Using adaptive learning technologies to personalize instruction to student interests: The impact of relevant contexts on performance and learning outcomes

Journal of Educational Psychology

Volumn 105, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 932-945

  Walkington, Candace A ^a  

^a SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Algebra; Individual interestTopic interest; Intelligent tutoring system; Personalization

Indexed keywords

EID: 84887524638     PISSN: 00220663     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0031882     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 545-561. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.545
2. Ainley, M., Hillman, K., & Hidi, S. (2002). Gender and interest processes in response to literary texts: Situational and individual interest. Learning & Instruction, 12, 411-428.
3. Anand, P., & Ross, S. (1987). Using computer-assisted instruction to personalize arithmetic materials for elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 72-78. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.79.1.72
4. Baker, R., Corbett, A., Koedinger, K., & Wagner, A. (2004). Off-task behavior in the cognitive tutor classroom: When students "game the system". In E. Dykstra-Erickson & M. Tscheligi (Eds.), Proceedings of ACM CHI 2004 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 383-390). New York, NY: ACM Press.
5. Baker, R., & de Carvalho, A. (2008). Labeling student behavior faster and more precisely with text replays. In R. S. J. de Baker, T. Barnes, & J. E. Beck (Eds.), Educational data mining: 1st International Conference on Educational Data Mining, Proceedings (pp. 38-47). Montreal, Quebec, Canada: International Educational Data Mining Society.
6. Baker, R., Gowda, S. M., Wixon, M., Kalka, J., Wagner, A. Z., Salvi, A., .. Rossi, L. (2012). Sensor-free automated detection of affect in a Cognitive Tutor for Algebra. In K. Yacef, O. Zaïane, H. Hershkovitz, M. Yudelson, & J. Stamper (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 126-133). Chania, Greece: International Educational Data Mining Society.
7. Bardini, C., Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2004). Teaching linear functions in context with graphics calculators: Students' responses and the impact of the approach on their use of algebraic symbols. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 353-376. doi:10.1007/s10763-004-8075-3
8. Bates, D., & Maechler, M. (2010). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes-R package version 0.999375-35 [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
9. Bates, E., & Wiest, L. (2004). The impact of personalization of mathematical word problems on student performance. Mathematics Educator, 14(2), 17-26.
10. Bernacki, M. L., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Aleven, V. (in press). Finegrained assessment of motivation over long periods of learning with an intelligent tutoring system: Methodology, advantages, and preliminary results. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
11. Breidenbach, D., Dubinsky, E., Hawks, J., & Nichols, D. (1992). Development of the process conception of function. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 247-285. doi:10.1007/BF02309532
12. Cakir, O., & Simsek, N. (2010). A comparative analysis of computer and paper-based personalization on student achievement. Computers & Education, 55, 1524-1531. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.018
13. Carnegie Learning. (2011). Carnegie Learning math series: Carnegie Learning MATHia Software [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://mathseries.carnegielearning.com/product-info/software
14. Carraher, D., Schliemann, A., Brizuela, B., & Earnest, D. (2006). Arithmetic and algebra in early mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 87-115.
15. Chazan, D. (1999). On teachers' mathematical knowledge and student exploration: A personal story about teaching a technologically supported approach to school algebra. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 4, 121-149. doi:10.1023/A:1009875213030
16. Chen, C., & Liu, P. (2007). Personalized computer-assisted mathematics problem-solving program and its impact on Taiwanese students. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26, 105-121.
17. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
18. Clement, J. (1982). Algebra word problem solutions: Thought processes underlying a common misconception. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13, 16-30. doi:10.2307/748434
19. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
20. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards (Mathematics Standards). Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/mathematics
21. Cordova, D., & Lepper, M. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 715-730. doi:10.1037/ 0022-0663.88.4.715
22. Davis-Dorsey, J., Ross, S., & Morrison, G. (1991). The role of rewording and context personalization in the solving of mathematical word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 61-68. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.61
23. Durik, A., & Harackiewicz, J. (2007). Different strokes for different folks:How individual interest moderates effects of situational factors on task interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 597-610. doi:10.1037/ 0022-0663.99.3.597
24. Ellis, G. (2009). Grand challenges for engineering. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 37(1), 3. doi:10.1109/EMR.2009.4804341
25. Filloy, E., & Rojano, T. (1989). Solving equations: The transition from arithmetic to algebra. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(2), 19-25.
26. Flowerday, T., Schraw, G., & Stevens, J. (2004). The role of reader choice and interest in reader engagement. Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 93-114. doi:10.3200/JEXE.72.2.93-114
27. Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. (2002). Children's competence and value beliefs from childhood through adolescence: Growth trajectories in two male-sex-typed domains. Developmental Psychology, 38, 519-533.
28. Frenzel, A., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Watt, H. (2010). Development of mathematics interest in adolescence: Influences of gender, family, and school context. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 507-537. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00645.x
29. Goldstone, R., & Son, J. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 69-110. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1401_4
30. Harackiewicz, J., Durik, A., Barron, K., Linnenbrink, E., & Tauer, J. (2008). The role of achievement goals in the development of interest:Reciprocal relations between achievement goals, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 105-122. doi:10.1037/ 0022-0663.100.1.105
31. Harackiewicz, J., Rozek, C., Hulleman, C., & Hyde, J. (2012). Helping parents to motivate adolescents in math and science: An experimental test of a utility value intervention. Psychological Science, 23, 899-906.
32. Heffernan, N. T., & Koedinger, K. R. (1997). The composition effect in symbolizing: The role of symbol production vs. text comprehension. In M. G. Shafto & P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 307-312). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. Hegarty, M., Mayer, R., & Monk, C. (1995). Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: A comparison of successful and unsuccessful problem solvers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 18-32. doi:10.1037/ 0022-0663.87.1.18
34. Heilman, M., Collins, K., Eskenazi, M., Juffs, A., & Wilson, L. (2010). Personalization of reading passages improves vocabulary acquisition. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 20, 73-98.
35. Herscovics, N., & Linchevski, L. (1994). A cognitive gap between arithmetic and algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 59-78. doi:10.1007/BF01284528
36. Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549-571.
37. Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 191-209. doi:10.1023/A:1016667621114
38. Hidi, S., & Ainley, M. (2008). Interest and self-regulation. The relationships between two variables that influence learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and application (pp. 77-109). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
39. Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated:A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151-179.
40. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111-127. doi:10.1207/ s15326985ep4102_4
41. Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 880-895. doi:10.1037/a0019506
42. Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009, December 4). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326, 1410-1412. doi:10.1126/science.1177067
43. Humberstone, J., & Reeve, R. (2008). Profiles of algebraic competence. Learning and Instruction, 18, 354-367. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.07.002
44. Kaput, J. J. (2000). Teaching and learning a new algebra with understanding. Dartmouth, MA: National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science.
45. Kintsch, W. (1986). Learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 3, 87-108. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0302_1
46. Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with Cognitive Tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 239-264. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9049-0
47. Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning sciences to the classroom. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 61-77). St. Louis, MO: Cambridge University Press.
48. Koedinger, K. R., Corbett, A. T., & Perfetti, C. (2012). The knowledgelearning-instruction (KLI) framework: Toward bridging the sciencepractice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognitive Science, 36, 1-42. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01245.x
49. Koedinger, K., & McLaughlin, E. (2010). Seeing language learning inside the math: Cognitive analysis yields transfer. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 471-476). Portland, OR: Cognitive Science Society.
50. Koedinger, K., & Nathan, M. (2004). The real story behind story problems:Effects of representations on quantitative reasoning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 129-164. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1302_1
51. Ku, H., & Sullivan, H. (2000). Personalization of mathematics word problems in Taiwan. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48, 49-60. doi:10.1007/BF02319857
52. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
53. Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Durik, A., Conley, A., Barron, K., Tauer, J., Karabenick, S., & Harackiewicz, J. (2010). Measuring situational interest in academic domains. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 647-671. doi:10.1177/0013164409355699
54. López, C. L., & Sullivan, H. J. (1992). Effects of personalization of instructional context on the achievement and attitudes of Hispanic students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40, 5-14. doi:10.1007/BF02296895
55. Mathan, S., & Koedinger, K. (2005). Fostering the intelligent novice:Learning with errors from metacognitive tutoring. Educational Psychologist, 40, 257-265. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4004_7
56. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139164603
57. McCoy, L. P. (2005). Effect of demographic and personal variables on achievement in eighth-grade algebra. Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 131-135.
58. McDaniel, M., Waddill, P., Finstad, K., & Bourg, T. (2000). The effects of text-based interest on attention and recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 492-502. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.492
59. Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 424-436. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.424
60. Moses, R., & Cobb, C. (2001). Radical equations: Math literacy and civil rights. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
61. Nathan, M., Kintsch, W., & Young, E. (1992). A theory of algebra-wordproblem comprehension and its implications for the design of learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 329-389. doi:10.1207/ s1532690xci0904_2
62. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.
63. Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
64. Reber, R., Hetland, H., Chen, W., Norman, E., & Kobbeltvedt, T. (2009). Effects of example choice on interest, control, and learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 509-548. doi:10.1080/10508400903191896
65. Renninger, K., Ewen, L., & Lasher, A. (2002). Individual interest as context in expository text and mathematical word problems. Learning and Instruction, 12, 467-490. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00012-3
66. Renninger, K., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46, 168-184. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.587723
67. Renninger, K., & Su, S. (2012). Interest and its development. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 167-189). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
68. Renninger, K., & Wozinak, R. (1985). Effect of interest on attentional shift, recognition, and recall in young children. Developmental Psychology, 21, 624-632. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.21.4.624
69. Sansone, C., Fraughton, T., Zachary, J., Butner, J., & Heiner, C. (2011). Self-regulation of motivation when learning online: The importance of who, why and how. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 199-212. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9193-6
70. Schiefele, U. (1990). The influence of topic interest, prior knowledge, and cognitive capabilities on text comprehension. In J. M. Pieters, K. Breuer, & P. R. J. Simons (Eds.), Learning environments (pp. 323-338). Berlin, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-84256-6_25
71. Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 299-323.
72. Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 257-279. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_4
73. Schmidt, R., & Bjork, R. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice:Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207-217. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00029.x
74. Sloutsky, V. M., Kaminski, J. A., & Heckler, A. F. (2005). The advantage of simple symbols for learning and transfer. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 508-513. doi:10.3758/BF03193796
75. Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
76. Stacey, K., & MacGregor, M. (1999). Learning the algebraic method of solving problems. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18, 149-167. doi:10.1016/S0732-3123(99)00026-7
77. Swafford, J., & Langrall, C. (2000). Grade 6 students' preinstructional use of equations to describe and represent problem situations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 89-112. doi:10.2307/749821
78. Walkington, C., Petrosino, A., & Sherman, M. (in press). Supporting algebraic reasoning through personalized story scenarios: How situational understanding mediates performance and strategies. Mathematical Thinking and Learning.
79. Walkington, C., Sherman, M., & Petrosino, A. (2012). "Playing the game" of story problems: Coordinating situation-based reasoning with algebraic representation. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31, 174-195. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.12.009
80. Wilensky, U. (1991). Abstract meditations on the concrete and concrete implications for mathematics education. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 193-203). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.