Driving assessment of students' explanations in game dialog using computer-adaptive testing and hidden markov modeling

Assessment in Game-Based Learning: Foundations, Innovations, and Perspectives

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 173-199

  Clark, Douglas B ^a   Martinez Garza, Mario M ^a   Biswas, Gautam ^b   Luecht, Richard M ^c   Sengupta, Pratim ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84880024032     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3546-4_10     Document Type: Chapter

References (129)

1. Agrawal, R., & Srikant, R. (1995). Mining sequential patterns. In Proceedings of the eleventh IEEE international conference on data engineering (ICDE) (pp. 3-14). Taipei, Taiwan.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Amory, A. (2006). Game object model version II: A theoretical framework for educational game development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(1), 51-77.
4. Anderson, J., & Barnett, G. M. (2011). Using video games to support pre-service elementary teachers learning of basic physics principles. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(4), 347-362.
5. Annetta, L. A., Minogue, J., Holmes, S. Y., & Cheng, M.-T. (2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Computers in Education, 53(1), 74-85.
6. Azevedo, R. (2009). Theoretical, conceptual, methodological, and instructional issues in research on metacognition and self-regulated learning: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 87-95.
7. Barab, S. A., Arici, A., & Jackson, C. (2005). Eat your vegetables and do your homework: A design based investigation of enjoyment and meaning in learning. Educational Technology, 45(1), 15-20.
8. Barab, S. A., Sadler, T., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: A framework for socio-scientific inquiry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 59-82.
9. Barab, S. A., Scott, B., Siyahhan, S., Goldstone, R., Ingram-Goble, A., Zuiker, S., et al. (2009). Transformational play as a curricular scaffold: Using videogames to support science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 305-320.
10. Barab, S. A., Zuiker, S., Warren, S., Hickey, D., Ingram-Goble, A., Kwon, E.-J., et al. (2007). Situationally embodied curriculum: Relating formalisms and contexts. Science Education, 91(5), 750-782.
11. Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(5), 593-604.
12. Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P., & Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13(2), 221-252.
13. Biswas, G., Jeong, H., Kinnebrew, J., Sulcer, B., & Roscoe, R. (2010). Measuring self-regulated learning skills through social interactions in a teachable agent environment. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 5(2), 123-152.
14. Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., Schwartz, D., Vye, N., & The Teachable Agents Group at Vanderbilt. (2005). Learning by teaching: A new agent paradigm for educational software. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19, 363-392.
15. Biswas, G., Schwartz, D., Bransford, J., & The Teachable Agents Group at Vanderbilt (TAG-V). (2001). Technology support for complex problem solving: From SAD environments to AI. In K. D. Forbus & P. J. Feltovich (Eds.), Smart machines in education (pp. 71-98). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
16. Borges, A. T., Tecnico, C., & Gilbert, J. K. (1998). Models of magnetism. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 361.
17. Brand, M., Oliver, N., & Pentland, A. (1997). Coupled hidden Markov models for complex action recognition. In IEEE conference on computer vision & pattern recognition (CVPR) (pp. 994-999). San Juan, Puerto Rico, June 17-19, 1997.
18. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61-100.
19. Caillois, R. (1961). Man, play, and games (1st U.S. ed.). New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
20. Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., & Gunstone, R. F. (1982). Cognitive research and the design of science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 17(1), 31.
21. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145-182.
22. Chi, M. T. H., & VanLehn, K. A. (1991). The content of physics self-explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 69-106.
23. Clark, D. B. (2004). Hands-on investigation in internet environments: Teaching thermal equilibrium. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet Environments for Science Education (pp. 175-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24. Clark, D. B. (2006). Longitudinal conceptual change in students’ understanding of thermal equilibrium: An examination of the process of conceptual restructuring. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 467-563.
25. Clark, D. B., & Linn, M. C. (2003). Scaffolding knowledge integration through curricular depth. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 451-494.
26. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277.
27. Clark, D. B., D’Angelo, C., & Schleigh, S. (2011). Multinational comparison of students’ knowledge structure coherence. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(20), 207-261.
28. Clark, D. B., Nelson, B., Chang, H., D’Angelo, C. M., Slack, K., & Martinez-Garza, M. (2011). Exploring Newtonian mechanics in a conceptually-integrated digital game: Comparison of learning and affective outcomes for students in Taiwan and the United States. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2178-2195.
29. Clark, D. B., Nelson, B., D’Angelo, C. M., & Menekse, M. (2009). Integrating critique to support learning about physics in video games. In Poster presented as part of a structured session at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST) 2009 meeting, Garden Grove, CA.
30. Clark, D. B., Nelson, B., Martinez-Garza, M., & D’Angelo, C. M. (submitted). Digital games and science learning: Research across the NRC strands of science proficiency.
31. Clark, D. B., Nelson, B., Sengupta, P., & D’Angelo, C. M. (2009). Rethinking science learning through digital games and simulations: Genres, examples, and evidence. In Invited topic paper in the proceedings of the national academies board on science education workshop on learning science: Computer games, simulations, and education, Washington, DC.
32. Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2005). Making learning meaningful: An exploratory study of using multiuser environments (MUVEs) in middle school science. In Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association conference, Montreal, Canada.
33. Coller, B., & Scott, M. (2009). Effectiveness of using a video game to teach a course in mechanical engineering. Computers in Education, 53(3), 900-912.
34. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
35. Dede, C., & Ketelhut, D. J. (2003). Designing for motivation and usability in a museum-based multi-user virtual environment. In Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association conference, Chicago, IL.
36. Dieterle, E. (2009). Neomillennial learning styles and River City. Children, Youth and Environments, 19(1), 245-278.
37. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 105-225.
38. diSessa, A. A. (1996). What do “just plain folk” know about physics? In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development: New models of learning, teaching, and schooling (pp. 709-730). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
39. Eignor, D. R., Way, W. D., Stocking, M. L., & Steffen, M. (1993). Case studies in computer adaptive test design through simulation (research report # 93-56). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
40. Federation of American Scientists. (2006). Report: Summit on educational games: Harnessing the power of video games for learning. Washington, DC: Federation of American Scientists.
41. Galas, C. (2006). Why Whyville? Learning and Leading with Technology, 34(6), 30-33.
42. Games-to-Teach Team. (2003). Design principles of next-generation digital gaming for education. Educational Technology, 43(5), 17-33.
43. Gee, J. P. (2003/2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
44. Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. London: Routledge.
45. Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games and good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning and literacy (new literacies and digital epistemologies). New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
46. Grant, P., Johnson, L., & Sanders, Y. (1990). Better links: Teaching strategies in the science classroom. Australia: STAV Publication.
47. Gunter, G., Kenny, R., & Vick, E. (2008). Taking educational games seriously: Using the RETAIN model to design endogenous fantasy into standalone educational games. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5), 511-537. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9073-2.
48. Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89-119). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
49. Hickey, D., Ingram-Goble, A., & Jameson, E. (2009). Designing assessments and assessing designs in virtual educational environments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(2), 187-208.
50. Hines, P. J., Jasny, B. R., & Merris, J. (2009). Adding a T to the three R’s. Science, 323, 53.
51. Holbert, N. (2009). Learning Newton while crashing cars. In Poster presented at games, learning and society, Madison, WI, June 10-12, 2009.
52. Honey, M. A., & Hilton, M. (Eds.). (2010). Learning science through computer games and simulations. National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
53. Huizinga, J. (1980). Homo Ludens: A study oftheplay element in culture. London: Routledge and Kegan.
54. Hunt, E., & Minstrell, J. (1994). A cognitive approach to the teaching of physics. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 51-74). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55. Jeong, H., & Biswas, G. (2008). Mining student behavior models in learning-by-teaching environments. In Proceedings of the first international conference on educational data mining (pp. 127-136). Montreal, Canada.
56. Juang, B. H., & Rabiner, L. R. (1991). Hidden Markov models for speech recognition. Technometrics, 33(3), 251-272.
57. Kafai, Y. B., Quintero, M., & Feldon, D. (2010). Investigating the ‘why’ in Whypox: Casual and systematic explorations of a virtual epidemic. Games and Culture, 5(1), 116-135.
58. Kearney, M. (2004). Classroom use of multimedia-supported predict-observe-explain tasks in a social constructivist learning environment. Research in Science Education, 34(4), 427-453.
59. Kearney, M., & Treagust, D. (2000). An investigation of the classroom use of prediction-observation- explanation computer tasks designed to elicit and promote discussion of students’ conceptions of force and motion. In Presented at the national association for research in science teaching, New Orleans, USA.
60. Ketelhut, D. J., Dede, C., Clarke, J., & Nelson, B. (2006). A multi-user virtual environment for building higher order inquiry skills in science. In American Educational Research Association conference, San Francisco, CA.
61. Kinnebrew, J. S., Loretz, K. M., & Biswas, G. (in press). A contextualized, differential sequence mining method to derive students’ learning behavior patterns. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 2012.
