Sample case study and excerpt of trialogue. Notes. Tr: true; Fl: false. Tr—Tr was the reference group for the models, hence, coefficients for this condition are not shown in the table. Bolded cells refer to significant effects at p <.05. Proportional occurrence of affective states from Experiment 1. Proportion of forced-choice questions correctly answered (Experiment 1). Notes. Tr: true; Fl: false; Tr—Tr was the reference group for the models, hence, coefficients for this condition are not shown in the table. Bolded cells refer to significant effects at p< .05. Fig. 2. Condition x confusion interaction for performance on the posttest (Experiment 1). An alternate method to probe the interaction is to regress posttest performance on confusion independently for each condi- tion (see Fig. 2). This yielded significant models for the true—false, Notes. Tr: true; Fl: false; Tr—Tr was the reference group for the models, hence, coefficients for this condition are not shown in the table. Bolded cells refer to significant effects at p< .05. Proportion of correct responses on the posttest (Experiment 1). Fig. 3. Condition x Trial 4 interaction for performance on far transfer test (Experiment 2). Performance on the multiple-choice posttest (Experiment 2). Notes. Tr: true; Fl: false; Tr—Tr was the reference group for the models, hence, coefficients for this condition are not shown in the table. Bolded cells refer to significant effects at p< .05. Table 6 Table 7 Notes. Tr: true; Fl: false; Tr—Tr was the reference group for the models, hence, coefficients for this condition are not shown in the table. Bolded cells refer to significant effects at p< .05. Performance on near and far transfer tests (Experiment 2). Fig. 4. Examples of confused faces from participants in Experiments 1 and 2. It is difficult to identify whether any of the specific factors listed above contributed to the lack of sensitivity of the self-reports in the present study. What is clear, however, is that future research should consider alternate methods to investigate emotions in addition to self-reports. Some possibilities include online observations by external judges (Rodrigo & Baker, 2011), retrospective coding of There are three important limitations with this research that need to be addressed in subsequent research activities. First, critics might object to the manipulations on the grounds that intentionally confusing learners by providing misleading information and contradictions is not in the best interests of the learner. We acknowledge this and similar reactions to the manipulations, but Fig. 5. Observed emotion transitions and their hypothesized causes. Image adapted from D’Mello and Graesser (2012a).
