data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/12368/12368c57a9275f81d5fb4177f1912178ebc2e0a9" alt="سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی دانشگاه کردستان"
تعداد نشریات | 31 |
تعداد شمارهها | 334 |
تعداد مقالات | 3,274 |
تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 4,073,540 |
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 4,879,360 |
یادگیری با عاملهای هوشمند آموزشی: آیا میتوان با ردیابی حرکات چشم عملکرد توجه را بهبود بخشید؟ | ||
تدریس پژوهی | ||
مقاله 6، دوره 9، شماره 3، مهر 1400، صفحه 145-125 اصل مقاله (1.09 M) | ||
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
نویسنده | ||
نسرین محمدحسنی* | ||
گروه تکنولوژی آموزشی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران. | ||
چکیده | ||
هدف مطالعه حاضر بررسی نقش عامل هوشمند آموزشی بر توان حل مسائل پیچیده و مدتزمان درگیری با تکلیف در دانشآموزان مبتلا به اختلال نارسایی توجه بوده که با روش آزمایشی انجام شده است. جامعه هدف از بین دانشآموزان 7 تا 13 سال (5/10 M: ) که در مقطع ابتدایی و راهنمایی، در مدارس دولتی در سیسلی کشور ایتالیا[1] مشغول به تحصیل بودند، انتخاب شد. گروه نمونه (45:N)که از طریق سیاهه تشخیصی ADHD (فرم معلم) انتخاب شدند، بهصورت تصادفی در سه گروه گمارش شدند: 1) بدون حضور عامل آموزشی 2) عامل آموزشی، تنها دستورالعملهایی را در حین حل مسئله ارائه میکرد 3) عامل آموزشی دستورالعملهایی را در حین حل مسئله ارائه و در خصوص توجه افراد بازخوردهایی را ارائه میداد. ابزار مورد استفاده در این پژوهش آزمون حل مسائل پیچیده و ثبت زمان حل مسائل بود. نتایج نشان داد که حضور عامل هوشمند آموزشی، عملکرد حل مسئله را بهبود میبخشد، اما تأثیر عامل بر مدتزمان درگیری یادگیرندگان با تکلیف معنادار نیست. بر اساس نتایج، هدایت و بازخورد ارائه شده توسط عامل آموزشی باعث بهبود فرایند توجه شده و بهتبع آن، عملکرد فرد را در حل مسئله ارتقا میبخشد. | ||
کلیدواژهها | ||
توجه؛ زمان توجه؛ حلمسئله؛ عاملهای هوشمند آموزشی | ||
مراجع | ||
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5t Ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. Atkinson, R.K., Mayer, E. M., & Merill, M. M. (2005). Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent's voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 117-139. Barkley, R.A. (2005).ADHD and the nature of self-control .New York: Guilford. Baylor, A., & Ryu, J. (2003). The API (Agent Persona Instrument) for assessing pedagogical agent persona. EdMedia. Innovate Learning, 448–451. Brock, S. E., Grove, B., & Searls, M. (2010). ADHD: Classroom Intervention. National Association of school psychologist Carlson, C. L., & Mann, M. (2000). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, predominantly inattentive subtype. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 9, 499–510. Choi, S., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent for learning English as a second language. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(4), 441–466. Clark, R. C., & Mayer E.R. (2016). ELearning and the Science of Instruction (Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer Cobb, c. (2013). The Use of an Animated Pedagogical Agent as a Mnemonic Device to Promote Learning and Motivation in Online Education (Ph.D. Thesis) Walden University. Christopoulos, A., Conrad, M., & Shukla, M. (2019). What Does the Pedagogical Agent say? 10th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications (IISA), http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IISA.2019.8900767 Daradoumis T., & Arguedas, M. (2020). Cultivating Students’ Reflective Learning in Metacognitive Activities through an Affective Pedagogical Agent. Educational Technology & Society, 23 (2), 19-31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26921131 Fabio RA. (2005). Dynamic assessment of intelligence is a better reply to adaptive behavior and cognitive plasticity. Journal of General Psychology. 132, 41–64. Fabio, R. A., & Caprì, T. (2015). Autobiographical Memory in ADHD Subtypes. Journal of Developmental and Intellectual Disability, 6, 26–36. Fabio, R.A., Capri, T, Lannizzotto, G., Nucita, A., & Mohammadhasani, N. (2019). Interactive Avatar Boosts the Performances of Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Dynamic Measures of Intelligence. Cyber psychology, Behavior, and Networking, 22(9), 588-596. Fogg, B. J. (2003). Prominence-interpretation theory: Explaining how people assess credibility online. Proceedings of CHI’03, Human Factors in Computing Systems, 722– 723. Hechtman LH. (2007). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. In: Sadock BJ, Sadock VA, editors. Kaplan & Sadock’s Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry. Güneş Kitabevi Ltd. Şti: Lippincott & Wilkins. Hussein, A. Al., & Al-chlabi, H. M. (2020). Pedagogical Agents in an Adaptive E-learning System. Science and Research, 3(1), 24-30. Johnson, A.M., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2015). Supporting multimedia learning with visual signalling and animated pedagogical agent: moderating effects of prior knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(2), 97-115. Keller, T., & Brucker-Kley, E. (2020). Design Hints for Smart Agents as Teachers in Virtual Learning Spaces. International Conference on e-Society. DOI: 10.33965/es2020_202005L014 Kim Y. (2015). Pedagogical agents. In M. Spector, et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kim Y., & Baylor AL. (2007). Pedagogical agents as social models to influence learner attitudes. Educational Technology, 47, 23–28. