Designing Visual and Interactive Self-Monitoring Interventions to Facilitate Learning: Insights From Informal Learners and Experts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Informal learners of computational skills often find it difficult to self-direct their learning pursuits, which may be spread across different mediums and study sessions. Inspired by self-monitoring interventions from domains such as health and productivity, we investigate key requirements for helping informal learners better self-reflect on their learning experiences. We carried out two elicitation studies with article-based and interactive probes to explore a range of manual, automatic, and semi-automatic design approaches for capturing and presenting a learner's data. We found that although automatically generated visual overviews of learning histories are initially promising for increasing awareness, learners prefer having controls to manipulate overviews through personally relevant filtering options to better reflect on their past, plan for future sessions, and communicate with others for feedback. To validate our findings and expand our understanding of designing self-monitoring tools for use in real settings, we gathered further insights from experts, who shed light on factors to consider in terms of data collection techniques, designing for reflections, and carrying out field studies. Our findings have several implications for designing learner-centered self-monitoring interventions that can be both useful and engaging for informal learners.
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 | 0.019 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".