How Does Prior Knowledge Influence Eye Fixations and Sequences of Cognitive and Metacognitive SRL Processes during Learning with an Intelligent Tutoring System?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to use eye-tracking and log-file data to investigate the impact of prior knowledge on college students’ (N = 194, with a subset of n = 30 for eye tracking and sequence mining analyses) fixations on (i.e., looking at) self-regulated learning-related areas of interest (i.e., specific locations on the interface) and on the sequences of engaging in cognitive and metacognitive self-regulated learning processes during learning with MetaTutor, an Intelligent Tutoring System that teaches students about the human circulatory system. Results revealed that there were no significant differences in fixations on single areas of interest by the prior knowledge group students were assigned to; however there were significant differences in fixations on pairs of areas of interest, as evidenced by eye-tracking data. Furthermore, there were significant differences in sequential patterns of engaging in cognitive and metacognitive self-regulated learning processes by students’ prior knowledge group, as evidenced from log-file data. Specifically, students with high prior knowledge engaged in processes containing cognitive strategies and metacognitive strategies whereas students with low prior knowledge did not. These results have implications for designing adaptive intelligent tutoring systems that provide individualized scaffolding and feedback based on individual differences, such as levels of prior knowledge.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".