Search

Cognitive disequilibrium and its affiliated affective state of confusion have been found to positively correlate with learning, presumably due to the effortful cognitive activities that accompany their experience. Although confusion naturally occurs in several learning contexts, we hypothesize that it can be induced and scaffolded to increase learning opportunities. We addressed the possibility of confusion induction in a study where learners engaged in trialogues on research methods concepts with animated tutor and student agents. Confusion was induced by staging disagreements and contradictions between the animated agents, and then inviting the (human) learners to provide their opinions. Self-reports of confusion indicated that the contradictions were successful at inducing confusion in the minds of the learners. A second, more objective, method of tracking learners' confusion consisted of analyzing learners' performance on forced-choice questions that were embedded after contradictions. This measure was also found to be revealing of learners' underlying confusion. The contradictions alone did not result in enhanced learning gains. However, when confusion had been successfully induced, learners who were presented with contradictions did show improved learning compared to a no-contradiction control. Theoretical and applied implications along with possible future directions are discussed.

We used a false-biofeedback methodology to manipulate physiological arousal in order to induce affective states that would influence learners' metacognitive judgments and learning performance. False-biofeedback is a method used to induce physiological arousal (and resultant affective states) by presenting learners with audio stimuli of false heart beats. Learners were presented with accelerated, baseline, or no heart beat (control) while they completed a challenging learning task. We tested four hypotheses about the effect of false-biofeedback. The "alarm" vs. "alert hypothesis" predicted that false biofeedback would be appraised as either a signal of distress and would impair learning (alarm), or as a signal of engagement and would facilitate learning (alert). The "differential biofeedback hypothesis" predicted that the alarm and alert effects would be dependent on the type of biofeedback (accelerated vs. baseline). The "question depth hypothesis" predicted that these effects would be more pronounced for challenging inference questions. Lastly, the "self vs. recording hypothesis" predicted that effects would only occur if participants believed that false biofeedback was indicative of their own physiological arousal. In general, learners experienced more positive/activating affective states, made more confident metacognitive judgments, and achieved higher learning when they received accelerated or baseline biofeedback while answering a challenging inference question, irrespective of the perceived source of the biofeedback. Thus, our findings supported the alert and question depth hypotheses, but not the differential biofeedback or self vs. recording hypotheses. Implications of the findings for the integration of affective processes into models of cognitive and metacognitive processes during learning are discussed. (Contains 5 tables and 7 figures.)

Affective experiences routinely occur during learning and need to be successfully regulated. In two experiments, we used an intervention that combined elements of utility value and cognitive reappraisal to gauge its effects on engagement and performance. We predicted that participants using the reappraisal strategy would experience more engagement and higher learning outcomes than controls. Ethnically diverse adult learners ranging from 18 to 58 years of age (Experiment 1, N = 93; Experiment 2: N = 138) used affect regulation strategies or no strategy (control) in an online learning environment. Engagement and learning outcomes were measured throughout the experiment. Participants who used reappraisal generally reported more engagement and achieved higher learning outcomes than controls. A mediation analysis revealed evidence of a partial mediation effect of affective engagement between reappraisal and learning outcomes in Study 2. We discuss the implications of these findings for understanding the role of affect regulation during learning. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cognitive disequilibrium and its affiliated affective state of confusion have been found to positively correlate with learning, presumably due to the effortful cognitive activities that accompany their experience. Although confusion naturally occurs in several learning contexts, we hypothesize that it can be induced and scaffolded to increase learning opportunities. We addressed the possibility of confusion induction in a study where learners engaged in trialogues on research methods concepts with animated tutor and student agents. Confusion was induced by staging disagreements and contradictions between the animated agents, and then inviting the (human) learners to provide their opinions. Self-reports of confusion indicated that the contradictions were successful at inducing confusion in the minds of the learners. A second, more objective, method of tracking learners' confusion consisted of analyzing learners' performance on forced-choice questions that were embedded after contradictions. This measure was also found to be revealing of learners' underlying confusion. The contradictions alone did not result in enhanced learning gains. However, when confusion had been successfully induced, learners who were presented with contradictions did show improved learning compared to a no-contradiction control. Theoretical and applied implications along with possible future directions are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]