62. Kinnebrew, J. S., Loretz, K. M., & Biswas, G. (2011). Modeling and measuring self-regulated learning in teachable agent environments. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 7(2), 19-35.
63. Klopfer, E., Scheintaub, H., Huang, W., Wendal, D., & Roque, R. (2009). The simulation cycle: Combining games, simulations, engineering and science using StarLogo TNG. E-learning, 6(1), 71-96.
64. Krogh, A., Brown, M., Mian, S., Sjolander, K., & Haussler, D. (1994). Hidden Markov models in computational biology: Applications to protein modeling. Journal of Molecular Biology, 235(5), 1501-1531.
65. Leelawong, K., & Biswas, G. (2008). Designing learning by teaching agents: The Betty’s brain system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 18(3), 181-208.
66. Leighton, J. P., & Gierl, M. J. (2007). Defining and evaluating models of cognition used in educational measurement to make inferences about examinees’ thinking processes. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(2), 3-16.
67. Li, C., & Biswas, G. (2002). Applying the hidden Markov model methodology for unsupervised learning of temporal data. International Journal of Knowledge Based Intelligent Engineering Systems, 6(3), 152-160.
68. Liew, C. W., & Treagust, D. F. (1995). A predict-observe-explain teaching sequence for learning about students’ understanding of heat and expansion liquids. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 41(1), 68-71.
69. Liew, C. W., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). The effectiveness of predict-observe-explain tasks in diagnosing students’ understanding of science and in identifying their levels of achievement. In Presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
70. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications ofitem response theory topractical testingproblems. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
71. Luecht, R. M. (1996). Multidimensional computerized adaptive testing in a certification or licensure context. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 389-404.
72. Masson, M. E. J., Bub, D. N., & Lalonde, C. E. (2011). Video-game training and naive reasoning about object motion. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(1), 166-173.
73. Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2010). Adding instructional features that promote learning in a game-like environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(3), 241-265.
74. Mazur, E. (1996). Peer instruction: A user’s manual (Pap/Dskt). San Francisco, CA: Benjamin Cummings.
75. McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York: Penguin Press.
76. McQuiggan, S., Rowe, J., & Lester, J. (2008). The effects of empathetic virtual characters on presence in narrative-centered learning environments. In Proceedings of the 2008 SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1511-1520), Florence, Italy.
77. Minstrell, J. (1982). Explaining the “at rest” condition of an object. The Physics Teacher, 20, 10-14.
78. Minstrell, J. (1989). Teaching science for understanding. In L. Resnick & L. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum (pp. 129-149). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
79. Minstrell, J., & Kraus, P. (2005). Guided inquiry in the science classroom. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
80. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). Engaging students in active learning: The case for personalized multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 724-733.
81. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Personalized messages that promote science learning in virtual environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 165-173.
82. National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
83. National Research Council. (2010). In M. Hilton (Ed.), Exploring the intersection of science education and 21st century skills: A workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
84. National Research Council. (2012). Conceptual framework for new science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Board on Science Education.
85. Nelson, B. (2007). Exploring the use of individualized, reflective guidance in an educational multiuser virtual environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 83-97.
86. Nelson, B., Ketelhut, D., Clarke, J., Bowman, C., & Dede, C. (2005). Design-based research strategies for developing a scientific inquiry curriculum in a multi-user virtual environment. Educational Technology, 45(1), 21-34.
87. Nelson, B., Ketelhut, D. J., & Schifter, C. (2010). Exploring cognitive load in immersive educational games: The SAVE science project. International Journal for Gaming and Computer Mediated Simulations, 2(1), 31-39.
88. Neulight, N., Kafai, Y. B., Kao, L., Foley, B., & Galas, C. (2007). Children’s participation in a virtual epidemic in the science classroom: Making connections to natural infectious diseases. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 47-58.
89. Palmer, D. (1995). The POE in the primary school: An evaluation. Research in Science Education, 25(3), 323-332.
90. Parnafes, O., & diSessa, A. A. (2004). Relations between types of reasoning and computational representations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 251-280.
91. Pelletier, C. (2008). Gaming in context: How young people construct their gendered identities in playing and making games. In Y. B. Kafai, C. Heeter, J. Denner, & J. Y. Sun (Eds.), Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat: New perspectives on gender and gaming (pp. 145-158). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
92. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). San Diego: Academic.
93. Quellmalz, E. S., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2009). Technology and testing. Science, 323(5910), 75-79.
