Sequence mining detects distinct SRL process sequences by prior knowledge group: high prior knowledge students generated more frequent sequences and predominantly accurate metacognitive judgment sequences¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? SPAM sequence mining on self-initiated SRL process codes extracted 20 sequences with support values of at least 50% for HPK students versus 10 for LPK students. → Taub 2019 q2 i? The only sequence with support value over 80% in both groups was metacognitive: HPK students' was two accurate metacognitive judgments (SV = 84%) and LPK students' was inaccurate metacognitive judgments (SV = 82%). → Taub 2019 (2)

Evidence¶

Taub 2019¶

Taub, M., & Azevedo, R. (2019). How Does Prior Knowledge Influence Eye Fixations and Sequences of Cognitive and Metacognitive SRL Processes during Learning with an Intelligent Tutoring System? Int J Artif Intell Educ (2019) 29:1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-018-0165-4

q2 · i? · associational · r2

SPAM sequence mining of log-file data on user-initiated SRL processes, run separately for each prior knowledge group (HPK n = 19, LPK n = 11) with 2-3 length codes. Sequences and support values were extracted descriptively; this research question was not statistically examined.

"there were 20 sequences with a support value of at least 50% (the sequence appeared at least once for half of the participants) for high prior knowledge participants, and there were 10 sequences with a support value of 50% for low prior knowledge participants."

Taub 2019 (2)¶

Taub, M., & Azevedo, R. (2019). How Does Prior Knowledge Influence Eye Fixations and Sequences of Cognitive and Metacognitive SRL Processes during Learning with an Intelligent Tutoring System? Int J Artif Intell Educ (2019) 29:1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-018-0165-4

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Descriptive sequence-mining result: only one sequence exceeded 80% support in each group, both metacognitive codes only (code 5, SV = 84% for HPK; code 6, SV = 82% for LPK). LPK students did not engage in any sequences containing cognitive processes.

"a majority of participants with high prior knowledge were engaging in sequences with two accurate metacognitive judgments, where a majority of participants with low prior knowledge were engaging in sequences with inaccurate metacognitive judgments."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Prior Knowledge — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Differential sequence mining shows significant differences in frequencies of SRL process sequences by prior knowledge group while controlling for condition — related