Advertisement

What Makes Learning Fun? Exploring the Influence of Choice and Difficulty on Mind Wandering and Engagement during Learning

  • Caitlin Mills
  • Sidney D’Mello
  • Blair Lehman
  • Nigel Bosch
  • Amber Strain
  • Art Graesser
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7926)

Abstract

Maintaining learner engagement is critical for all types of learning technologies. This study investigated how choice over a learning topic and the difficulty of the materials influenced mind wandering, engagement, and learning during a computerized learning task. 59 participants were randomly assigned to a text difficulty and choice condition (i.e., self-selected or experimenter-selected topic) and measures of mind wandering and engagement were collected during learning. Participants who studied the difficult version of the texts reported significantly higher rates of mind wandering (d = .41) and lower arousal both during (d = .52) and after the learning session (d = .48). Mind wandering and arousal were not affected by choice. However, participants who were assigned to study the topic they selected reported significantly more positive valence during (d = .57) but not after learning. These participants also scored substantially higher on a subsequent knowledge test (d = 1.27). These results suggest that choice and text difficulty differentially impact mind wandering, engagement, and learning and provide important considerations for the design of ITSs and serious games with a reading component.

Keywords

engagement mind wandering reading serious games affect 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Flow: The psychology of optimal performance. Cambridge University Press, New York (1990)Google 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.
    Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L., Stupnisky, R., Perry, R.: Boredom in achievement settings: Exploring control–value antecedents and performance outcomes of a neglected emotion. Journal of Educational Psychology 102, 531 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drummond, J., Litman, D.: In the zone: Towards detecting student zoning out using supervised machine learning. In: Aleven, V., Kay, J., Mostow, J. (eds.) ITS 2010, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6095, pp. 306–309. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Forbes-Riley, K., Litman, D.: When does disengagement correlate with learning in spoken dialog computer tutoring? In: Biswas, G., Bull, S., Kay, J., Mitrovic, A. (eds.) AIED 2011. LNCS, vol. 6738, pp. 81–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mann, S., Robinson, A.: Boredom in the lecture theatre: An investigation into the contributors, moderators and outcomes of boredom amongst university students. British Educational Research Journal 35, 243–258 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baker, R., D’Mello, S., Rodrigo, M., Graesser, A.: 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, 223–241 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Larson, R., Richards, M.: Boredom in the middle school years: Blaming schools versus blaming students. American Journal of Education 99, 418–443 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., Paris, A.: School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research 74, 59–109 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arroyo, I., Ferguson, K., Johns, J., Dragon, T., Meheranian, H., Fisher, D., et al.: Repairing disengagement with non-invasive interventions. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 158, p. 195 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D’Mello, S., Chipman, P., Graesser, A.: Posture as a predictor of learner’s affective engagement. In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 905–910 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Joseph, E.: Engagement tracing: Using response times to model student disengagement. In: Artificial Intelligence in Education: Supporting Learning Through Intelligent and Socially Informed Technology, vol. 125, p. 88 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smallwood, J., Schooler, J.: The restless mind. Psychological Bulletin 132, 946 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smallwood, J., Fishman, D., Schooler, J.: Counting the cost of an absent mind: Mind wandering as an underrecognized influence on educational performance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14, 230–236 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Graesser, A.: Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review 101, 371–395 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McNamara, D., Kintsch, W.: Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes 22, 247–288 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., McNamara, D.: Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction 19, 228–242 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zwaan, R., Radvansky, G.: Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin 123, 162 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schooler, J., Smallwood, J., Christoff, K., Handy, T., Reichle, E., Sayette, M.: Meta-awareness, perceptual decoupling and the wandering mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15, 319–326 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smallwood, J., McSpadden, M., Schooler, J.: The lights are on but no one’s home: Meta-awareness and the decoupling of attention when the mind wanders. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14, 527–533 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Feng, S., D’Mello, S., Graesser, A.: Mind wandering while reading easy and difficult texts. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review (in press)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pekrun, R.: The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review 18, 315–341 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Deci, E., Ryan, R.: Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum, New York (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hidi, S., Renninger, K.: The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist 41, 111–127 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cordova, D., Lepper, M.: Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology 88, 715 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Calvert, S., Strong, B., Gallagher, L.: Control as an engagement feature for young children’s attention to and learning of computer content. The American Behavioral Scientist 48, 578 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ainley, M., Hidi, S., Berndorff, D.: Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology 94, 545 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Millis, K., Forsyth, C., Butler, H., Wallace, P., Graesser, A., Halpern, D.: Operation ARIES!: A serious game for teaching scientific inquiry. In: Serious Games and Edutainment Applications, pp. 169–195. Springer, London (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Smilek, D., Carriere, J., Cheyne, J.: Out of mind, out of sight Eye blinking as indicator and embodiment of mind wandering. Psychological Science 21, 786–789 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., Gosling, S.: Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6, 3–5 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mason, W., Suri, S.: Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods 44, 1–23 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Graesser, A., McNamara, D., Kulikowich, J.: Coh-Metrix providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher 40, 223–234 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McNamara, D., Louwerse, M., McCarthy, P., Graesser, A.: Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes 47, 292–330 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Graesser, A., Person, N.: Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal 31, 104–137 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caitlin Mills
    • 1
  • Sidney D’Mello
    • 1
    • 2
  • Blair Lehman
    • 3
  • Nigel Bosch
    • 2
  • Amber Strain
    • 3
  • Art Graesser
    • 3
  1. 1.Departments of PsychologyUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA
  2. 2.Computer ScienceUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA
  3. 3.Department of Psychology and Institute for Intelligent SystemsUniversity of MemphisMemphisUSA

Personalised recommendations