Abstract
Maintaining learner engagement is critical for all types of learning technologies. This study investigated how choice over a learning topic and the difficulty of the materials influenced mind wandering, engagement, and learning during a computerized learning task. 59 participants were randomly assigned to a text difficulty and choice condition (i.e., self-selected or experimenter-selected topic) and measures of mind wandering and engagement were collected during learning. Participants who studied the difficult version of the texts reported significantly higher rates of mind wandering (d = .41) and lower arousal both during (d = .52) and after the learning session (d = .48). Mind wandering and arousal were not affected by choice. However, participants who were assigned to study the topic they selected reported significantly more positive valence during (d = .57) but not after learning. These participants also scored substantially higher on a subsequent knowledge test (d = 1.27). These results suggest that choice and text difficulty differentially impact mind wandering, engagement, and learning and provide important considerations for the design of ITSs and serious games with a reading component.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Flow: The psychology of optimal performance. Cambridge University Press, New York (1990)
D’Mello, S., Graesser, A.: The half-life of cognitive-affective states during complex learning. Cognition & Emotion 25, 1299–1308 (2011)
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L., Stupnisky, R., Perry, R.: Boredom in achievement settings: Exploring control–value antecedents and performance outcomes of a neglected emotion. Journal of Educational Psychology 102, 531 (2010)
Drummond, J., Litman, D.: In the zone: Towards detecting student zoning out using supervised machine learning. In: Aleven, V., Kay, J., Mostow, J. (eds.) ITS 2010, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6095, pp. 306–309. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Forbes-Riley, K., Litman, D.: When does disengagement correlate with learning in spoken dialog computer tutoring? In: Biswas, G., Bull, S., Kay, J., Mitrovic, A. (eds.) AIED 2011. LNCS, vol. 6738, pp. 81–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Mann, S., Robinson, A.: Boredom in the lecture theatre: An investigation into the contributors, moderators and outcomes of boredom amongst university students. British Educational Research Journal 35, 243–258 (2009)
Baker, R., D’Mello, S., Rodrigo, M., Graesser, A.: Better to be frustrated than bored: The incidence, persistence, and impact of learners’ cognitive–affective states during interactions with three different computer-based learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 68, 223–241 (2010)
Larson, R., Richards, M.: Boredom in the middle school years: Blaming schools versus blaming students. American Journal of Education 99, 418–443 (1991)
Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., Paris, A.: School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research 74, 59–109 (2004)
Arroyo, I., Ferguson, K., Johns, J., Dragon, T., Meheranian, H., Fisher, D., et al.: Repairing disengagement with non-invasive interventions. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 158, p. 195 (2007)
D’Mello, S., Chipman, P., Graesser, A.: Posture as a predictor of learner’s affective engagement. In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 905–910 (2007)
Joseph, E.: Engagement tracing: Using response times to model student disengagement. In: Artificial Intelligence in Education: Supporting Learning Through Intelligent and Socially Informed Technology, vol. 125, p. 88 (2005)
Smallwood, J., Schooler, J.: The restless mind. Psychological Bulletin 132, 946 (2006)
Smallwood, J., Fishman, D., Schooler, J.: Counting the cost of an absent mind: Mind wandering as an underrecognized influence on educational performance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14, 230–236 (2007)
Graesser, A.: Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review 101, 371–395 (1994)
McNamara, D., Kintsch, W.: Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes 22, 247–288 (1996)
Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., McNamara, D.: Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction 19, 228–242 (2009)
Zwaan, R., Radvansky, G.: Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin 123, 162 (1998)
Schooler, J., Smallwood, J., Christoff, K., Handy, T., Reichle, E., Sayette, M.: Meta-awareness, perceptual decoupling and the wandering mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15, 319–326 (2011)
Smallwood, J., McSpadden, M., Schooler, J.: The lights are on but no one’s home: Meta-awareness and the decoupling of attention when the mind wanders. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14, 527–533 (2007)
Feng, S., D’Mello, S., Graesser, A.: Mind wandering while reading easy and difficult texts. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review (in press)
Pekrun, R.: The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review 18, 315–341 (2006)
Deci, E., Ryan, R.: Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum, New York (1985)
Hidi, S., Renninger, K.: The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist 41, 111–127 (2006)
Cordova, D., Lepper, M.: Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology 88, 715 (1996)
Calvert, S., Strong, B., Gallagher, L.: Control as an engagement feature for young children’s attention to and learning of computer content. The American Behavioral Scientist 48, 578 (2005)
Ainley, M., Hidi, S., Berndorff, D.: Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology 94, 545 (2002)
Millis, K., Forsyth, C., Butler, H., Wallace, P., Graesser, A., Halpern, D.: Operation ARIES!: A serious game for teaching scientific inquiry. In: Serious Games and Edutainment Applications, pp. 169–195. Springer, London (2011)
Smilek, D., Carriere, J., Cheyne, J.: Out of mind, out of sight Eye blinking as indicator and embodiment of mind wandering. Psychological Science 21, 786–789 (2010)
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., Gosling, S.: Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6, 3–5 (2011)
Mason, W., Suri, S.: Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods 44, 1–23 (2012)
Graesser, A., McNamara, D., Kulikowich, J.: Coh-Metrix providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher 40, 223–234 (2011)
McNamara, D., Louwerse, M., McCarthy, P., Graesser, A.: Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes 47, 292–330 (2010)
Graesser, A., Person, N.: Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal 31, 104–137 (1994)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Mills, C., D’Mello, S., Lehman, B., Bosch, N., Strain, A., Graesser, A. (2013). What Makes Learning Fun? Exploring the Influence of Choice and Difficulty on Mind Wandering and Engagement during Learning. In: Lane, H.C., Yacef, K., Mostow, J., Pavlik, P. (eds) Artificial Intelligence in Education. AIED 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7926. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39112-5_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39112-5_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-39111-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-39112-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)