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2016). Research-based design of pedagogical agent roles: A review, progress, and recommendations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 160–169. doi:10.1007/s40593- 015-0055-y. Kim, Y., Baylor, A.L., & PALS Group. (2006). Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions: The Role of Agent Competency and Type of Interaction. ETR&D, 54(3), 223-243 Lambez B., Harwood-Gross A., Golumbic EZ., & Rassovsky Y. (2020). Non-pharmacological interventions for cognitive difficulties in ADHD: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Psychiatr Res, 120, 40-55. Lane, H. C. (2016). Pedagogical Agents and Affect: Molding Positive Learning Interactions in Emotion, Technology and Learning. (Pages 47-62) Academic press. Lee, J.-E. R., Nass, C., Brave, S., Morishima, Y., Nakajima, H., & Yamada, R. (2007). The case for caring co-learners: The effects of a computer-mediated co-learner agent on trust and learning. Journal of Communication, 57(2), 183–204. Lin, L., Ginns, P., Wang, T., & Zhang, P. (2020). Using a pedagogical agent to deliver conversational style instruction: What benefits can you obtain? Computer & Education. 143, 1-11. Martha, D., & Santoso, H. (2019). The Design and Impact of the Pedagogical Agent: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Educators Online, 1-15. Mayer, R. E. (2014). Principles based on social cues: Personalization, voice, image, and embodiment principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mohammadhasani, N. (2017). Investigating of the effect of the intelligent pedagogical agent on learning in ADHD students. (Ph.D. thesis) Tarbiat Modares University, Iran [persian]. Mohammadhasani, N., Fabio, R., Fardanesh, H., & Hatami, J., (2015). The link between visual attention and memory in ADHD student and normally developing student: seeing is remembering? Italian journal of cognitive science.1/2015 – pp. 89-102. Nass, C., & Brave, S. (2005). Wired for speech: How voice activates and advances the human-computer relationship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Noreika, V., Falter, C., & Rubia, K. (2013). Timing deficits in ADHD: evidence from neurocognitive and neuroimaging studies. Neuropsychologia 51, 235–266. Pievsky, M. A., & McGrath, R. E. (2018). The neurocognitive profile of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a review of meta-analyses. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychology. 33, 143–157. doi: 10.1093/arclin/acx055. Rezvani Amir, M.H. (2017). Brain Facts: the Book of the Alphabet of the Brain and the Nervous System (1st Ed) Human Publishing.86. [Persian]. Rommelse, N. N., Van der Stigchel, S., & Sergeant, J. A. (2008). A review on eye movement studies in childhood and adolescent psychiatry. Brain and cognition, 68, 391–414 Rosenberg-Kima, R. B., Baylor, A. L., Plant, E. A., & Doerr, C. E. (2007). The importance of interface agent visual presence: Voice alone is less effective in impacting young women’s attitudes toward engineering. International Conference on Persuasive Technology, 214–222. Rosenberg-Kima, R. B., Baylor, A. L., Plant, E. A., & Doerr, C. E. (2008). Interface agents as social models for female students: the effects of agent visual presence and appearance on female students’ attitudes and beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2741–2756. Rubia, K., Halari, R., Taylor, E., & Brammer, M. (2011). Methylphenidate normalises fronto-cingulate underactivation during error processing in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Biol. Psychiatry, 70, 255–262. Soliman, M. (2014). Intelligente Pädagogische Agenten in Immersiven Virtuellen 3D-Lernumgebungen. (Ph.D. thesis) TU Graze University, Austria. Sweller, J. (2011). Human cognitive architecture: Why some instructional procedures work and others do not. In K. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA Educational Psychology Handbook. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Veletsianos, G., & Russell, G. (2014). Pedagogical Agents. In Spector, M., Merrill, D., Elen, J., & Bishop, MJ (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 4th Edition (pp. 759-769). Springer Academic Wang, J., & Antonenko, P. D. (2017). Instructor presence in instructional video: Effects on visual attention, recall, and perceived learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 79–89. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.049. Wilson KE, Martinez M, Mills C, D'Mello S, Smilek D., & Risko EF. (2018). Instructor presence effect: Liking does not always lead to learning. Computers & Education, 122, 205-20. | ||
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 588 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 325 |