Toward A Unified Modeling of Learner's Growth Process and Flow Theory

Introduction In the learning process, the learner's affective state plays an essential role that influences several mechanisms of rational thinking and learning (D'Mello, 2012; Picard, 1997; Duque Reis et al., 2015). Learners citing negative affective states (e.g., boredom) during learning activities are, in general, significantly more likely to show inadequate learning outcomes, because they often are not motivated and are not engaged in learning (Craig, Graesser, Sullins, & Gholson, 2004; Shernoff, Vandell, & Bolt, 2008). To motivate a student so that he/she performs learning activities with complete immersion, it is necessary that his/her affective state provide an optimal experience. This affective state is denominated flow, and it is a mental state of operation characterized by a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and success in the task being performed (Csikszentmihalyi, 2013). One condition for attaining and maintaining the flow state is a good balance between the perceived challenges of a task and the participant's own perceived abilities to solve it (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). A task that is too challenging or one that is not challenging enough may lead to frustration or boredom, hence demotivating learners. Thus, to define a learning scenario with specific learning objects that favors and maintains the learner's flow during educational activities, instructional designers need to have some understanding about the influence of these activities/objects in the affective state of a leaner. For example, one factor that affects the perceived challenge of a given activity is the difficulty levels of learning objects. In this case, if the difficulty level of a learning object (or sequence of learning objects) is not adequately connected with the learning goals and the current knowledge and skills of a student, the learning scenario will be perceived as too hard and frustrating, or as too easy and boring. In a collaborative learning scenario, the challenge of designing adequate activities and selecting learning objects is even harder. If the instructional designer selects problems and learning objects that are too difficult (or too easy) for students, it will hinder students' interactions, demotivate students, and lead students to not want to work in groups over time (Challco, Moreira, Mizoguchi, & Isotani, 2014; Isotani, Inaba, Ikeda, & Mizoguchi, 2009). For instance, consider a scenario where a student (the tutor) interacts with another student (the tutee) to solve a given problem (i.e., a selected learning object). In this situation, the tutor will learn by using his knowledge/skills to demonstrate how to solve a problem and the tutee will learn by following the tutor's guidance. If the problem is too hard or the sequence of activities is not created to help students to collaborate, the tutor will not have the sufficient skill level or knowledge to solve and guide the tutee in the resolution of the problem. As a result, the learning scenario will cause emotional distress in both tutor and tutee, and the desired learning outcomes will not be achieved. To support the design of better learning scenarios that are pedagogically sound and can keep learners in a flow state, it is essential during the instructional design process to take into account the level of difficulty of learning objects and to link learning objects with theories that describe leaners' growth. Unfortunately, this task requires specialized knowledge about instructional/learning theories, Flow Theory, and Affect Theory, and the skills to apply this knowledge in an integrated manner in order to select adequate learning objects and design effective learning scenarios that match students' abilities. To support the design of authoring tools that help instructional designers with the proper selection of levels of difficulty that keep the learners in flow, in this paper we propose a framework to integrate the learner's growth process and Flow Theory through a new theory-based model, named GMIF: Learner S Growth Model Improved by Flow Theory. …

[1]  Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi,et al.  Learning, “Flow,” and Happiness , 2014 .

[2]  Patrícia Augustin Jaques,et al.  A Semantic Web-based authoring tool to facilitate the planning of collaborative learning scenarios compliant with learning theories , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[3]  Amber Chauncey Strain,et al.  Interest-based text preference moderates the effect of text difficulty on engagement and learning , 2015 .

[4]  Mitsuru Ikeda,et al.  The foundations of a theory-aware authoring tool for CSCL design , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[5]  David J. Shernoff,et al.  Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. , 2003 .

[6]  Carlos Delgado Kloos,et al.  Experimenting with electromagnetism using augmented reality: Impact on flow student experience and educational effectiveness , 2014, Comput. Educ..

[7]  Rosalind W. Picard,et al.  An affective model of interplay between emotions and learning: reengineering educational pedagogy-building a learning companion , 2001, Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies.

[8]  Iván Martínez-Ortiz,et al.  A Framework for Simplifying Educator Tasks Related to the Integration of Games in the Learning Flow , 2012, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[9]  Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi,et al.  Flow: the psychology of happiness , 1992 .

[10]  Geoffrey W. Sutton Positive Psychology: The Scientific and Practical Explorations of Human Strengths , 2007 .

[11]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Accretion, tuning and restructuring: Three modes of learning , 1976 .

[12]  Tzu-Chien Hsiao,et al.  Towards Automatically Detecting Whether Student Is in Flow , 2014, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[13]  Julie L. Booth,et al.  Instructional Complexity and the Science to Constrain It , 2013, Science.

[14]  Ralf Schweizer,et al.  Designing Instructional Systems Decision Making In Course Planning And Curriculum Design , 2016 .

[15]  John R. Anderson Acquisition of cognitive skill. , 1982 .

[16]  Allan Collins,et al.  Cognitive Apprenticeship and Instructional Technology , 1988 .

[17]  Kurt VanLehn,et al.  The Behavior of Tutoring Systems , 2006, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[18]  Soung Hie Kim,et al.  ERP training with a web-based electronic learning system: The flow theory perspective , 2007, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[19]  Fatma Burcu Topu,et al.  Retention and flow under guided and unguided learning experience in 3D virtual worlds , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[20]  A. Graesser,et al.  Monitoring Affective Trajectories during Complex Learning , 2007 .

[21]  Judy Kay,et al.  Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Artificial intelligence in education , 2011 .

[22]  Riichiro Mizoguchi,et al.  An Ontology Engineering Approach to Gamify Collaborative Learning Scenarios , 2014, CRIWG.

[23]  Herbert J. Walberg Educational Values and Cognitive Instruction: Implications for Reform. , 1991 .

[24]  Riichiro Mizoguchi,et al.  An Integrated Framework for Fine-Grained Analysis and Design of Group Learning Activities , 2006, ICCE.

[25]  E. Vesterinen,et al.  Affective Computing , 2009, Encyclopedia of Biometrics.

[26]  Francisco J. Martínez-López,et al.  Modelling students' flow experiences in an online learning environment , 2014, Comput. Educ..

[27]  Steve Howard,et al.  The ebb and flow of online learning , 2005, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[28]  Mitsuru Ikeda,et al.  An ontology engineering approach to the realization of theory-driven group formation , 2009, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[29]  Timo Lainema,et al.  Flow framework for analyzing the quality of educational games , 2014, Entertain. Comput..

[30]  Patrícia Augustin Jaques,et al.  Affective States in CSCL Environments: A Systematic Mapping of the Literature , 2015, 2015 IEEE 15th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies.

[31]  Scotty D. Craig,et al.  Affect and learning: An exploratory look into the role of affect in learning with AutoTutor , 2004 .

[32]  Ben Kirman,et al.  Learning curves: analysing pace and challenge in four successful puzzle games , 2014, CHI PLAY.

[33]  Riichiro MIZOGUCHI,et al.  What Learning Patterns are Effective for a Learner ’ s Growth ? An ontological support for designing collaborative learning , 2003 .