Unveiling emotion dynamics in problem-solving: a comprehensive analysis with an intelligent tutoring system using facial expressions and electrodermal activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Emotions play a crucial role in the learning process, yet there is a scarcity of studies examining emotion dynamics in problem-solving with fine-grained data and advanced tools. This study addresses this gap by investigating the emotional trajectories during self-regulated learning (SRL) phases (i.e., forethought, performance, and self-reflection) among 47 medical students utilizing an intelligent tutoring system. Real-time facial expressions were analyzed through recurrence quantification analysis alongside an examination of electrodermal activities (EDA) across the SRL phases. The findings reveal that emotion stability varied across SRL phases, with students exhibiting more stable emotions during the performance phase. Compared to the forethought and self-reflection phases, students had less frequent and lower intensity of emotional arousal in the performance phase. Moreover, we found that students with better performance demonstrated more stable emotions in the forethought phase, less stable emotions in the self-reflection phase, and a higher level of emotional arousal in the self-reflection phase. These insights highlight the temporal and dynamic nature of emotions in SRL, offering methodological and educational implications for leveraging facial expressions and EDA to monitor and enhance students’ emotional experience during problem-solving.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".