Temporal Structures and Sequential Patterns of Self-regulated Learning Behaviors in Problem Solving with an Intelligent Tutoring System
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examining the sequential patterns of self-regulated learning (SRL) behaviors is gaining popularity to understand students’ performance differences. However, few studies have looked at the transition probabilities among different SRL behaviors. Moreover, there is a lack of research investigating the temporal structures of students’ SRL behaviors (e.g., repetitiveness and predictability) and how they related to students’ performance. In this study, 75 students from a top North American university were tasked to diagnose a virtual patient in an intelligent tutoring system. We used recurrence quantification analysis and sequential analysis to analyze the temporal structures and sequential patterns of students’ SRL behaviors. We compared the differences between low and high performers. We found that low performers had more single, isolated recurrent behaviors in problem-solving, whereas the recurrent behaviors of high performers were more likely to be part of a behavioral sequence. High performers also demonstrated a higher transition probability across the three phases of SRL than low performers. In addition, high performers were unique in that their behavioral state transitions were cyclically sustained. This study provided researchers with theoretical insights regarding the cyclical nature of SRL. This study has also methodological contributions to the analysis of the temporal structures of SRL behaviors.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it