Microscope or Telescope: Whether to Dissect Epistemic Emotions
- 3.3k Downloads
We empirically investigate two methods for eliciting student emotion within an online instructional environment. Students may not fully express their emotions when asked to report on a single emotion. Furthermore, students’ usage of emotional terms may differ from that of researchers. To address these issues, we tested two alternative emotion self-report mechanisms: the first closed response where students report on a single emotion via Likert scale, the second open response where students describe their emotions via open text.
KeywordsStudent emotion Learning Behavior Intelligent tutor Log data Emotion self-report
This research is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) # 1324385 IIS/Cyberlearning DIP: Impact of Adaptive Interventions on Student Affect, Performance, and NSF # 1551589 IIS/Cyberlearning INT: Detecting, Predicting and Remediating Student Affect and Grit Using Computer Vision. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF.
- 1.Arroyo, I., Woolf, B.P., Cooper, D.G., Burleson, W., Muldner, K.: The impact of animated pedagogical agents on girls’ and boys’ emotions, attitudes, behaviors, and learning. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, NJ (2011)Google Scholar
- 2.Arroyo, I., Wixon, N., Allessio, D., Woolf, B., Muldner, K., Burleson, W.: Collaboration improves student interest in online tutoring. In: André, E., Baker, R., Hu, X., Rodrigo, Ma.Mercedes T., du Boulay, B. (eds.) AIED 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10331, pp. 28–39. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61425-0_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Baker, R.S.J., D’Mello, S.K., Rodrigo, M.M.T., Graesser, A.C.: 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. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 68(4), 223–241 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Graesser, A., D’Mello, S.K.: Theoretical perspectives on affect and deep learning. In: Calvo, R., New perspectives on affect and learning technologies, pp. 11–21. Springer, New York (2011)Google Scholar
- 8.Ocumpaugh, J., Baker, R.S., Rodrigo, M.M.T.: Baker Rodrigo Ocumpaugh Monitoring Protocol (BROMP) 2.0 Technical and Training Manual. Technical Report. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. Manila, Philippines: Ateneo Laboratory for the Learning Sciences (2015)Google Scholar
- 10.Schultz, Sarah E., Wixon, N., Allessio, D., Muldner, K., Burleson, W., Woolf, B., Arroyo, I.: Blinded by science?: exploring affective meaning in students’ own words. In: Micarelli, A., Stamper, J., Panourgia, K. (eds.) ITS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9684, pp. 314–319. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39583-8_35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Wixon, M., Arroyo, I., Muldner, K., Burleson, W., Lozano, C., Woolf, B.: The opportunities and limitations of scaling up sensor-free affect detection. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM 2014), pp. 145–152 (2014)Google Scholar