1 / 11

Cognitive Learning Lab

Cognitive Learning Lab. Fall 2003. Purpose of the study. To try to replicate the findings from our previous research To determine if there is a correlation between the participants emotions and the participants learning gains. Methods. 34 participants interacted with AutoTutor

reed-zamora
Télécharger la présentation

Cognitive Learning Lab

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cognitive Learning Lab Fall 2003

  2. Purpose of the study • To try to replicate the findings from our previous research • To determine if there is a correlation between the participants emotions and the participants learning gains

  3. Methods • 34 participants interacted with AutoTutor • Rater would observed the participant for 30 seconds every 5 minutes • Rater wrote down what emotion they thought the participant was experiencing • Emotions of interest • Frustration, Boredom, Flow • Confusion, Eureka, Neutral

  4. Emotion Frequencies

  5. Correlations with Learning Gains There were no significant correlations.

  6. Means for Studies 1 &2

  7. Median Split • Low domain knowledge group • Mean change score of 6.44 • High domain knowledge group • Mean change score was 1.38

  8. Low domain knowledge group * a significant correlation

  9. High domain knowledge group There were no significant correlations

  10. Possible Confounds • Compared to last spring’s study, we had more raters and some different raters • Possible experimenter bias • Need completely naïve raters • Inter-judge reliability

  11. Questions?

More Related