Incorporating effective e-learning principles to improve student engagement in middle-school mathematics

International Journal of STEM Education

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Mulqueeny, Kevin ^a   Kostyuk, Victor ^a   Baker, Ryan S ^b   Ocumpaugh, Jaclyn ^b  

^a Reasoning Mind   (United States)

^b Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

Blended learning; BROMP; E learning; Engaged concentration; Middle school mathematics; Time on task

Indexed keywords

EID: 84963576023     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21967822     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s40594-015-0028-6     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Baker, RS, Corbett, AT, Koedinger, KR (2004). Off-task behavior in the cognitive tutor classroom: When students game the system. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 383-390. New York, NY: ACM
2. th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. 475-482. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press
3. Baker, RS, D’Mello, SK, Rodrigo, MMT, & Graesser, AC. (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
4. th Bi-Annual International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, 14-24. Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
5. Betrancourt, M. (2005). The animation and interactivity principles in multimedia learning. In RE Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 287–296). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
6. Bush, J & Kim, M (2014). Evaluation of Reasoning Mind Final Report 2013-14. Program Evaluation. Dallas Independent School District. http://www.dallasisd.org/cms/lib/TX01001475/Centricity/domain/98/evaluation/13-14/finalrpts/EA14-512-2-Reasoning-Mind-Program-Final.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2015
7. Chandler, P, & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332
8. rd ed). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer
9. th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, 507-514. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press
10. 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
11. D’Mello, S, & Graesser, AC. (2012). Dynamics of affective states during complex learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 145–157
12. D’Mello, S, Lehman, BA, & Person, N. (2010). Mining collaborative patterns in tutorial dialogues. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 2(1), 1–37
13. D’Mello, SK, Lehman, B, Pekrun, R, & Graesser, AC. (2014). Confusion can be beneficial for learning. Learning & Instruction, 29(1), 153–170
14. Doddannara, LS, Gowda, SM, Baker, RSJ, Gowda, SM, & de Carvalho, AMJB. (2013). Exploring the relationships between design, students’ affective states, and disengaged behaviors within an ITS. In HC Lane, K Yacef, J Mostow, & P Pavlik (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education (pp. 31-40). Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
15. Finn, JD, & Zimmer, KS. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In SL Christenson, AL Reschly, & C Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97–131). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media
16. Finn, JD, Folger, J, & Cox, D. (1991). Measuring participation among elementary grade students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 393–402
17. Forsyth, C, Li, H, & Graesser, AC. (2014). Learning by communicating in natural language with conversational agents. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(5), 374–380
18. Fredricks, JA, Blumenfeld, PC, & Paris, AH. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109
19. st century a framework for research and practice. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer
20. Goodman, L. (1990). Time and learning in the special education classroom. Albany, NY: SUNY Press
21. Govindasamy, T. (2002). Successful implementation of e-learning pedagogical considerations. Internet and Higher Education, 4, 287–299
22. Halpern, DF, Graesser, A, & Hakel, M. (2007). 25 learning principles to guide pedagogy and the design of learning environments. Washington, DC: Association for Psychological Science Task Force on Life Long Learning at Work and at Home
23. Harp, SF, & Mayer, RE. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: a theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414–434
24. Heffernan, NT, & Heffernan, CL. (2014). The ASSISTments ecosystem: Building a platform that brings scientists and teachers together for minimally invasive research on human learning and teaching. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24(4), 470–497
25. Horn, MB & Staker, H (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning. Resource document. Innosight Institute. http://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-rise-of-K-12-blended-learning.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2015
26. Kester, L, Kirschner, PA, & van Merriënboer, JJG. (2006). Just-in-time information presentation: improving learning a troubleshooting skill. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 167–185
27. Khachatryan, GA, Romashov, AV, Khachatryan, AR, Gaudino, SJ, Khachatryan, JM, Guarian, KR, & Yufa, NV. (2014). Reasoning Mind Genie 2: an intelligent tutoring system as a vehicle for international transfer of instructional methods in mathematics. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24(3), 333–382
28. Koedinger, KR, & Corbett, AT. (2006). Cognitive tutors: technology bringing learning science to the classroom. In RK Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 61–77). New York: Cambridge University Press
29. Lee, SW, Kelly, KE, & Nyre, JE. (1999). Preliminary report on the relation of students’ on-task behavior with completion of school work. Psychological Reports, 84, 267–272
30. th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, 114-120. Memphis, TN: International Educational Data Mining Society
31. Lloyd, JW, & Loper, AB. (1986). Measurement and evaluation of task-related learning behavior: attention to task and metacognition. School Psychology Review, 15(3), 336–345
32. Low, R, & Sweller, J. (2005). The modality effect in multimedia learning. In RE Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 147–158). New York: Cambridge University Press
33. Mayer, RE, & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 390–397
34. Mayer, RE, & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312–20
35. Mayer, RE, & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52
36. Mayer, RE, Heiser, J, & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: when presenting more material results in less learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187–198
37. McDonald, JH. (2014). Handbook of biological statistics. Baltimore, MD: Sparky House
38. Miller, WL, Baker, RS, Labrum, MJ, Petsche, K, Wagner, AZ (2015). Automated detection of proactive remediation by teachers in Reasoning Mind classrooms. Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge. 290-294. New York, NY: ACM
39. Moreno, R, & Mayer, RE. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: the role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368
40. Moreno, R, Mayer, RE, Spires, H, & Lester, J. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19, 177–214
41. Ocumpaugh, J, Baker, RS, & Rodrigo, MMT. (2015). Baker Rodrigo Ocumpaugh Monitoring Protocol (BROMP) 2.0 Technical and Training Manual. Technical Report. New York, NY: EdLab. Manila, Philippines: Ateneo Laboratory for the Learning Sciences. http://www.columbia.edu/~rsb2162/BROMP.pdf. Accessed 24 March 2015
42. Paquette, L, Baker, RS, Sao Pedro, MA, Gobert, JD, Rossi, L, Nakama, A, & Kauffman-Rogoff, Z. (2014). Sensor-free affect detection for a simulation-based science inquiry learning environment. In S Trausan-Matu, KE Boyer, M Crosby, & K Panourgia (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 1–10). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing
43. Pardos, ZA, Baker, RS, San Pedro, M, Gowda, SM, & Gowda, SM. (2014). Affective states and state tests: investigating how affect and engagement during the school year predict end-of-year learning outcomes. Journal of Learning Analytics, 1(1), 107–128
44. Pasolunghi, MC, Cornoldi, C, & Liberto, S. (1999). Working memory and intrusions of irrelevant information in a group of specific poor problem solvers. Memory & Cognition, 27(5), 779–790
45. th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 40-49. Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
46. Sabourin, J, Rowe, JP, Mott, BW, & Lester, JC. (2011). When off-task is on-task: the affective role of off-task behavior in narrative-centered learning environments. In G Biswas, S Bull, J Kay, & A Mitrovic (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education (pp. 534–536). Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
47. th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, 177-184. Memphis, TN: International Educational Data Mining Society
48. San Pedro, MOZ, Baker, RSJ, Gowda, SM, & Heffernan, NT. (2013b). Towards an understanding of affect and knowledge from student interaction with an intelligent tutoring system. In HC Lane, K Yacef, J Mostow, & P Pavlik (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education (pp. 41–50). Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
49. th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, 276-279. Memphis, TN: International Educational Data Mining Society
50. van Merriënboer, JJG, & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177
51. Waxman, HC & Houston, WR (2012). Evaluation of the 2010-2011 Reasoning Mind Program in Beaumont ISD. http://www.reasoningmind.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2010-20111_Beaumont_ISD_Independent_Evaluation.pdf. Accessed 25 March 2015