Using Trace Data to Examine the Complex Roles of Cognitive, Metacognitive, and Emotional Self-Regulatory Processes During Learning with Multi-agent Systems

  • Roger Azevedo
  • Jason Harley
  • Gregory Trevors
  • Melissa Duffy
  • Reza Feyzi-Behnagh
  • François Bouchet
  • Ronald Landis
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter emphasizes the importance of using multi-channel trace data to examine the complex roles of cognitive, affective, and metacognitive (CAM) self-regulatory processes deployed by students during learning with multi-agent systems. We argue that tracing these processes as they unfold in real-time is key to understanding how they contribute both individually and together to learning and problem solving. In this chapter we describe MetaTutor (a multi-agent, intelligent hypermedia system) and how it can be used to facilitate learning of complex biological topics and as a research tool to examine the role of CAM processes used by learners. Following a description of the theoretical perspective and underlying assumptions of self-regulated learning (SRL) as an event, we provide empirical evidence from five different trace data, including concurrent think-alouds, eye-tracking, note taking and drawing, log-files, and facial recognition, to exemplify how these diverse sources of data help understand the complexity of CAM processes and their relation to learning. Lastly, we provide implications for future research of advanced leaning technologies (ALTs) that focus on examining the role of CAM processes during SRL with these powerful, yet challenging, technological environments.

References

  1. Albrecht, J. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (1993). Updating a mental model: Maintaining both local and global coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1061–1069.Google Scholar
  2. Aleven, V., Roll, I., McLaren, B. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2010). Automated, unobtrusive, action-by-action assessment of self-regulation during learning with an intelligent tutoring system. Educational Psychologist, 45, 224–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals structures and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arroyo, I., Woolf, B., Cooper, D., Burleson, W., Muldner, K., & Christopherson, R. (2009). Emotion sensors go to school. In V. Dimitrova, R. Mizoguchi, B. du Boulay, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 17–24). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Ios Press.Google Scholar
  6. Azevedo, R. (2007). Understanding the complex nature of self-regulated learning processes in learning with computer-based learning environments: An introduction. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2/3), 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Azevedo, R., & Chauncey-Strain, A. C. (2011). Integrating cognitive, metacognitive, and affective regulatory processes with MetaTutor. In R. A. Calvo & S. D’Mello (Eds.), New perspectives on affect and learning technologies (pp. 141–154). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Moos, D. C., Greene, J. A., & Winters, F. I. (2011). Adaptive content and process scaffolding: A key to facilitating students’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Psychological Testing and Assessment Modeling, 53, 106–140.Google Scholar
  9. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Winters, F. I., Moos, D. C., & Greene, J. A. (2005). Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 33, 381–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Azevedo, R., & Feyzi-Behnagh, R. (2011). Dysregulated learning with advanced learning technologies. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 7(2), 9–18.Google Scholar
  11. Azevedo, R., Johnson, A., Chauncey, A., & Burkett, C. (2010). Self-regulated learning with MetaTutor: Advancing the science of learning with MetaCognitive tools. In M. Khine & I. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Computers, cognition, and collaboration in education (pp. 225–247). Amsterdam: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Johnson, A. M., & Chauncey, A. D. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory processes during hypermedia learning: Issues and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 45, 210–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Azevedo, R., Johnson, A. M., Chauncey, A., & Graesser, A. (2011). Use of hypermedia to assess and convey self-regulated learning. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regualtion of learning and performance (pp. 102–121). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Azevedo, R., Feyzi-Behnagh, R., Duffy, M., Harley, J., & Trevors, G. (2012). Metacognition and self-regulated learning in student-centered leaning environments. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of student-center learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 171–197). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Azevedo, R., Landis, R. S., Feyzi-Behnagh, R., Duffy, M., Trevors, G., Harley, J., Hossain, G. (2012b). The effectiveness of pedagogical agentsprompting and feedback in facilitating co-adapted learning with MetaTutor. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Crete, Greece.Google Scholar
  16. Azevedo, R., Bouchet, F., Feyzi-Behnagh, R., Harley, J., Duffy, M., & Trevors, G. (2012c). MetaTutor as an innovative technology environment to assess studentsself-regulatory processes. Paper to be presented at a Symposium on Knowing What Students Know and Feel: Innovative Technology Rich Assessments at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
  17. Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Greene, J. A., Winters, F. I., & Cromley, J. G. (2008). Why is externally-facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia? Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 45–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Azevedo, R., & Witherspoon, A. M. (2009). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 319–339). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Beatty, J. (1982). Task-evoked pupillary responses, ­processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychological Bulletin, 91(2), 276–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Beatty, J. (1988). Situational and predispositional correlates of public speaking anxiety. Communication Education, 37(1), 28–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Biswas, G., Jeong, H., Kinnebrew, J., Sulcer, B., & Roscoe, R. (2010). Measuring self-regulated learning skills through social interactions in a teachable agent environment. Research and Practice in Technology-Enhanced Learning, 5(2), 123–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Boekaerts, M. (2011). Emotions, emotion regulation, and self-regulation of learning. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 408–425). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  24. Bouchet, F., Harley, J., Trevors, G., & Azevedo, R. (2012). Clustering and profiling students according to their interactions with an intelligent tutoring system fostering self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Data Mining.Google Scholar
  25. Bouchet, F., Kinnebrew, J. S., Biswas, G., & Azevedo, R. (2012). Identifying students’ characteristic learning behaviors in an intelligent tutoring system fostering self-regulated learning. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, Chania, Greece.Google Scholar
  26. Bromme, R., Pieschl, S., & Stahl, E. (2010). Epistemological beliefs are standards for adaptive learning: A functional theory about epistemological beliefs and metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 5(1), 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Butler, D., & Winne, P. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Calvo, R. A., & D’Mello, S. (2010). Affect detection: An interdisciplinary review of models, methods, and their applications. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 1, 18–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Calvo, R. A., & D’Mello, S. K. (Eds.). (2011). New perspectives on affect and learning technologies. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of Learning Sciences, 6, 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Conati, C., & Maclaren, H. (2009). Empirically building and evaluating a probabilistic model of user affect. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 19, 267–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Conati, C., & Merten, C. (2007). Eye-tracking for user modeling in exploratory learning environments: An empirical evaluation. Knowledge Based Systems, 20(6), Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  33. Cook, A. E., Halleran, J. G., & O’Brien, E. J. (1998). What is readily available during reading? A memory-based view of text processing. Discourse Process, 26, 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Craig, S., D’Mello, S., Witherspoon, A., & Graesser, A. (2007). Emote aloud during learning with AutoTutor: Applying the Facial Action Coding System to cognitive-affective states during learning. Cognition and Emotion, 22, 777–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. D’Mello, K. S., Craig, S. D., & Graesser, A. C. (2009). Multimethod assessment of affective experience and expression during deep learning. International Journal of Learning Technology, 4(3/4), 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Multimodal semi-automated affect detection from conversational cues, gross body language, and facial features. User Modeling and User-adapted Interaction, 20(2), 147–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dahl, T. I., Bals, M., & Turi, A. L. (2005). Are students’ beliefs about knowledge and learning associated with their reported use of learning strategies? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 257–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. R. (2007). Metacomprehension: A brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4), 228–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 6–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ekman, P. (2003). The face revealed. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
  42. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial action coding system: A technique for the measurement of facial movement. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (2003). Unmasking the face: A guide to recognizing emotions from facial clues. Los Altos, CA: Malor Books. Retrieved from http://google.com/books (Original work published 1975).
  44. Entwistle, N. J., & Peterson, E. R. (2004). Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education: Relationships with study behaviour and influences of learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Feyzi-Behnagh, R., Khezri, Z., & Azevedo, R. (2011). An investigation of accuracy of metacognitive judgments during learning with an intelligent multi-agent hypermedia environment. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 96–101). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  46. Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin’s model of self-regulated learning: New perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 334–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2009). A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the acquisition of sophisticated mental models. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2010). The measurement of learners’ self-regulated cognitive and metacognitive processes while using computer-based learning environments. Educational Psychologist, 45, 203–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Greene, J. A., Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2011). Self-regulated learning with computer-based learning environments. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 126, 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Gross, J. J., Sheppes, G., & Urry, H. L. (2011). Emotion generation and emotion regulation: A distinction we should make (carefully). Cognition and Emotion, 25(5), 765–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Harley, J., Bouchet, F., & Azevedo, R. (2011). Examining learner’s emotional responses to pedagogical agents’ tutoring strategies. In H. Högni Vilhjálmsson, S. Koop, S. Marsella, & K. R. Thórisson (Eds.), Lecture notes in artificial intelligence: subseries of lecture notes in computer science: Vol: 6895. Intelligent virtual agents (IVA) (pp. 449–450). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Harley, J., Bouchet, F., & Azevedo, R. (2012a). Measuring learners’ co-occurring emotional responses during their interaction with a pedagogical agent in MetaTutor. In S. A. Cerri, W. J. Clancey, G. Papadourakis, & K. Panourgia. Lecture notes in computer science: Vol: 7315. Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 40–45). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Harley, J., Bouchet, F., & Azevedo, R. (2012b). Measuring learnersunfolding, discrete emotional responses to different pedagogical agents scaffolding strategies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  54. Hess, E. H., & Polt, J. M. (1960). Pupil size as related to interest value of visual stimuli. Science, 132, 349–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hulleman, C. S., Schrager, S. H., Bodmann, S. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels? Psychological Bulletin, 136, 422–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hyönä, J. (1995). An eye-movement analysis of topic-shift effect during repeated reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1365–1373.Google Scholar
  57. Johnson, A. M., Azevedo, R., & D’Mello, S. K. (2011). The temporal and dynamic nature of self-regulatory processes during independent and externally assisted hypermedia learning. Cognition and Instruction, 29(4), 471–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lang, P. J., Greenwald, M. K., Bradley, M. M., & Hamm, A. O. (1993). Looking at pictures: affective, facial, visceral, and behavioral reactions. Psychophysiology, 30(30), 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lorch, R. E. J., & van den Broek, P. (1997). Understanding reading comprehension: Current and future contributions to cognitive science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 213–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lundqvist, D., Flykt, A., & Öhman, A. (1998). The Karolinska directed emotional faces [KDEF, CD ROM]. Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Psychology section, Karolinska Institute. ISBN: 91-630-7164-9.Google Scholar
  62. Malmberg, J., Jarvenoja, H., & Jarvela, S. (2010). Tracing elementary school students’ study tactic use in gStudy by examining a strategic and self-regulated learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1034–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mauss, I. B., & Robinson, M. D. (2009). Measures of emotion: A review. Cognition and Emotion, 23, 209–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. McQuiggan, S., Robinson, J., & Lester, J. (2008). Affective transitions in narrative-centered learning environments. Educational Technology and Society, 13(1), 40–53.Google Scholar
  65. Metcalfe, J., & Dunlosky, J. (2008). Metamemory. In H. Roediger (Ed.), Cognitive psychology of memory (Vol. 2). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  66. Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: The role of prior domain knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 270–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Muis, K. R. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 42(3), 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Muis, K. R., & Franco, G. (2009). Epistemic beliefs: Setting the standards in self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 306–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. O’Brien, E. J. (1995). Automatic components of discourse comprehension. In E. P. Lorch & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 156–176). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  70. Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Petra, B., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance: The achievement emotions questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 34–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Portala, T., & Surakka, V. (2003). Pupil size variation as an indication of affective processing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(1–2), 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Scheiter, S., & van Gog, T. (2009). Using eye tacking in applied research to study and stimulate the processing of information from multi-representational sources. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1209–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schommer, M. (1998). The influence of age and education on epistemological beliefs. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(4), 551–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schoor, C., & Bannert, M. (2012). Exploring regulatory processes during a computer-supported collaborative learning task using process mining. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1321–1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schunk, D. (2001). Social cognitive theory of self-regulated learning. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 125–152). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  79. Schunk, D. (2008). Attributions as motivators of self-regulated learning. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 245–266). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  80. Schunk, D., & Usher, E. (2011). Assessing self-efficacy for self-regulated learning. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 282–297). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.Google Scholar
  81. Terzis, V., Moridis, C. N., & Economides, A. A. (2010). Measuring instant emotions during a self-assessment test: The use of FaceReader. In A. J. Spink, F. Grieco, O. E. Krips, L. W. S. Loijens, L. P. J. J. Noldus, & P. H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Proceedings of Measuring Behavior 2010 (pp. 192–195). Eindoven, The Netherlands: ACM.Google Scholar
  82. Trevors, G., Duffy, M., & Azevedo, R. (2011). Are intelligent pedagogical agents effective in fostering students’ note-taking while learning with a mutli-agent adaptive hypermedia environment? Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (pp. 475–476), Reykjavik, Iceland: Springer.Google Scholar
  83. Van Kuilenburg, H., Wiering, M., & Den Uyl, M. J. (2005). A model based method for automatic facial expression recognition. Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Machine Learning, Porto, Portugal, 2005 (pp. 194–205). Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Van Someren, M. W., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & de Jong, T. (Eds.). (1998). Learning with multiple representations. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  85. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 153–189). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  87. Winne, P. H. (2005). Key issues on modeling and applying research on self-regulated learning. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 232–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Winne, P., & Hadwin, A. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 227–304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  89. Winne, P., & Hadwin, A. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 297–314). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  90. Winne, P. H., & Nesbit, J. C. (2009). Supporting self-regulated learning with cognitive tools. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  91. Zeng, Z., Pantic, M., Roisman, G., & Huang, T. (2009). A survey of affect recognition methods: Audio, visual, and spontaneous expressions. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 31(1), 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research and practice (pp. 1–25). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zimmerman, B. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: theoretical perspectives. New York, USA: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  96. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of self-regualtion of learning and performance. New York, USA: Routledge.Google Scholar
  97. Zwann, R. A., & Singer, M. (2003). Text comprehension. In A. C. Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 83–121). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger Azevedo
    • 1
  • Jason Harley
    • 1
  • Gregory Trevors
    • 1
  • Melissa Duffy
    • 1
  • Reza Feyzi-Behnagh
    • 1
  • François Bouchet
    • 1
  • Ronald Landis
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratory for the Study of Metacognition and Advanced Learning Technologies, Department of Educational and Counselling PsychologyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Illinois Institute of TechnologyCollege of PsychologyChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations