To Resolve or not to Resolve? that is the Big Question About Confusion

Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9112)

Abstract

Positive relationships between confusion and learning have been found for the last decade. Most theoretical foundations for confusion hypothesize that it is not the mere occurrence of confusion, but rather the successful resolution that benefits learning. Empirical research has provided some support for this hypothesis, but investigations of the confusion resolution process are still sparse. The present work is a preliminary investigation of the confusion resolution process within two learning environments that experimentally induce confusion (false feedback, contradictory information). Findings showed that learners did benefit from confusion resolution compared to when confusion was unresolved, but it was not merely from increased effort. The nature of the confusion induction method also influenced the positive impact of confusion resolution on learning. Implications for intelligent tutoring systems are discussed.

Keywords

Confusion resolution Cognitive effort Learning Intelligent tutoring systems 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Craig, S., Graesser, A., Sullins, J., Gholson, B.: Affect and learning: An exploratory look into the role of affect in learning. J. Educational Media 29, 241–250 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D’Mello, S., Graesser, A.: The half-life of cognitive-affective states during complex learning. Cognition & Emotion 25, 1299–1308 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D’Mello, S., Graesser, A.: Confusion. In: Pekrun, R., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (eds.) International handbook of emotions in education, pp. 289–310. Routledge, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D’Mello, S., Graesser, A.: Confusion and its dynamics during device comprehension with breakdown scenarios. Acta psychological 151, 106–116 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D’Mello, S., Lehman, B., Pekrun, R., Graesser, A.: Confusion can be beneficial for learning. Learning & Instruction 29, 153–170 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Graesser, A., D’Mello, S.: Emotions during the learning of difficult material. In: Ross, B. (ed.) Psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol. 57, pp. 183–226. Elsevier (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lehman, B., D’Mello, S., Graesser, A.: False feedback can improve learning when you’re productively confused. (in preparation)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lehman, B., D’Mello, S., Strain, A., Millis, C., Gross, M., Dobbins, A., Wallace, P., Millis, K., Graesser, A.: Inducing and tracking confusion with contradictions during complex learning. Int. J. Artificial Intelligence in Education 22, 85–105 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D’Mello, S., Lehman, B., Graesser, A.: A motivationally supportive affect-sensitive AutoTutor. In: Calvo, R., D’Mello, S. (eds.) New Perspectives on Affect and Learning Technologies, pp. 113–126. Springer, New York (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forbes-Riley, K., Litman, D.: Benefits and challenges of real-time uncertainty detection and adaptation in a spoken dialogue computer tutor. Speech Communication 53, 1115–1136 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grafsgaard, Joseph F., Boyer, Kristy Elizabeth, Phillips, Robert, Lester, James C.: Modeling confusion: facial expression, task, and discourse in task-oriented tutorial dialogue. In: Biswas, Gautam, Bull, Susan, Kay, Judy, Mitrovic, Antonija (eds.) AIED 2011. LNCS, vol. 6738, pp. 98–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Woolf, B., Burleson, W., Arroyo, I., Dragon, T., Cooper, D., Picard, R.: Affect-aware tutors: Recognizing and responding to student affect. Int. J. Learning Technology 4, 129–164 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Limón, M.: On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning & Instruction 11, 357–380 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Festinger, L.: A theory of cognitive dissonance. Row Peterson, Evanston (1957)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Graesser, A., Lu, S., Olde, B., Cooper-Pye, E., Whitten, S.: Question asking and eye tracking during cognitive disequilibrium: Comprehending illustrated texts on devices when the devices breakdown. Memory & Cognition 33, 1235–1247 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Piaget, J.: The origins of intelligence. International University Press, New York (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brown, J., VanLehn, K.: Repair theory: A generative theory of bugs in procedural skills. Cognitive Science 4, 379–426 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    VanLehn, K., Siler, S., Murray, C., Yamauchi, T., Baggett, W.: Why do only some events cause learning during human tutoring? Cognition & Instruction 21, 209–249 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chinn, C., Brewer, W.: The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science education. Review of Educational Research 63, 1–49 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    D’Mello, S., Graesser, A.: Dynamics of affective states during complex learning. Learning & Instruction 22, 145–157 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee, Diane Marie C., Rodrigo, MaMercedes T., Baker, Ryan SJd, Sugay, Jessica O., Coronel, Andrei: Exploring the relationship between novice programmer confusion and achievement. In: D’Mello, Sidney, Graesser, Arthur, Schuller, Björn, Martin, Jean-Claude (eds.) ACII 2011, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6974, pp. 175–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu, Z., Pataranutaporn, V., Ocumpaugh, J., Baker, R.: Sequences of frustration and confusion, and learning. In: D’Mello, S., Calvo, R., & Olney, A. (eds.) EDM 2013, pp. 114–120. International Educational Data Mining Society (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rodrigo, M., Baker, R., Nabos, J.: The relationships between sequences of affect states and learner achievements. In: Wong, S., Kong, S., Yu, F.-Y. (eds.) Computers in Education, pp. 56–60. Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    D’Mello, S., Taylor, R., Graesser, A.: Monitoring affective trajectories during complex learning. In: McNamara, D., Trafton, J. (eds.) Cognitive Science Society 2007, pp. 203–208. Cognitive Science Society, Austin (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Halpern, D., Millis, K., Graesser, A., Butler, H., Forsyth, C., Cai, Z.: Operation ARA: A computerized learning game that teaches critical thinking and scientific reasoning. Thinking Skills and Creativity 7, 93–100 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Testing ServicePrincetonUSA
  2. 2.University of MemphisMemphisUSA

Personalised recommendations