Using Sequence Mining to Analyze Metacognitive Monitoring and Scientific Inquiry based on Levels of Efficiency and Emotions during Game-Based Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-regulated learning conducted through metacognitive monitoring and scientific inquiry can be influenced by many factors, such as emotions and motivation, and are necessary skills needed to engage in efficient hypothesis testing during game-based learning. Although many studies have investigated metacognitive monitoring and scientific inquiry skills during game-based learning, few studies have investigated how the sequence of behaviors involved during hypothesis testing with game-based learning differ based on both efficiency level and emotions during gameplay. For this study, we analyzed 59 undergraduate students' (59% female) metacognitive monitoring and hypothesis testing behavior during learning and gameplay with CRYSTAL ISLAND, a game-based learning environment that teaches students about microbiology. Specifically, we used sequential pattern mining and differential sequence mining to determine if there were sequences of hypothesis testing behaviors and to determine if the frequencies of occurrence of these sequences differed between high or low levels of efficiency at finishing the game and high or low levels of facial expressions of emotions during gameplay. Results revealed that students with low levels of efficiency and high levels of facial expressions of emotions had the most sequences of testing behaviors overall, specifically engaging in more sequences that were indicative of less strategic hypothesis testing behavior than the other students, where students who were more efficient with both levels of emotions demonstrated strategic testing behavior. These results have implications for the strengths of using educational data mining techniques for determining the processes underlying patterns of engaging in self-regulated learning conducted through hypothesis testing as they unfold over time; for training students on how to engage in the self-regulation, scientific inquiry, and emotion regulation processes that can result in efficient gameplay; and for developing adaptive game-based learning environments that foster effective and efficient self-regulation and scientific inquiry during learning.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".