Understanding attention to adaptive hints in educational games: An eye-tracking study

International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education

Volumn 23, Issue 1-4, 2013, Pages 136-161

  Conati, Cristina ^a   Jaques, Natasha ^a   Muir, Mary ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Adaptive hints; Attention to hints; Educational games; Eye tracking

Indexed keywords

LEARNING SYSTEMS;

ADAPTIVE HINTS; ATTENTION TO HINTS; EDUCATIONAL COMPUTER GAME; EDUCATIONAL GAME; EYE-TRACKING; EYE-TRACKING STUDIES; STUDENT LEARNING; STUDENT'S PERFORMANCE;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84902482245     PISSN: 15604292     EISSN: 15604306     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40593-013-0002-8     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Aleven, V., McLaren, B., Roll, I., & Koedinger, K. (2004). Toward tutoring help seeking: Applying cognitive modeling to meta-cognitive skills. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 227-239). Maceió, Brazil. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/RTCY8JNL39PWQKFJ.pdf.
2. Anderson, J. R. (2002). Spanning seven orders of magnitude: a challenge for cognitive modeling. Cognitive Science, 26(1), 85-112.
3. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167-207.
4. Baker, R. S., Corbett, A. T., & Koedinger, K. R. (2004). Detecting student misuse of intelligent tutoring systems. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 531-540). Maceió, Brazil. Retrieved from http:// www.springerlink.com/index/LWBCJ45L817QXFWM.pdf.
5. Baker, R., Corbett, A. T., Roll, I., & Koedinger, K. R. (2008). Developing a generalizable detector of when students game the system. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 18(3), 287- 314.
6. Barrow, D., Mitrovic, A., Ohlsson, S., & Grimley, M. (2008). Assessing the impact of positive feedback in constraint-based tutors. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 250-259). Retrieved from http:// link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-69132-7-29.
7. Beal, C. R., Qu, L., & Lee, H. (2006). Classifying learner engagement through integration of multiple data sources. In Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 21, pp. 2-8). Boston. Retrieved from http://www.aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/2006/AAAI06-024.pdf.
8. Beck, J. E. (2005). Engagement tracing: using response times to model student disengagement. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 88- 95). Amsterdam.
9. Bondareva, D., Conati, C., Feyzi-Behnagh, R., Harley, J., Azevedo, R., & Bouchet, F. (2013). Inferring Learning from Gaze Data during Interaction with an Environment to Support Self-Regulated Learning.
10. Bull, S., Cooke, N., & Mabbott, A. (2007). Visual attention in open learner model presentations: An eyetracking investigation. In User Modeling 2007 (pp. 177-186). Presented at the Proceedings of UMAP 2007, the 11th International Conference on User Modeling, Springer-Verlag. Retrieved from http:// www.springerlink.com/index/p2272121j9673136.pdf
11. Conati, C., & Klawe, M. (2002). Socially intelligent agents in educational games. In K. Dautenhahn, A. Bond, D. Canamero, & B. Edmonds (Eds.), Socially intelligent agents - creating relationships with computers and robots (213-220). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
12. Conati, C., & Maclaren, H. (2009). Empirically building and evaluating a probabilistic model of user affect. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 19(3), 267-303.
13. Conati, C., & Manske, M. (2009). Evaluating adaptive feedback in an educational computer game. In Intelligent Virtual Agents (pp. 146-158). Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/ y1p6l46183727716.pdf.
14. Conati, C., & Merten, C. (2007). Eye-tracking for user modeling in exploratory learning environments: an empirical evaluation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 20(6), 557-574. (Pubitemid 47068960)
15. Conati, C., Gertner, A., & Vanlehn, K. (2002b). Using Bayesian networks to manage uncertainty in student modeling. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 12(4), 371-417.
16. D'Mello, S., Olney, A., Williams, C., & Hays, P. (2012). Gaze tutor: a gaze-reactive intelligent tutoring system. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70(5), 377-398.
17. De Castell, S., & Jenson, J. (2007). Digital games for education: When meanings play. Intermédialités: Histoire et théorie des arts, des lettres et des techniques, (9). Retrieved from http://www.erudit.org/revue/im/2007/v/n9/1005533ar.html?vue=resume.
18. Easterday, M., Aleven, V., Scheines, R., & Carver, S. (2011). Using tutors to improve educational games. In Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 63-71). Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/ P1321423258N254P.pdf.
19. Gluck, K., Anderson, J., & Douglass, S. (2000). Broader Bandwidth in Student Modeling: What if ITS Were "Eye" TS? In Proceedings of the 5th Internation Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 504-513). Springer-Verlag. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/ B5WQD63CA47N29VJ.pdf
20. Goldberg, J. H., & Helfman, J. I. (2010). Comparing information graphics: a critical look at eye tracking. In Proceedings of BELIV'10, the 3rd Workshop: BEyond time and errors: novel evaLuation methods for Information Visualization (pp. 71-78). Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id= 2110203
21. Goldberg, J. H., & Kotval, X. P. (1999). Computer interface evaluation using eye movements: methods and constructs. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 24(6), 631-645. (Pubitemid 29447641)
22. Goldin, I. M., Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2012). Learner Differences in Hint Processing. EDM. Retrieved from http://www.pitt.edu/~goldin/ pubs/goldin-2012-different-learners.pdf
23. Johns, J., & Woolf, B. (2006). A dynamic mixture model to detect student motivation and proficiency. In Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 21, p. 163). Boston. Retrieved from http://www.aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/2006/AAAI06-026.pdf
24. Just, M. C. (1986). The Psychology of Reading and Language Comprehension. Boston. (1986). Boston.
25. Kardan, S., & Conati, C. (2012). Exploring gaze data for determining user learning with an interactive simulation. In Proceedings of UMAP 2012, the 20th International Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization (pp. 126-138). Springer. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink. com/index/4810592K35003701.pdf
26. Kardan, S., & Conati, C. (2013). Comparing and Combining Eye Gaze and Interface Actions for Determining User Learning with an Interactive Simulation. In User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization (pp. 215-227). Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/ 978-3-642-38844-6-18.
27. Linehan, C., Kirman, B., Lawson, S., & Chan, G. (2011). Practical, appropriate, empirically-validated guidelines for designing educational games. In Proceedings of CHI 2011, the 2011 Annual Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1979-1988). Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation. cfm?id=1979229
28. Loboda, T. D., & Brusilovsky, P. (2010). User-adaptive explanatory program visualization: evaluation and insights from eye movements. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 20(3), 191-226.
29. Manske, M., & Conati, C. (2005). Modelling learning in educational games. In Proceedings of AIED 2005, the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Amsterdam: University of British Columbia. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.186. 6247&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
30. Mathews, M., Mitrovic, A., Lin, B., Holland, J., & Churcher, N. (2012). Do Your Eyes Give It Away? Using Eye Tracking Data to Understand Students' Attitudes towards Open Student Model Representations. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 424-429). Springer-Verlag. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/ 6T47G3L65482N153.pdf.
31. Mitrovic, A. (2012). Fifteen years of constraint-based tutors: what we have achieved and where we are going. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 22(1-2), 39-72.
32. Mitrovic, A., & Martin, B. (2000). Evaluating the effectiveness of feedback in SQL-Tutor. In Advanced Learning Technologies, 2000. IWALT 2000. Proceedings. International Workshop on (pp. 143-144). Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs-all.jsp?arnumber=890591.
33. Muir, M., & Conati, C. (2012). An Analysis of Attention to Student-Adaptive Hints in an Educational Game. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 112-122). Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/ 10.1007/978-3-642-30950-2-15.
