing models may not fully capture the meaning or frequency of how students transition between different states. In this study we ...
M-Learning and Metacognitive Strategies in Listening Education Among Chinese University Foreign Language Students: A Comparative Analysis
ICSLT '24: Proceedings of the 2024 10th International Conference on e-Society, e-Learning and e-Technologies (ICSLT)

The global proliferation of mobile technology has become an important resource that educational systems must leverage. Against the backdrop of listening learning for 144 first-year French language majors at a university in Guangxi, China, this study ...
Inducing and Tracking Confusion with Contradictions during Complex Learning
Best of AIED 2011

Cognitive disequilibrium and its affiliated affective state of confusion have been found to positively correlate with learning, presumably due to the effortful cognitive activities that accompany their experience. Although confusion naturally occurs in ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

LAK '20: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge

March 2020

679 pages

ISBN:9781450377126

DOI:10.1145/3375462

General Chairs:
Christoph Rensing
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany
,
Hendrik Drachsler
DIPF Leibniz Institute for Research and Information in Education & University of Frankfurt, Germany
,
Program Chairs:
Vitomir Kovanović
University of South Australia, Australia
,
Niels Pinkwart
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany
,
Maren Scheffel
Open Universiteit, Netherlands
,
Katrien Verbert
KU Leuven, Belgium

Copyright © 2020 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 23 March 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

LAK '20

LAK '20: 10th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge

March 23 - 27, 2020

Frankfurt, Germany

Acceptance Rates

LAK '20 Paper Acceptance Rate 80 of 261 submissions, 31%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 236 of 782 submissions, 30%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

7
Total Citations
View Citations
797
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)170
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)24

Reflects downloads up to 13 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Lee HBosch N(2024)Subtopic-specific heterogeneity in computer-based learning behaviorsInternational Journal of STEM Education10.1186/s40594-024-00519-x11:1Online publication date: 24-Dec-2024
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00519-x
Kunjuzwa NChinyamurindi WCilliers L(2023)Determinants of Attitudes and Intentions to Use a Digital Library System: The Role of Meta-cognitive Strategies Amongst End-Users at a Historically Disadvantaged University in South AfricaDigital-for-Development: Enabling Transformation, Inclusion and Sustainability Through ICTs10.1007/978-3-031-28472-4_3(35-45)Online publication date: 18-Mar-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28472-4_3
Zhou GUmada TD'Mello SBellogin ABoratto LSantos OArdissono LKnijnenburg B(2022)What do Students’ Interactions with Online Lecture Videos Reveal about their Learning?Proceedings of the 30th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization10.1145/3503252.3531315(295-305)Online publication date: 4-Jul-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3503252.3531315
Zhang YPaquette LBosch NOcumpaugh JBiswas GHutt SBaker R(2022)The evolution of metacognitive strategy use in an open-ended learning environment: Do prior domain knowledge and motivation play a role?Contemporary Educational Psychology10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.10206469(102064)Online publication date: Apr-2022
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102064
Zhang YPaquette LBaker RBosch NOcumpaugh JBiswas G(2022)How are feelings of difficulty and familiarity linked to learning behaviors and gains in a complex science learning task?European Journal of Psychology of Education10.1007/s10212-022-00616-x38:2(777-800)Online publication date: 11-Apr-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-022-00616-x
Jensen EUmada THunkins NHutt SHuggins-Manley AD'Mello SScheffel MDowell NJoksimovic SSiemens G(2021)What You Do Predicts How You DoLAK21: 11th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference10.1145/3448139.3448151(121-131)Online publication date: 12-Apr-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3448139.3448151
Bosch NZhang YPaquette LBaker ROcumpaugh JBiswas GKitamura YQuigley AIsbister KIgarashi TBjørn PDrucker S(2021)Students’ Verbalized Metacognition During Computerized LearningProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3411764.3445809(1-12)Online publication date: 6-May-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3411764.3445809

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten