You are here:

An educational neuroscience perspective on tutoring: To what extent can electrophysiological measures improve the contingency of tutor scaffolding and feedback?
ARTICLE

, , University of Quebec in Montreal

Themes in Science and Technology Education Volume 9, Number 2, ISSN 1792-8788 Publisher: Themes in Science and Technology Education

Full Text

Abstract

The efficacy of tutoring as an instructional strategy mainly lies on the moment-by-moment correspondence between the help provided by a tutor and the tutee’s learning needs. The model presented in this paper emphasizes the pivotal role of monitoring and regulation, both by the tutor and the tutee, in attaining and maintaining affective and cognitive states conducive to student’s learning. This perspective highlights the hypothesis that the scarcity of the information that the tutor and tutee have access to during natural interaction leads to suboptimal learning interactions. As a potential response to this lack of information, it is argued that methodologies from cognitive and affective neuroscience can provide pertinent information during or after a learning interaction, and that this information can significantly empower students and tutors. Projected empirical research could lead to a dramatic reinterpretation of 35 years of already fruitful tutoring research.

Citation

Mercier, J. & Bédard, M. (2017). An educational neuroscience perspective on tutoring: To what extent can electrophysiological measures improve the contingency of tutor scaffolding and feedback?. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 9(2), 109-125. Retrieved August 17, 2022 from .

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Anderson, J.R. (2002). Spanning seven orders of magnitude: A challenge for cognitive modeling. Cognitive Science, 26, 85-112.
  2. Aleven, V., McLaren, B.M., Sewall, J., & Koedinger, K.R. (2009). A new paradigm for intelligent tutoring systems: Example-tracing tutors. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19, 105-154.
  3. Aleven, V., Stahl, E., Schworm, S., Fischer, F., & Wallace, R. (2003). Help seeking and help design in interactive learning environments. Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 277-320.
  4. Ansari, D., Coch, D., & De Smedt, B. (2011). Connecting education and cognitive neuroscience: Where will the journey take us? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 37-42.
  5. Ansari, D., De Smedt, D., & Grabner, R.H. (2012). Neuroeducation – A critical overview of an emerging field. Neuroethics, 5, 105-117.
  6. Antonenko, P., Paas, F., Garbner, R., & Van Gog, T. (2010). Using electroencephalography (EEG) to measure cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 425–438.
  7. Arrow, H., McGrath, J.E., & Berdahl, J.L. (2000). Small Groups as Complex Systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
  8. Astolfi, Cincotti, F., Mattia, D., De Vico Fallani, F., Vecciato, G., Salinari, S., Vecciato, G., Witte, H., & Babiloni, F. (2010). Time-varying cortical connectivity estimation from noninvasive, high-resolution EEG recordings. Journal of Psychophysiology, 24(2), 83–90.
  9. Azcarraga, J., & Suarez, M.T. (2013). Recognizing student emotions using brainwaves and mouse behavior data. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 11(2), 1-15.
  10. Byrnes, J.P. (2012). How neuroscience contributes to our understanding of learning and development in typically developing and special-needs students. In K.R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C.B. McCormick, G.M. Sinatra& J. Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Theories, constructs, and critical issues (Vol. 1, pp. 561595).
  11. Chi, M.T.H., Siler, S.A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R.G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471-533.
  12. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1988). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453494).
  13. Dekker, S., Lee, N.C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1-8.
  14. Delium, C. (2003). OSCAR, un environnement de communication médiatisée structurée par les actes de langage. In C. Desmoulins, P. Marquet et D. Bouhineau (dir.), Proceedings EIAH 2003 (pp. 127‐138). Paris : INRP.
  15. Devonshire, I.M, & Dommett, E.J. (2010). Neuroscience: Viable applications in education? Neuroscientist, 16, 349356.
  16. DiPaolo, E., & DeJaegher, H. (2012). The interactive brain hypothesis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1-16.
  17. D’Mello, S.K., & Graesser, A. (2010). Multimodal semi-automated affect detection from conversational cues, gross body language, and facial features. User Model User-Adapted Interaction, 20,147–187.
  18. Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K.A. (2012). Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self-evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention. Learning and Instruction, 22, 271-280.
  19. Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6-25.
  20. Ericsson, K.A., & Fox M.C. (2011). Thinking aloud is not a form of introspection but a qualitatively different methodology: Reply to schooler. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 351–354.
  21. Ferrari, M. (2011). What can neuroscience bring to education? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 31-36.
  22. Frederiksen, C.H., Roy, M., & Bédard, D. (1995). Discourse processing in situated cognition: Learning through tutorial dialogue in complex domains. In J.D. Moore& J.F. Lehman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 643–647). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  23. Freeman, F.G., Mikulka, P.J., Scerbo, M.W., & Scott, L. (2004). An evaluation of an adaptive automation system using a cognitive vigilance task. Biological Psychology, 67, 283–297.
  24. Fulmer, S.M., & Frijters, J.C. (2009). A review of self-report and alternative approaches in the measurement of student motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 219–246.
  25. Galan, F.C., & Beal, C.R. (2012). EEG estimates of engagement and cognitive workload predict math problem solving outcomes. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7379, 51-62.
  26. Gevins, A., Chan, C.S., & Sam-Vargas, L. (2012). Towards measuring brain function on groups of people in the real world. PLoS ONE, 7(9), 1-9.
  27. Gobet, F., & Wood, D.J. (1999). Expertise models of learning and computer-based tutoring. Computers& Education, 33, 189-207.
  28. Gomez, P., Zimmermann, P.G., Schär, S.G., & Danuser, B. (2009). Valence lasts longer than arousal: Persistence of induced moods as assessed by psychophysiological measures. Journal of Psychophysiology, 23(1), 7–17.
  29. Grabner, R.H., Saalbach, H., & Eckstein, D. (2012). Language-switching costs in bilingual mathematics learning. Mind, Brain, & Education, 6(3), 147-155.
  30. Graesser, A.C., Bowers, C., Hacker, D.J., & Person, N. (1997). An anatomy of naturalistic tutoring. In K. Hogan& M. Pressley (Eds.) Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues. Advances in learning& Teaching (pp. 108-144). Cambridge, MA, US: Brookline Books.
  31. Graesser, A., & McNamara, D. (2010). Self-regulated learning in learning environments with pedagogical agents that interact in natural language. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 234-244.
  32. Goswami, U. (2011). Educational neuroscience: Developmental mechanisms: Towards a conceptual framework. NeuroImage, 57, 651–658.
  33. Gottman, J.M., & Roy, A.K. (1990). Sequential analysis: A guide for behavioral researchers. NY: Cambridge University Press.
  34. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
  35. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K.A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.
  36. Hmelo, C., & Day, R. (1999). Contextualized questioning to scaffold learning from simulations. Computers& Education, 32, 151-164.
  37. Houdé, O., Pineau, A., Leroux, G., Poirel, N., Perchey, G., Lanoë, C., Lubin, A., Turbelin, M.R., Rossi, S., Simon, G., Delcroix, N., Lamberton, F., Vigneau, M., Wisniewski, G., Vicet, J.R., & Mazoyer, B. (2011). Functional magnetic resonance imaging study of Piaget’s conservation-of-number task in preschool and school-age children: A neo-Piagetian approach. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110, 332–346.
  38. Hyöna, J. (2010). The use of eye movements in the study of multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 172176.
  39. Immordino-Yang, M.H. (2011). Implications of affective and social neuroscience for educational theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 98-103.
  40. Järvelä S., & Hadwin, A.F. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25– 39.
  41. Joo, Y.J., Joung, S., & Kim, J. (2014). Structural relationships among self-regulated learning, learning flow, satisfaction, and learning persistence in cyber universities. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(6), 752-770.
  42. Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory: Implications for affective computing. In P.M. McCarthy& C. Murray (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 105-110). Florida: AAAI Publications.
  43. Kapur, M. (2011). Temporality matters: Advancing a method for analyzing problem-solving processes in a computer-supported collaborative environment. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 39–56.
  44. Karabenick, S.A. (2011). Classroom and technology-supported help seeking: The need for converging research paradigms. Learning and Instruction, 21, 290-296.
  45. Kelly, A.E. (2011). Can cognitive neuroscience ground a science of learning? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 17-23.
  46. Kim, M.C., & Hannafin, M.J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers& Education, 56, 403–417.
  47. Kreibig, S.D. (2010). Autonomic nervous system activity in emotion: a review. Biological Psychology, 84, 394–421.
  48. Lee, K. & Ng, S.F. (2011). Neuroscience and the teaching of mathematics. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 48-55.
  49. Luu, P., Frank, R., Kerick, S., & Tucker, D.M. (2009). Directed components analysis: An analytic method for the removal of biophysical artifacts from EEG data. In D.D. Schmorrow & C.M. Fidopiastis (Eds.), Augmented Cognition. Neurocognition and Machine Learning (pp. 411–416). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
  50. Matthews, G., Reinerman-Jones, L.E., Barber, D.J., & Abich, J. (2015). The psychometrics of mental workload: Multiple measures are sensitive but divergent. Human Factors, 57(1), 125–143.
  51. Mercier, J., & Frederiksen, C.H. (2007). Individual differences in graduate students’ help-seeking process in using a computer coach in problem-based learning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 184-203.
  52. Mercier, J., & Frederiksen, C.H. (2008). The structure of the help-seeking process in using a computer coach in problem-based learning. Computers& Education, 51(1), 17-33.
  53. Mercier, J., Léger, P.M., Girard, C., & Dion, J.S. (2012). Bridging the gap between cognitive neuroscience and education: Psychophysiological and behavioral data collection in authentic contexts. Neuroeducation, 1(1), 5-28.
  54. Michel, M.C., Murray M.M., Lantz G., Gonzalez, S., Spinelli, L., & Grave de Peralta, R. (2004). EEG source imaging. Clinical Neuphysiology, 115, 2195-2222.
  55. Mostow, J., Chang, K., & Nelson, J. (2011). Toward Exploiting EEG Input in a Reading Tutor. In G. Biswas, S. Bull, J. Kay, A. Mitrovic (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6738 (pp. 230–237). Berlin, Heidelberg:
  56. Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
  57. Newell, A., & Simon, H.T. (1972). Human problem solving. UK: Prentice Hall.
  58. Nolte, G., & Müller, K.R. (2010). Localizing and estimating causal relations of interacting brain rhythms. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, 1-5.
  59. Panadero, E., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Socially shared regulation of learning: A review. European Psychologist, 20, 190203.
  60. Patten, K.E. (2011). The somatic appraisal model of affect: Paradigm for educational neuroscience and neuropedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 87-97.
  61. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  62. Pettito, L.A. (2009). New discoveries from the bilingual brain and mind across the lifespan: Implications for education. Mind, Brain, & Education, 3(4), 185-197.
  63. Pope, A.T., Bogart, E.H., & Bartolome, D.S. (1996). Biocybernetic system evaluates indices of operator engagement in automated task. Biological Psychology, 40, 187-195.
  64. Poythress, M., Russell, C., Siegel, S., Tremoulet, P.D., Craven, P., Berka, C., Levendowski, D.J., Chang, D., Baskin, A., Champney, R., Hale, K., & Milham, L. (2006). Correlation between Expected Workload and EEG Indices of Cognitive Workload and Task Engagement. Research Report. Retrieved October 6, 2017, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.525.3018&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
  65. Pratt, M.W., & Savoy-Levine, K.M. (1998). Contingent tutoring of long-division skills in fourth and fifth graders: Experimental tests of some hypotheses about scaffolding. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 287– 304.
  66. Riganello, F., Garbarino, S., & Sannita, W.G. (2012). Heart rate variability, homeostasis, and brain function a tutorial and review of application. Journal of Psychophysiology, 26(4), 178–203.
  67. Roll, I., Aleven, V., McLaren, B.M., & Koedinger, K.R. (2011). Improving students’ help-seeking skills using metacognitive feedback in an intelligent tutoring system. Learning and Instruction, 21, 267-280.
  68. Stevens, R.H., Galloway, T.L., Wang, P., & Berka, C. (2011). Cognitive neurophysiologic synchronies: What can they contribute to the study of teamwork? Human Factors, 54(4), 489-502.
  69. Stikic, M., Berka, C., Levendowski, D.J., Rubio, R.F., Tan, V., Korszen, S., Barba, D., & Wurzer, D. (2014). Modeling temporal sequences of cognitive state changes based on a combination of EEG engagement EEG workload and heart rate metrics. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, 342.
  70. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
  71. Van Gog, T., Kirschner, F., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2012). Timing and frequency of mental effort measurement: Evidence in favour of repeated measures. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 833–839.
  72. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, V.J. (2011). Patterns of contingent teaching in teacher-student interaction. Learning and Instruction, 21, 46-57.
  73. VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197-221.
  74. Van Nes, F. (2011). Mathematics education and neurosciences: Towards interdisciplinary insights into the development of young children’s mathematical abilities. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 75-80.
  75. Verhoeven, L., Schnotz, W., & Pass, F. (2009). Cognitive load in interactive knowledge construction. Learning and Instruction, 19, 369-375.
  76. Volet, S., Vauras, M., & Salonen, P. (2009). Self-and social regulation in learning contexts: An integrative perspective. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 215–226.
  77. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  78. Winkler, I., Haufe, S., & Tangermann, M. (2011). Automatic classification of artifactual ICA components for artifact removal in EEG signals. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 7(30), 1-15.
  79. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
  80. Wood, H., & Wood, D. (1999). Help seeking, learning and contingent tutoring. Computers& Education, 33, 153169.
  81. Wyczesany, M., Kaiser, J., & Coenen, A.M.L. (2010). Associations between self-report of emotional state and the EEG patterns in affective disorders patients. Journal of Psychophysiology, 24(1), 33–40.
  82. Zhang, J., Zhou, R., & Oei, T.P.S. (2011). The effects of valence and arousal on hemispheric asymmetry of emotion evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Psychophysiology, 25(2), 95–103.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References