Decision-guided chatbots and cognitive styles in interdisciplinary learning

被引:29
作者
Iku-Silan, Aciang [1 ]
Hwang, Gwo-Jen [2 ,3 ]
Chen, Chih-Hung [4 ]
机构
[1] Natl Taiwan Univ Sci & Technol, Grad Inst Appl Sci & Technol, New Taipei, Taiwan
[2] Natl Taiwan Univ Sci & Technol, Grad Inst Digital Learning & Educ, New Taipei, Taiwan
[3] Yuan Ze Univ, Taoyuan City, Taiwan
[4] Natl Taichung Univ Educ, Taichung, Taiwan
关键词
Teaching; learning strategies; Secondary education; Interdisciplinary projects; Human -computer interface; SELF-EFFICACY; STUDENTS; LOAD; PERFORMANCE; KNOWLEDGE; INSTRUCTION; EXPERIENCES; PREDICTORS; MULTIMEDIA; PREFERENCE;
D O I
10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104812
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Research on chatbots has distinct interdisciplinary features and can be generalized to learning in various fields. However, related research is still fragmented across disciplines and applications. This study aimed to develop a decision-guided chatbot for interdisciplinary learning. To inves-tigate the effects of this learning model on learning achievements, learning motivation, collective efficacy, classroom engagement, satisfaction with the learning approach, and cognitive load of learners with different cognitive styles, this study was conducted in an environment education course in a junior high school in northern Taiwan. A total of 71 learners from two classes were recruited in this study; the experimental group, a class of 35 learners, adopted a decision-guided chatbot for learning, while the control group, a class of 36 learners, adopted conventional technology-assisted learning. The results showed that the experimental group significantly out-performed the control group on learning achievements, extrinsic motivation, collective efficacy, cognitive engagement, emotional engagement, and satisfaction with the learning approach. Moreover, the experimental group perceived lower mental efforts. In terms of cognitive styles, analytical learners had significantly higher learning achievements than intuitive learners. In the control group, the analytical learners had higher cognitive engagement than intuitive learners. In the experimental group, analytical learners had significantly lower mental load than intuitive learners. In addition, the analytical learners and intuitive learners in the experimental group respectively perceived higher mental load than those in the control group.
引用
收藏
页数:22
相关论文
共 92 条
[1]   AI-based chatbots in customer service and their effects on user compliance [J].
Adam, Martin ;
Wessel, Michael ;
Benlian, Alexander .
ELECTRONIC MARKETS, 2021, 31 (02) :427-445
[2]   The cognitive style index: A measure of intuition-analysis for organizational research [J].
Allinson, CW ;
Hayes, J .
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, 1996, 33 (01) :119-135
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1984, Educational psychologist, DOI [10.1080/00461528409529283, DOI 10.1080/00461528409529283]
[4]   Curiosity, interest and engagement in technology-pervasive learning environments: a new research agenda [J].
Arnone, Marilyn P. ;
Small, Ruth V. ;
Chauncey, Sarah A. ;
McKenna, H. Patricia .
ETR&D-EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, 2011, 59 (02) :181-198
[5]   Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems [J].
Ayres, Paul .
LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION, 2006, 16 (05) :389-400
[6]   Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy [J].
Bandura, A .
CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2000, 9 (03) :75-78
[7]   Using concept maps to characterise cellular respiration knowledge in undergraduate students [J].
Bergan-Roller, Heather E. ;
Galt, Nicholas J. ;
Helikar, Tomas ;
Dauer, Joseph T. .
JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION, 2020, 54 (01) :33-46
[8]  
Bii PK., 2018, UNIVERSAL J ED RES, V6, P1586, DOI [10.13189/ujer.2018.060719, DOI 10.13189/UJER.2018.060719]
[9]  
Blayney P, 2015, EDUC TECHNOL SOC, V18, P199
[10]   Performance implications of matching adaption and innovation cognitive style with explicit and tacit knowledge resources [J].
Bloodgood, James M. ;
Chilton, Michael A. .
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE, 2012, 10 (02) :106-117