Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38667713›Full record

ArticleJournal of Intelligence2024

Metacognitive Management of Attention in Online Learning.

Matthew Jensen Hays, Scott Richard Kustes, Elizabeth Ligon Bjork

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Matthew Jensen HaysAmplifire, Boulder, CO 80301, USA.
Scott Richard KustesAmplifire, Boulder, CO 80301, USA.
Elizabeth Ligon BjorkDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Performance during training is a poor predictor of long-term retention. Worse yet, conditions of training that produce rapidly improving performance typically do not produce long-lasting, generalizable learning. As a result, learners and instructors alike can be misled into adopting training or educational experiences that are suboptimal for producing actual learning. Computer-based educational training platforms can counter this unfortunate tendency by providing only productive conditions of instruction-even if they are unintuitive (e.g., spacing instead of massing). The use of such platforms, however, introduces a different liability: being easy to interrupt. An assessment of this possible liability is needed given the enormous disruption to modern education brought about by COVID-19 and the subsequent widespread emergency adoption of computer-based remote instruction. The present study was therefore designed to (a) explore approaches for detecting interruptions that can be reasonably implemented by an instructor, (b) determine the frequency at which students are interrupted during a cognitive-science-based digital learning experience, and (c) establish the extent to which the pandemic and ensuing lockdowns affected students' metacognitive ability to maintain engagement with their digital learning experiences. Outliers in time data were analyzed with increasing complexity and decreasing subjectivity to identify when learners were interrupted. Results indicated that only between 1.565% and 3.206% of online interactions show evidence of learner interruption. And although classroom learning was inarguably disrupted by the pandemic, learning in the present, evidence-based platform appeared to be immune.

Indexed as

attentiondistance learningdistractionengagementmetacognitiononline learningremote learningtechnology in education

Identifiers

PMID38667713
PMCPMC11051084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.