Summary

评估学习困难成人元认知和自我调节的多式联运协议

Published: September 27, 2020
doi:

Summary

目前的工作提出了一个多式联运评估协议,侧重于元认知、学习自我调节和情感过程,这些协议构成了成人有LD困难的基础。

Abstract

学习障碍 (LD) 包括那些在学习和使用学术技能方面有困难的人,在阅读、写作和/或数学方面的表现低于其年龄预期。每个疾病,使LD涉及不同的赤字;然而,在异质性中可以发现一些共同点,例如在学习自我调节和元认知方面。与早期和后期的教育水平不同,对于有LD的成年人几乎没有任何循证的评价协议。为此,目前的工作提出了一个多式联运评估协议,侧重于元认知、学习自我调节和情感过程,这些协议构成了成人有LD困难的基础。评估是通过使用各种方法、技术和传感器(例如,眼动追踪、面部情绪表达、生理反应、并发语言化、日志文件、人机交互的屏幕记录)和线外方法(例如问卷、访谈和自我报告措施)对在线学习过程进行分析进行的。这项理论驱动和经验为基础的准则旨在对成年后的LD进行准确的评估,以便设计有效的预防和干预建议。

Introduction

特定的学习障碍 (SLD) 包括那些难以学习和使用学术技能的人, 在阅读、写作和/或数学12等领域表现出低于预期的时间年龄。根据所分析的年龄、语言和文化,对患病率有不同的估计,但介于5%至,15%之间《精神障碍诊断和统计手册》中神经发育障碍的全球类别(第5 1.5页)1、也有必要关注注意力缺陷/多动障碍(以下简称ADHD)的发病率,因为这种疾病是一种常见的疾病,近年来引起了关于如何处理它的各种争议。基于 DSM-51,它可以定义为注意力不集中和/或多动冲动的持久行为模式。同样,自闭症谱系障碍(以下简称ASD)是同一手册中的一个类别,它包括因中枢神经系统多因素功能障碍而出现神经发育障碍的学生,在人的发展三个基本领域导致质量功能障碍:社会互动、沟通和兴趣和行为1,1、2。

在这些方面,一个新的概念已经出现,从赤字感和提供一个更积极的方法,这些疾病,以符合目前的神经发育困难的想法,高度共存和重叠4。从这些新模型中,人们理解,高级认知过程所涉及的技能,允许管理和调节一个人的行为,以实现一个期望的目标,是至关重要的自我调节,因此,日常生活的活动,包括学术活动5。在成年期的背景下,神经多样性已经演变为包括各种类型的困难,包括多动症和自闭症,以及诵读困难,诵读困难,诵读困难和/或计算障碍。因此,我们正在从学习困难(LDs)的广泛概念中接近这种神经多样性。具有这种多样性的中学后教育入学学生的增加是有据可查的,部分是由于残疾学生高中毕业率的上升,但与此同时,关于这些学生学习过程的研究比必要的7少

孤立对待的每一种疾病都涉及不同的缺陷和表现;然而,在LD方面,如元认知、自我,调节和情感障碍,,8、9、10、11等异质性,可以发现一些共性。一般学习文献的三个基础,特别是法律,是成功学习的基础,在学术水平12的这些众所周知的困难中起着至关重要的作用。此外,其他方法还明白,执行功能缺陷(如自动处理或工作记忆问题)之间可能存在某种共性,这些缺陷发生在不同的疾病中,如多动症和阅读障碍 13或 ADHD 和 ASD5。然而,这一领域仍有工作要做,因为并非所有研究都就这些与执行职能有关的共同点得出相同的结论。这可能是由于研究所依据的样本和调查5、14中使用的执行职能的评估程序所呈现的变化

