Guest Editorial: Intelligent and Affective Learning Environments: New Trends and Challenges.
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Technology poses a huge potential in the educational field (Stantchev et al., 2014). As a result of this, researchers in this field of study devote great part of their efforts on finding better technological solutions (Vasquez-Ramirez et al., 2014). Within this field, Traditional Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) are able to support and control students' learning at several levels; however, it does not provide space for student-driven learning and knowledge acquisition. From this perspective, Intelligent Learning Environments and similar tutoring systems have emerged as a type of intelligent educational system that combines the features of traditional ITS with learning environments. This kind of educational system can be very helpful in supporting human learning by using Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques, transforming information into knowledge, using it for tailoring many aspects of the educational process to the particular needs of each actor, and timely providing useful suggestions and recommendations (Brusilovsky et al., 1993; Carbonell, 1970; Clancey, 1979; Anderson et al., 1990; Aleven & Koedinger, 2002; Woolf, 2009). In addition to traditional cognitive state identification, ITS have recently incorporated the ability to recognize the emotions of students (Calvo & D'Mello, 2010; Wolf et al., 2009; Baker et al., 2010). These tutoring systems can detect the affective states of learners by using different types of data sources such as dialogs, speech, physiology, and facial expressions (Zeng et al., 2009; Calvo & D'Mello, 2010; Arroyo et al., 2009; Conati & Maclaren, 2009; Burleson, 2011). Moreover, they seek to transform negative states of students (e.g., confusion) into positive (e.g., commitment) in order to facilitate appropriate emotional conditions for learning. Affective Tutoring Systems identify confusion, frustration, boredom, engagement, and other prominent emotions during learning activities (D'Mello & Graesser, 2012; D'Mello et al., 2014; Graesser & D'Mello, 2012). The recognition of students' affective states can be implemented by different machine learning techniques, such as Bayesian Networks (Conati & Maclaren, 2009), Hidden-Markov Models (D'Mello & Graesser, 2010), or Neural Networks (Moridis & Economides, 2009). Although many works and studies have considered the development of affective tutoring systems, no research works have yet focused on Intelligent and Affective Learning Environments, where components involved in the environment (the learning environment, the intelligent tutoring system, and/or the adaptive system) support the learning process. Therefore, it is necessary to propose new approaches, techniques, methods, and processes in the field of Intelligent and Affective Learning Environments in order to consider cognitive and affective aspects in the teaching-learning and decision making processes. This special issue of Journal of Educational Technology & Society (ET&S) on Intelligent and Affective Learning Environments: New Trends and Challenges, contains one kind of contribution: regular research papers. These works have been edited according to the norms and guidelines of JETS. Several call for papers were distributed among the main mailing lists of the field for researchers to submit their works to this issue. In the first deadline, we received a total of 32 expressions of interest in the form of abstracts. Due to the large amount of submissions, abstracts were subject to a screening process to ensure their clarity, authenticity, and relevancy to this special issue. Proposals came from several countries such as Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Germany, Greece, India, Ireland, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Taiwan, Tunisia, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and United States of America. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle