MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409158742 · doi:10.21432/cjlt28768

Adaptive Practicing Design to Facilitate Self-Regulated Learning

2025· article· en· W4409158742 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hongxin Yan, Fuhua Lin, Kinshuk Kinshuk

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstructional designPsychologyMathematics educationIndependent studyEducational technologySelf-regulated learningTeaching methodComputer sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online higher education provides exceptional flexibility in learning but demands high self-regulated learning skills. The deficiency of self-regulated learning skills in many students highlights the need for support. This study introduces a confidence-based adaptive practicing system as an intelligent assessment and tutoring solution to enhance self-regulated learning in STEM disciplines. Unlike conventional intelligent tutoring systems that depend entirely on machine control, confidence-based adaptive practicing integrates learner confidence and control options into the AI-based adaptive mechanism to improve learning autonomy and model efficiency, establishing an AI-learner shared control approach. Based on Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) concept, an innovative knowledge-tracing framework and model called ZPD-KT was designed and implemented in the confidence-based adaptive practicing system. To evaluate the effectiveness of the ZPD-KT model, a simulation of confidence-based adaptive practicing was conducted. Findings showed that ZPD-KT significantly improves the accuracy of knowledge tracing compared to the traditional Bayesian knowledge-tracing model. Also, interviews with experts in the field underlined the potential of the confidence-based adaptive practicing system in facilitating self-regulated learning and the interpretability of the ZPD-KT model. This study also sheds light on a new way of keeping humans apprised of adaptive learning implementation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Learning and TechnologySame topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207