在教育方面,这种多元化的组合不仅影响学习质量,因为受影响的功能的基本性质,而且影响诸如辍学、学位变化等现象,对政府和大学有经济影响。有LD的学生的辍学率高于一般16岁学生,但亦高于除有情绪障碍的学生外,其他类别心理残疾的辍学。相比之下,接受义务教育后(职业培训、大学等)的LD学生人数正在增加15人,特别是高等教育19、20、21、22。,20,21,22此外,人们很可能认为,有LD的学生比那些正式通过学生服务的学生多很多,通常占流行率统计23。

这些困难在儿童时期并不总是被发现,特别是在在正常学术系统考虑这些疾病之前出生的成年人中,这些疾病的症状在人们生活中持续存在,在工作、教育和个人生活中造成困难。研究表明,虽然人们可能会克服一些困难,但大多数人在成年后继续表现出学习的挣扎,在那些25岁的高等教育中,他们的坚持仍然是有问题的。

自相矛盾的是,与以往的教育水平和更早年龄不同,几乎没有任何基于证据的文书或评估协议,为成人与LD。尽管儿童时期评估LDs的诊断工具激增,但为成人人口提供有效、可靠的仪器和方法的供应量却大大有限。最近一项有关高等教育中学习障碍的文献综述发现,在这方面收集的信息大部分是通过访谈完成的,只是偶尔使用26份自我报告问卷。自我报告方法和访谈虽然有价值,但不足以准确评估元认知、自我调节和情感技能过程,事实上,由于过程性质等。衡量这些过程的尺度和面试方法的重要性是不可否认的27,28,,28但有效性29和与其他创新评估方法30不一致的问题也是不可否认的。检测LD的另外一个问题,是由于缺乏全面的评估方案,在诊断紊乱时存在偏差。事实上,专业人士没有基于客观变量的参考协议,经常造成许多误报和误报的LS31病例

为了应对成人仪器的稀缺性以及改进现有方法性需求,本研究提出了一种多式联运评估协议,侧重于元认知、自我调节和情感过程,这些程序构成了成人使用LD的困难的基础。根据目前的文献,我们建议向综合和多渠道测量32,33。,33评估通过使用多种方法、技术和传感器(例如超媒体学习环境、虚拟现实、眼动追踪、情绪面部表情、生理反应、日志文件、人机交互的屏幕记录)和线下方法(例如问卷、访谈和自我报告措施)对在线学习过程进行分析进行。这种混合方法提供了在学习之前、期间和之后部署目标流程的证据,这些流程可以三角化,以增进对学生如何学习以及问题所在位置(如果有34) 的理解

评估协议在两届会议中执行。会话可以一次完成,或者可能需要部分应用程序,具体取决于人员。第一个侧重于LD的检测或确认,以及我们面临的特定疾病类型,第二个则侧重于深入地进入每个案例的元认知、自我调节和情感过程。

第 1 单元旨在对学员的学习障碍进行诊断或确认评估:SLD、多动症和/或 ASD(高功能),以确定学员存在哪些类型的特定问题。这种评估至关重要,原因有二。1) 有学习障碍的成年人很少有关于其功能失调行为的准确信息。他们中的一些人怀疑他们有LD,但从未被评估过。其他人在儿童时可能已被评估,但没有任何报告或进一步的信息。2) 可能与以前的诊断有差异(例如,以前的诵读困难诊断,而不是当前对注意力缺陷和缓慢处理速度的诊断;以前的 ASD 诊断与当前有限的智力能力等相反)。参与者接受访谈,并应用问卷和标准化测试。本课程由在西班牙心理学学院不同办公室的研究和临床环境中诊断发育和学习困难的治疗师进行。会议以结构化访谈开始,收集履历信息,以及 DSM-5 1 中提及的与 SD相关的症状。之后,参考智力能力测试WAIS-IV35用于排除标准实施的情况下,因为它提供了非常有价值的信息,学习困难的尺度”工作记忆”和”处理速度“36。此外,PROLEC SE修订测试37被广泛用于评估阅读障碍(词汇、语义和/或阅读的句法过程),这是当前学术环境中学习最普遍和最致残的困难之一,与其他障碍(如多动症38)重叠。此评估收集阅读准确性、速度和流畅性以及阅读障碍,更重要的是,在阅读过程中失败37(此测试已由大学预科学生评估)。目前,西班牙没有适合一般成年人的测试,因此选择此测试是因为它是最接近目标人群的)。然后,我们筛选多动症的症状,通过世界卫生组织成人多动症自我报告量表(ASRS)39,并完善了这种紊乱的评估,引入多联式与尖端虚拟现实连续性能测试,评估成人的注意力过程和工作记忆,Nesplora水族馆31,40。31,40此测试是一个非常有用的工具,当诊断多动症在成人和青少年超过16岁的生态情景,提供客观,可靠的数据。它评估选择性和持续的关注,冲动,反应时间,听觉和视觉关注,毅力,注意力集中的质量,运动活动,工作记忆和任务变化的成本。此外,除了WAIS-IV35作为一个整体收集有关参与者的智力能力的信息外,我们特别注意”工作记忆”和”处理速度”,因为它们与学习困难有关,这些量表的结果用于最终决定。最后,我们包括自闭症频谱报价(AQ-短)41在协议中,从男爵科恩,惠赖特,斯金纳,马丁和俱乐部42的可靠AQ成人的简短版本

第 2 节侧重于对学员学习过程的多式联运评估。理解复杂学习的关键在于理解学生认知、元认知、激励和情感过程的部署。为此,参与者与 MetaTutor 合作,在学习时观察所部署的元认知和认知策略的使用。MetaTutor 是一个超媒体学习环境,旨在检测、建模、跟踪和培养学生在学习不同科学主题44的同时进行自我调节学习。MetaTutor的设计是基于Azevedo和同事43,45,46,47,45,的广泛研究4647属于SRL测量的新趋势,即所谓的第三波,其特点是综合使用测量和先进的学习技术33。MetaTutor 的使用还提供多式联运跟踪数据,包括诸如眼动追踪、情绪生理反应(电皮肤反应 (GSR) 和面部表情)48、日志数据和问卷等措施。所有这些措施都结合在一起,以加深对参与者SRL和元认知的理解。

眼动追踪可以了解什么能吸引立即的注意力,哪些目标元素被忽略,哪些元素被注意的顺序,或者元素与其他元素的比较;电极活动让我们知道情感唤醒如何改变环境;面部情感识别允许面部表情的自动识别和分析;数据记录收集和存储学生与学习环境的交互,以作进一步分析。关于调查表,迷你国际人格项目池49 报告了人们在日常生活中经历的一系列活动和想法,评估了五个主要人格特征(外向性、同意性、认真性、神经质和开放性)。认识论信仰的注释方面50 提供了 有关参与者对知识的信仰的信息。罗森博格自尊量表显示了参与者对自己整体51的感觉。情绪调节问卷52提供有关 参与者情绪调节的信息。成就情绪问卷 (AEQ)53 告知大学中通常经历的情绪。

简言之,在成年后评估LD尤其困难。教育和经验使许多成年人能够弥补他们的不足,后来表现出无差别或蒙面的症状,而科学知识仍然缺乏这些症状。考虑到出现的关键研究差距,目前的工作旨在确保理论驱动的、基于经验的关于成年后对受教育进行准确评估的准则,以便设计有效的预防和干预行动。

为了帮助读者确定所述方法是否合适,有必要指定该协议不适合智障人士,因为他们的诊断使学习困难的诊断无效。此外,由于使用的设备奇点和显示学习内容的格式,仍然无法评估运动障碍(上肢、颈部和/或面部)、听力或视力障碍的人。它也不适合患有严重精神疾病的参与者。这将需要使用药物,可以改变信息处理或情绪的生理表达。

Protocol

阿斯图里亚斯和奥维耶多大学的研究伦理委员会批准了这一议定书。 1. 第1届会议:诊断评估 注意:在协议的此会话中,使用来自不同发布者的评估测试,这些测试具有它们自己的特定应用程序和解释手册。由于这些测试或其他类似的测试在心理学和教育领域为科学界所广泛了解,因此应用这些测试的程序并不一步一步地详细(例如,鉴于本文的目的,详?…

Representative Results

本节介绍从协议中获得的代表性结果,包括第 1 节联合结果的示例以及第 2 节中每个信息来源的示例。 有关疾病的结果通过诊断测试在第 1 节收集,并考虑到为评估参与者的学习困难(SLD、ADHD 和 ASD)指定的程序和截止点。专家委员会决定参与者是否有学习障碍或是否有学习障碍的风险(参见图 1中的决策示例 )。如果学员表现出学习障碍并参加第 2 ?…

Discussion

目前的协议提出了一个多式联运评估,重点是元认知、自我调节和情感过程,这些评价构成了成人有LD困难的基础。

第 1 课至关重要,因为它旨在对学员的学习障碍进行诊断评估。请注意,本课程由具有诊断研究和临床背景中发育和学习困难的治疗师进行。我们在西班牙使用这些工具,所以来自其他国家的研究人员应该选择适合其人口的测试。该方法对现有方法的意义是,多…

Divulgations

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgements

这份手稿得到了国家科学基金会(DRL#1660878,DRL#1661202)的资助, DUE#1761178, DRL#1916417), 加拿大社会科学和人文研究理事会 (SSHRC 895-2011) 科学和创新部(PID2019-107201GB-100),以及欧洲联盟通过欧洲区域发展基金(ERDF)和阿斯图里亚斯公国(FC-GRUPIN-IDI/2018/000199)。本材料中表达的任何意见、结论、结论或建议都是作者的意见、结论或建议,不一定反映加拿大国家科学基金会或社会科学和人文研究理事会的观点。作者还要感谢UCFS SMART实验室的成员们的帮助和贡献。

Materials

AQUARIUM Nesplora
Eye-tracker RED500 Systems SensoMotoric Instruments GmbH
Face API Microsoft
GSR NUL-217 NeuLog