94. Rabiner, L. R. (1989). A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 77(2), 257-286.
95. Roy, M., & Chi, M. T. H. (2005). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 271-286). New York: Cambridge University Press.
96. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2003). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals (illustrated edition). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
97. Sands, W. A., Waters, B. K., & McBride, J. R. (1997). Computerized adaptive testing: From inquiry to operation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
98. Schifter, C. C., Ketelhut, D. J., & Nelson, B. C. (2012). Presence and middle school students’ participation in a virtual game environment to assess science inquiry. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 53-63.
99. Schraw, G., Crippen, K., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36(1), 111-139.
100. Schwartz, D. L., Blair, K. P., Biswas, G., & Leelawong, K. (2007). Animations of thought: Interactivity in the teachable agent paradigm. In R. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research and implications for design (pp. 114-140). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
101. Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C., Chin, C., Oppezzo, M., Kwong, H., Okita, S., et al. (2009). Interactive metacognition: Monitoring and regulating a teachable agent. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education. New York: Routledge Press.
102. Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129-184.
103. Scott, P. H., Asoko, H. M., & Driver, R. H. (1991). Teaching for conceptual change: A review of strategies. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niederer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 310-329). Kiel, Germany: Schmidt & Klannig.
104. Searle, P., & Gunstone, R. (1990). Conceptual change and physics instruction: A longitudinal study. In Presented at the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
105. Segall, D. O. (1996). Multidimensional adaptive testing. Psychometrika, 61(2), 331-354.
106. Sengupta, P. (2011). Learning electromagnetism with ElectroHub—A digital game based on participatory simulation. Digital games and science learning. In D. Clark (Org.), Invited paper session at the Annual Conference of National Association of Research on Science Teaching (NARST 2011) Orlando, FL.
107. Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Agent-based models and learning electricity. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA 2009), New York, NY.
108. Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2011). Lowering the learning threshold: Multi-agent-based models and learning electricity. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Dynamic modeling: Cognitive tool for scientific inquiry (pp. 141-171). New York: Springer.
109. Shepardson, D. P., Moje, E. B., & Kennard-McClelland, A. M. (1994). The impact of a science demonstration on children’s understandings of air pressure. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(3), 243-258.
110. Shute, V. J., & Ke, F. (2012). Games, learning, and assessment. In D. Ifenthaler, D. Eseryel, & X. Ge (Eds.), Assessment in game-based learning: Foundations, innovations, and perspectives. New York, NY: Springer.
111. Shute, V. J., & Kim, Y. J. (in press). Formative and stealth assessment. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Taylor & Francis Group.
112. Shute, V. J., Rieber, L., & Van Eck, R. (2011). Games. and. learning. In R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 321-332). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
113. Squire, K. (2005). Changing the game: What happens when video games enter the classroom. Innovate, 1(6), 25-49.
114. Squire, K., Barnett, M., Grant, J. M., & Higginbotham, T. (2004). Electromagnetism supercharged!: Learning physics with digital simulation games. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international conference on learning sciences (pp. 513-520). Los Angeles: UCLA Press.
115. Squire, K., & Jan, M. (2007). Mad City Mystery: Developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 5-29.
116. Squire, K., & Klopfer, E. (2007). Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 371-413.
117. Steinkuehler, C., & Duncan, S. (2008). Scientific habits of mind in virtual worlds. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 530-543.
118. Tao, P., & Gunstone, R. F. (1999). The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 859-882.
119. Van der Linden, W., & Glas, C. (2010). Statistical tests of conditional independence between responses and/or response times on test items. Psychometrika, 75(1), 120-139.
120. Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 21-39.
121. Webb, N. M., Farivar, S. H., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2002). Productive helping in cooperative groups. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 13-20.
122. White, B. C., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-117.
123. White, B. C., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2000). Technological tools and instructional approaches for making scientific inquiry accessible to all. In M. J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education (pp. 321-359). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
124. White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. New York: Routledge.
125. 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: Taylor & Francis.
126. Wright, W. (2006). Dream machines. Wired, 14(4), 110-112.
127. Yen, W. M., & Fitzpatrick, A. R. (2006). Item response theory. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 111-153). Washington, DC: American Council on Education/Praeger.
128. Zhou, M., Xu, Y., Nesbit, J. C., & Winne, P. H. (2010). Sequential pattern analysis of learning logs: Methodology and applications. In C. Romero (Ed.), Handbook of educational data mining (p. 107). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
129. Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 1-37). Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum.