MetaMentor: An Interactive System That Uses Visualizations of Students’ Real-Time Cognitive, Affective, Metacognitive, and Motivational Self-Regulatory Processes to Study Human Tutors’ Decision Making

Nicholas V. Mudrick, Michelle Taub, and Roger Azevedo

Corresponding Author Email: nvmudric@ncsu.edu

Abstract

In this chapter, we argue that the new generation of intelligent tutoring systems (ITSs) will need to detect, model, and respond to all of a student’s cognitive, affective, metacognitive, and motivational (CAMM) processes in real time to successfully foster their self-regulated learning (SRL) with these systems. Additionally, we argue that multimodal, multichannel process data (i.e., log files, eye tracking, facial expressions of emotion, and electrodermal activity) is needed to identify behavioral signatures of a student’s real-time CAMM SRL processes during learning. As such, we have designed a new system called MetaMentor to investigate how a student’s CAMM SRL processes unfold and interact in real-time. In this chapter, we outline the development of MetaMentor by presenting a brief review of traditional ITS research, our past research with MetaTutor, and the theoretical underpinnings of the design of MetaMentor. We discuss how we can use our findings from research with MetaMentor to design intelligent, adaptive, CAMM-sensitive ITSs, and how our findings can be applied to other advanced learning technologies to augment conceptual and theoretical frameworks of CAMM SRL processes.

Keywords: cognition, affect, metacognition, motivation, self-regulated learning, intelligent tutoring systems, multimodal, multichannel process data, data visualizations

Back to Table of Contents

Link to Book

APA citation information

Mudrick, N. V., Taub, M., & Azevedo, R. (2018). MetaMentor: An interactive system that uses visualizations of students’ real-time cognitive, affective, metacognitive, and motivational self-regulatory processes to study human tutors’ decision making. In S. D. Craig (Ed.). Tutoring and Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 157-186). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

References

Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. (2016). An interview reflection on “Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city.” International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26, 13-24.

Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 167-207.

Arroyo, I., Woolf, B. P., Burrelson, W., Muldner, K., Rai, D., & Tai, M. (2014). A multimedia adaptive tutoring system for mathematics that addresses cognition, metacognition and affect. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24, 167-207.

Azevedo, R. (2014). Multimedia learning of metacognitive strategies. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2^nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Azevedo, R., Harley, J., Trevors, G., Duffy, M., Feyzi-Behnagh, R., Bouchet, F., & Landis, R. S. (2013). Using trace data to examine the complex roles of cognitive, metacognitive, and emotional self-regulatory processes during learning with multi- agent systems. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 427–499). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.

Azevedo, R., Martin S. A., Taub, M., Mudrick, N. V., Millar, G., & Grafsgaard, J. (2016). Are pedagogical agents’ external regulation effective in fostering learning with intelligent tutoring systems?” In A. Micarelli, J. Stamper, & K. Panourgia (Eds.) Proceedings of the 13^th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 197-207). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.

Azevedo, R., Mudrick, N. V., Taub, M., & Bradbury, A. (in press). Self-regulation in computer assisted learning systems. In J. Dunlosky, & K. Rawson (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of cognition and education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Azevedo, R., Taub, M., & Mudrick, N. V. (2018). Understanding and reasoning about real-time cognitive, affective, and metacognitive processes to foster self-regulation with advanced learning technologies. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance, 2^nd ed. (pp. 254-270). NY: Routledge.

Azevedo, R., Witherspoon, A., Graesser, A., McNamara, D., Chauncey, A., Siler, E., Cai, Z., Rus, V., & Lintean, M. (2009). MetaTutor: Analyzing self-regulated learning in a tutoring system for biology. In V. Dimitrova, R. Mizoguchi, B. du Boulay, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Building learning systems that care: From knowledge representation to affective modeling (pp. 635–637). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.

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, 223-241.

Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Kim, N. J., & Lefler, M. (2017). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87, 309-344.

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, 350-364.

Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13, 4-16.

Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S. A., & Jeong, H. (2004). Can tutors monitor students’ understanding accurately? Cognition and Instruction, 22, 363-387.

Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S. A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Haussman, R. G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471-533.

Cloude, E. B., Taub, M., & Azevedo, R. (2018). Investigating the role of goal orientation: Metacognitive and cognitive strategy use and learning with intelligent tutoring systems. In R. Nkambou, R. Azevedo, & J. Vassileva (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14^th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2018) (pp. 44-53). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.

Craig, S. D., Graesser, A. C., & Perez, R. S. (2018). Advances from the office of naval research STEM grand challenge: Expanding the boundaries of intelligent tutoring systems. International Journal of STEM Education, 5, 1-4.

Craig, S. D. & Schroeder, N. L. (2018). Design principles for virtual humans in educational technology environments. In K. Millis, J. Magliano, D. Long, & K. Wiemer (Eds.), Deep learning: Multi-disciplinary approaches. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.

D’Mello, S. K. (2013). A selective meta-analysis on the relative incidence of discrete states during learning with technology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 1082-1099.

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

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

du Boulay, B., & Luckin, R. (2016). Modelling human teaching tactics and strategies for tutoring systems: 14 years on. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26, 393-404.

Duffy, M., & Azevedo, R. (2016). Motivation matters: Interactions between achievement goals and agent scaffolding for self-regulated learning within an intelligent tutoring system. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 338-348.

Ekman, P. (1973). Darwin and facial expression: A century of research in review. New York: Academic Press.

Fernández-Dols, J. M., & Russell, J. A. (2017). The science of facial expression. NY: Oxford University Press.

Graesser, A. C., Rus, V., & Hu, X. (2017). Instruction based on tutoring. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction, 2^nd ed. (pp. 460-482). New York, NY: Routledge.