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. . Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). , (2013).
  2. World Health Organization. . International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems (11th Revision). , (2018).
  3. . Education’s Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 2018 Annual Report to Congress on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Available from: https://sites.ed.gov/idea/data (2018)
  4. Armstrong, T. The myth of the normal brain: Embracing neurodiversity. AMA Journal of Ethics. 17 (4), 348-352 (2015).
  5. Berenger, C., Roselló, B., Miranda, A., Baixauli, I., Palomero, B. Executive functions and motivation in children with autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology. 1 (1), 103-112 (2016).
  6. Brinkerhoff, L. C., McGuire, J. M., Shaw, S. F. . Postsecondary education and transition for students with learning disabilities (2nd ed.). , (2002).
  7. Allsopp, D. H., Minskoff, E. H., Bolt, L. Individualized course-specific strategy instruction for college students with learning disabilities and ADHD: Lessons learned from a model demonstration project. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 20 (2), 103-118 (2005).
  8. Crane, N., Zusho, A., Ding, Y., Cancelli, A. Domain-specific metacognitive calibration in children with learning disabilities. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 50, 72-79 (2017).
  9. Harris, K. R., Reid, R. R., Graham, S., Wong, B. Self-regulation among students with LD and ADHD. Learning about Learning Disabilities. , 167-195 (2004).
  10. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. . Collective Perspectives on Issues Affecting Learning Disabilities. , (1994).
  11. Sawyer, A. C., Williamson, P., Young, R. Metacognitive processes in emotion recognition: Are they different in adults with Asperger’s disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 44 (6), 1373-1382 (2014).
  12. Meltzer, L. . Executive function in education: From theory to practice. , (2018).
  13. Martino, G., Capri, T., Castriciano, C., Fabio, R. A. Automatic Deficits can lead to executive déficits. Mediterranean Journal of Clinical Psychology. 5 (3), 1-31 (2017).
  14. Fabio, R. A., et al. Frequency bands in seeing and remembering: comparing ADHD and typically developing children. Neuropsychological Trends. 24, 97-116 (2018).
  15. Bernardo, A. B., Esteban, M., Cerezo, R., Muñiz, L. J. Principales variables influyentes en el abandono de titulación en la Universidad de Oviedo. Informe PRIOR: PRoyecto Integral de ORientación Académico-Profesional. , (2013).
  16. Cortiella, C. . Diplomas at risk: A critical look at the graduation rate of students with learning disabilities. , (2013).
  17. Plasman, J. S., Gottfried, M. A. Applied STEM coursework, high school dropout rates, and students with learning disabilities. Educational Policy. 32 (5), 664-696 (2018).
  18. Cortiella, C., Horowitz, S. H. . The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends and emerging issues (3rd Ed). , (2014).
  19. Chevalier, T. M., Parrila, R., Ritchie, K. C., Deacon, S. H. The role of metacognitive reading strategies, metacognitive study and learning strategies, and behavioral study and learning strategies in predicting academic success in students with and without a history of reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 50 (1), 34-48 (2017).
  20. Goroshit, M., Hen, M. Academic procrastination and academic performance: Do learning disabilities matter. Current Psychology. , 1-9 (2019).
  21. Grinblat, N., Rosenblum, S. Why are they late? Timing abilities and executive control among students with learning disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 59, 105-114 (2016).
  22. Heiman, T., Fichten, C. S., Olenik-Shemesh, D., Keshet, N. S., Jorgensen, M. Access and perceived ICT usability among students with disabilities attending higher education institutions. Education and Information Technologies. 22 (6), 2727-2740 (2017).
  23. Couzens, D., et al. Support for students with hidden disabilities in universities: A case study. International Journal of Disability. Development and Education. 62 (1), 24-41 (2015).
  24. Schelke, M. W., et al. Diagnosis of developmental learning and attention disorders in adults: A review of clinical modalities. Neurology, Psychiatry and Brain Research. 23, 27-35 (2017).
  25. Madaus, J. W., Shaw, S. F. The impact of the IDEA 2004 on transition to college for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 21 (4), 273-281 (2006).
  26. Santos, C. G., Fernández, E., Cerezo, R., Núñez, J. C. Dificultades de aprendizaje en Educación Superior: un reto para la comunidad universitaria. Publicaciones. 48 (1), 63-75 (2018).
  27. Jiménez, L., García, A. J., López-Cepero, J., Saavedra, F. J. The brief-ACRA scale on learning strategies for university students. Revista de Psicodidáctica. 23 (1), 63-69 (2018).
