MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1988460397 · doi:10.1007/s40593-013-0002-8

Understanding Attention to Adaptive Hints in Educational Games: An Eye-Tracking Study

2013· article· en· W1988460397 on OpenAlexaff
Cristina Conati, Natasha Jaques, Mary Muir

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEye trackingComputer scienceEducational technologyEducational gameTracking (education)Human–computer interactionMultimediaCognitive psychologyMathematics educationPsychologyArtificial intelligencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a user study that investigates the factors affecting student attention to user-adaptive hints during interaction with an educational computer game. The study focuses on Prime Climb, an educational game designed to provide individualized support for learning number factorization skills in the form of textual hints based on a model of student learning. We use eye-tracking data to capture user attention patterns on the game adaptive-hints and present results on how user performance, hint timing, and attitude toward getting help all affect the degree to which students attend to hints. We also show that improved attention to hints is a worthwhile goal, at least in Prime Climb, because when they are attended to hints can positively affect a student’s performance with the game.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.177
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education→Same topicEducational Games and Gamification→French-language works237,207→