34. Muldner, K., Atkinson, R., & Burleson, W. (2009). Investigating the utility of eye-tracking information on affect and reasoning for user modeling. User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization, 138-149.
35. Peirce, N., Conlan, O., & Wade, V. (2008). Adaptive educational games: Providing non-invasive personalised learning experiences. In Proceedings of DIGTEL 2008, the second IEEE International Conference on Digital Games and Intelligent Toys Based Education (pp. 28-35). Banff, Canada. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs-all.jsp?arnumber=4700726.
36. Qu, L., & Johnson, W. L. (2005). Detecting the learner's motivational states in an interactive learning environment. In Proceedings of AIED 2005, the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 547-554). IOS Press.
37. Robison, J. L., McQuiggan, S. W., & Lester, J. C. (2009). Modeling task-based vs. affect-based feedback behavior in pedagogical agents: An inductive approach. In Proceedings of the 2009 conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: Building Learning Systems that Care: From Knowledge Representation to Affective Modelling (pp. 25-32).
38. Roll, I., Aleven, V., McLaren, B., Ryu, E., Baker, R., & Koedinger, K. (2006). The Help Tutor: Does Metacognitive Feedback Improve Students' Help-Seeking Actions, Skills and Learning? In Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 360-369). Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/a1861j14616g3n62.pdf.
39. Rowe, J., & Lester, J. (2010). Modeling user knowledge with dynamic Bayesian networks in interactive narrative environments. In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual AI and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference (pp. 57-62). Retrieved from http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AIIDE/AIIDE10/paper/download/ 2149/2545.
40. Rowe, J. P., Shores, L. R., Mott, B. W., & Lester, J. C. (2011). Integrating learning, problem solving, and engagement in narrative-centered learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 21(1), 115-133.
41. Sabourin, J., Shores, L., Mott, B., & Lester, J. (2012). Predicting student self-regulation strategies in gamebased learning environments. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 141-150). Retrieved from http:// www.springerlink.com/index/67VU6G07664083HV.pdf.
42. Shih, B., Koedinger, K., & Scheines, R. (2010). Unsupervised discovery of student learning tactics. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Educational Data Mining. Retrieved from http://pact.cs.cmu.edu/ pubs/Shih,%20Koedinger,%20Scheines-edm2010-pdf.
43. Sibert, J. L., Gokturk, M., & Lavine, R. A. (2000). The reading assistant: eye gaze triggered auditory prompting for reading remediation. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (pp. 101-107). ACM Press. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/ citation.cfm?id=354418.
44. Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. J. (1994). Modeled variance in two-level models. Sociological Methods & Research, 22(3), 342-363.
45. Toker, D., Conati, C., Steichen, B., & Carenini, G. (2013). Individual User Characteristics and Information Visualization: Connecting the Dots through Eye Tracking. In Proc. of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,(CHI 2013). Retrieved from http://www-devel.cs.ubc. ca/~conati/my-papers/CHI2013CameraReady.pdf.
46. Van Eck, R. (2007). Building artificially intelligent learning games. Games and simulations in online learning: Research and development frameworks, pp. 271-307.
47. Wainwright, P. E., Leatherdale, S. T., & Dubin, J. A. (2007). Advantages of mixed effects models over traditional ANOVA models in developmental studies: a worked example in a mouse model of fetal alcohol syndrome. Developmental Psychobiology, 49(7), 664-674. (Pubitemid 350033795)
48. Walonoski, J., & Heffernan, N. (2006). Prevention of off-task gaming behavior in intelligent tutoring systems. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 722-724). Jhongli, Taiwan. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/e2j662w5x15x3707.pdf.
49. Wang, H., Chignell, M., & Ishizuka, M. (2006). Empathic tutoring software agents using real-time eye tracking. In Proceedings of the 2006 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications (pp. 73-78). ACM Press. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1117346.
50. Woolf, B. P. (2008). Building intelligent interactive tutors: Student-centered strategies for revolutionizing e-learning. Morgan Kaufmann.