  28. Zimmerman, B. J., Zimmerman, B. J., Schunk, D. H. Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated learning and performance. Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance. , 49-65 (2011).
  29. Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D. A tipology of student engagement for Amer-ican colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education. 46, 185-209 (2005).
  30. Winne, P. H., Perry, N. E., Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., Zeidner, M. Measuring self-regulated learning. Handbook of Self-Regulation. , 531-566 (2000).
  31. Areces, D., Cueli, M., García, T., González-Castro, P., Rodríguez, C. Using brain activation (nir-HEG/Q-EEG) and execution measures (CPTs) in an ADHD assessment protocol. Journal of Visualized Experiments. (134), e56796 (2018).
  32. Azevedo, R., Taub, M., Mudrick, N. V., Alexander, P. A., Schunk, D. H., Greene, J. A. Understanding and reasoning about real-time cognitive, affective, and metacognitive processes to foster self-regulation with advanced learning technologies. Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance. , (2017).
  33. Panadero, E., Klug, J., Järvelä, S. Third wave of measurement in the self-regulated learning field: when measurement and intervention come hand in hand. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 60 (6), 723-735 (2016).
  34. Greene, J. A., Azevedo, R. The measurement of learners’ self-regulated cognitive and metacognitive processes while using computer-based learning environments. Educational Psychologist. 45 (4), 203-209 (2010).
  35. Wechsler, D. A. . Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (4th ed.). , (2008).
  36. Theiling, J., Petermann, F. Neuropsychological profiles on the WAIS-IV of adults with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders. 20 (11), 913-924 (2016).
  37. Cuetos, F., Arribas, D., Ramos, J. L. . Prolec-SE-R, Batería para la evaluación de los procesos lectores en Secundaria y Bachillerato – Revisada. , (2016).
  38. Mayes, S. D., Calhoun, S. L., Crowell, E. W. Learning disabilities and ADHD: Overlapping spectrum disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 33 (5), 417-424 (2000).
  39. Kessler, R. C., et al. The World Health Organization Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS): a short screening scale for use in the general population. Psychological Medicine. 35 (2), 245-256 (2005).
  40. Climent, G., Banterla, F., Iriarte, Y. . AULA: Theoretical manual. , (2011).
  41. Hoekstra, R. A., et al. The construction and validation of an abridged version of the autism-spectrum quotient (AQ-Short). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 41, 589-596 (2010).
  42. Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., Clubley, E. The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 31, 5-17 (2001).
  43. Azevedo, R., Johnson, A., Chauncey, A., Burkett, C., Khine, M., Saleh, I. Self-regulated learning with MetaTutor: Advancing the science of learning with MetaCognitive tools. New Science of Learning. , 225-247 (2010).
  44. Azevedo, R., Witherspoon, A., Chauncey, A., Burkett, C., Fike, A. MetaTutor: A MetaCognitive tool for enhancing self-regulated learning. 2009 AAAI Fall Symposium Series. , (2009).
  45. Azevedo, R. Theoretical, methodological, and analytical challenges in the research on metacognition and self-regulation: A commentary. Metacognition & Learning. 4 (1), 87-95 (2009).
  46. Feyzi-Behnagh, R., Trevors, G., Bouchet, F., Azevedo, R. Aligning multiple sources of SRL data in MetaTutor: Towards interactive scaffolding in multi-agent systems. 18th biennial meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI). , (2013).
  47. Harley, J. M., et al. Assessing learning with MetaTutor: A Multi-Agent Hypermedia Learning Environment. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. , (2014).
  48. Azevedo, R., Feyzi-Behnagh, R., Harley, J., Bouchet, F. Analyzing temporally unfolding self-regulatory process during learning with multi-agent technologies. EARLI Biannual Conference 2013. , (2013).
  49. Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., Lucas, R. E. The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment. 18 (2), 192 (2006).
  50. Stahl, E., Bromme, R. The CAEB: An instrument for measuring connotative aspects of epistemological beliefs. Learning and Instruction. 17 (6), 773-785 (2007).
  51. Gray-Little, B., Williams, V. S. L., Hancock, T. D. An item response theory analysis of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 23, 443-451 (1997).
  52. Gross, J. J., John, O. P. Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 85 (2), 348 (2003).
  53. Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., Perry, R. P. Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology. 36 (1), 36-48 (2011).
  54. American Psychiatric Association. . Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders – reviewed (DSM-IV-TR). , (2000).
  55. . Face API [Computer software] Available from: https://azure.microsoft.com/es-es/services/cognitive-services/face/ (2019)
  56. Picard, R. W. . Affective computing. , (2000).
  57. Grills-Taquechel, A. E., Fletcher, J. M., Vaughn, S. R., Stuebing, K. K. Anxiety and reading difficulties in early elementary school: Evidence for unidirectional-or bi-directional relations. Child Psychiatry & Human Development. 43 (1), 35-47 (2012).
  58. Mammarella, I. C., et al. Anxiety and depression in children with nonverbal learning disabilities, reading disabilities, or typical development. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 49, 130-139 (2014).
  59. Nelson, J. M., Harwood, H. Learning disabilities and anxiety: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 44 (1), 3-17 (2011).
  60. Arora, M. R., Sharma, J., Mali, U., Sharma, A., Raina, P. Microsoft Cognitive Services. International Journal of Engineering Science. 8 (4), 17323-17326 (2018).
  61. Bondareva, D., et al. Inferring learning from gaze data during interaction with an environment to support self-regulated learning. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. , 229-238 (2013).
  62. Mason, L., Tornatora, M. C., Pluchino, P. Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Computers & Education. 60 (1), 95-109 (2013).
  63. Duffy, M. C., Azevedo, R. Motivation matters: Interactions between achievement goals and agent scaffolding for self-regulated learning within an intelligent tutoring system. Computers in Human Behavior. 52, 338-348 (2015).
  64. Cerezo, R., et al. Mediating Role of Self-efficacy and Usefulness Between Self-regulated Learning Strategy Knowledge and its Use. Revista de Psicodidáctica. 24 (1), 1-8 (2019).
  65. Mudrick, N. V., Azevedo, R., Taub, M. Integrating metacognitive judgments and eye movements using sequential pattern mining to understand processes underlying multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior. 96, 223-234 (2019).
  66. Taub, M., Azevedo, R. How Does Prior Knowledge Influence Eye Fixations and Sequences of Cognitive and Metacognitive SRL Processes during Learning with an Intelligent Tutoring System. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 29 (1), 1-28 (2019).
  67. Bogarín, A., Cerezo, R., Romero, C. A survey on educational process mining. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. 8 (1), 1230 (2018).
  68. Cerezo, R., Bogarín, A., Esteban, M., Romero, C. Process mining for self-regulated learning assessment in e-learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. , (2019).
  69. Levenson, R. W. Blood, sweat, and fears. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1000 (1), 348-366 (2003).
  70. Meer, Y., Breznitz, Z., Katzir, T. Calibration of Self-Reports of Anxiety and Physiological Measures of Anxiety While Reading in Adults With and Without Reading Disability. Dyslexia. 22 (3), 267-284 (2016).
  71. Daley, S. G., Willett, J. B., Fischer, K. W. Emotional responses during reading: Physiological responses predict real-time reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology. 106 (1), 132-143 (2014).
  72. Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., Perry, R. P. Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist. 37 (2), 91-105 (2002).
  73. Antonietti, A., Colombo, B., Di Nuzzo, C. Metacognition in self-regulated multimedia learning: Integrating behavioural, psychophysiological and introspective measures. Learning, Media and Technology. 40 (2), 187-209 (2015).
  74. Bogarin, A., Cerezo, R., Romero, C. Discovering learning processes using inductive miner: a case study with Learning Management Systems (LMSs). Psicothema. 30 (3), 322-329 (2018).
  75. Lang, C., Siemens, G., Wise, A., Gašević, D. . Handbook of learning analytics. , (2017).
  76. Romero, C., Ventura, S., Pechenizkiy, M., Baker, R. S. J. . Handbook of educational data mining. , (2010).
  77. Azevedo, R., Gašević, Analyzing Multimodal Multichannel Data about Self-Regulated Learning with Advanced Learning Technologies: Issues and Challenges. Computers in Human Behavior. 96, 207-210 (2019).
  78. Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B., Afflerbach, P. Metacognition and Learning: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations. Metacognition Learning. 1, 3-14 (2006).
  79. Brusilovsky, P., Millán, E., Brusilovsky, P., Kobsa, A., Nejdl, W. User models for adaptive hypermedia and adaptive educational systems. The adaptive web. , 3-53 (2007).
  80. Taub, M., et al. using multi-channel data with multi-level modeling to assess in-game performance during gameplay with CRYSTAL ISLAND. Computers in Human Behavior. 76, 641-655 (2017).
check_url/fr/60331?article_type=t

Play Video

Citer Cet Article
Cerezo, R., Fernández, E., Gómez, C., Sánchez-Santillán, M., Taub, M., Azevedo, R. Multimodal Protocol for Assessing Metacognition and Self-Regulation in Adults with Learning Difficulties. J. Vis. Exp. (163), e60331, doi:10.3791/60331 (2020).

View Video