Grafsgaard, J. F., Wiggins, J. B., Boyer, K. E., Wiebe, E. N., & Lester, J. C. (2013). Automatically recognizing facial indicators of frustration: A learning-centric analysis. In A. Nijholt, S. K. D’Mello, & M. Pantic (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII) (pp. 159-165). Washington, DC: IEEE.

Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2009). A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the acquisition of a sophisticated mental model of a complex system. Contemporary Education Psychology, 34, 18–29.

Greene, J. A., Moos, D. C, & Azevedo, R. (2011). Self-regulation of learning with computer-based learning environments. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 126, 107-115.

Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26, 1-26.

Harley, J. M., Taub, M., Azevedo, R., & Bouchet, F. (2018). “Let’s set up some subgoals!”: Understanding human-pedagogical agent collaborations and their implications for learning and prompt and feedback compliance. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 1, 54-66.

iMotions. (2018). Attention Tool (Version 7.1) [Computer software]. Boston, MA: iMotions.

Jaques, N., Conati, C., Harley, J., & Azevedo, R. (2014). Predicting affect from gaze data during interaction with an intelligent tutoring system. In S. Trausan-Matu, K. E. Boyer, M. Crosby, & K. Panourgia (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12^th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 29-38). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.

Jarodzka, H., Holmqvist, K., & Gruber, H. (2017). Eye tracking in educational science: Theoretical frameworks and research agendas. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 10, 1-18.

Johnson, W. L., & Lester, J. C. (2016). Face-to-face interactions with pedagogical agents, twenty years later. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26, 25-36.

Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2016). Research-based design of pedagogical agent roles: A review, progress, and recommendations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26, 160-169.

Kulik, J. A., & Fletcher, J. D. (2016). Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86, 42-78.

Lester, J., Lobene, E., Mott, B., & Rowe, J. Serious games with GIFT: Instructional strategies, game design, and natural language in the generalized intelligent framework for tutoring. In R. Sottilare, A. Graesser, X. Hu, & B. Goldberg (Eds.), Design recommendations for adaptive intelligent tutoring systems: Volume 2 – Instructional management (pp. 205-215). Orlando, FL: U. S. Army Research Laboratory.

Ma, W., Adesope, O. O., Nesbit, J. C., & Liu, Q. (2014). Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 901-918.

Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2^nd ed. (pp. 43–71). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous cognitive processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2^nd ed. (pp. 279-315). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Miele, D. B., & Scholer, A. A. (2018). The role of metamotivational monitoring in motivation regulation. Educational Psychologist, 53, 1-21.

Mitrovic, A., Martin, B., & Suraweera, P. (2007). Intelligent tutors for all: Constraint-based modeling methodology, systems and authoring. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 22, 38-45.

Mudrick, N. V., Taub, M., & Azevedo, R. (2017). Do accurate metacognitive judgments predict successful multimedia learning? In G. Gunzelmann, A. Howes, T. Tenbrink, & E. J. Davelaar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39^th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2766-2771). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

Nye, B. D., Graesser, A. C., & Hu, X. (2014). AutoTutor and family: A review of 17 years of natural language tutoring. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24, 427-469.

Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.

Schroeder, N. L., Adesope, O. O., & Gilbert, R. B. (2013). How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49, 1-39.

Schunk, D. H., & Greene, J. A. (2018). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2^nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Sottilare, R., Graesser, A., Hu, X., & Goodwin, G. (2017). Design recommendations for intelligent tutoring systems: Volume 5 – Assessment methods. Orlando, FL: U. S. Army Research Laboratory.

Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper. H. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students’ academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 331-347.

Taub, M., & Azevedo, R. (2018). How does prior knowledge influence eye fixations and sequences of cognitive and metacognitive SRL processes during with an intelligent tutoring system? International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s40593-018-0165-4.

Taub, M., Azevedo, R., Bouchet, F., & Khosravifar, B. (2014). Can the use of cognitive and metacognitive self-regulated learning strategies be predicted by learners’ levels of prior knowledge in hypermedia-learning environments? Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 356-367.

Taub, M., Martin, S. A., Azevedo, R., & Mudrick, N. V. (2016). The role of pedagogical agents on learning: Issues and trends. In F. M. M. Neto, R. de Souza, & A. S. Gomes (Eds.), Handbook of research on 3-D Visual environments and hypermedia for ubiquitous learning (pp. 362- 386). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Taub, M., Azevedo, R., & Mudrick, N. V. (2018). How do different levels of AU4 impact metacognitive monitoring during learning with intelligent tutoring systems? In R. Nkambou, R. Azevedo, & J. Vassileva (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14^th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2018) (pp. 223-232). The Netherlands, Amsterdam: Springer.

Taub, M., Mudrick, N. V., & Azevedo, R. (2018). Strategies for designing advanced learning technologies to foster self-regulated learning. In R. Zheng (Ed.), Strategies for deep learning with digital technology: Theories and practice in education (pp. 137-170). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

Trevors, G., Duffy, M., & Azevedo, R. (2014). Note-taking with MetaTutor: interactions between an intelligent tutoring system and prior knowledge on note-taking and learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 62, 507-528.

VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46, 197-221.

Winne, P. (2018). Cognition and metacognition within self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance, 2^nd ed. (pp. 36-48). New York, NY: Routledge.

Winne, P. (2017). Learning analytics for self-regulated learning. In C. Lang, G. Seimens, A. Wise, & D. Gašević (Eds.), Handbook of learning analytics (pp. 241-249). Sydney; Australia: UTS ePress.

Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J., Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Winne, P., & Hadwin, A. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 297–314). New York, NY: Erlbaum.