Cited by 38Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsArtificial Intelligence in Education

Design requirements, student perception indicators and validation metrics for intelligent exploratory learning environments

Open access
Mavrikis, Manolis, Gutierrez-Santos, Sergio, Geraniou, Eirini, Noss, Richard·2013·Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00779-012-0524-3

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • When students were in flow, low-interruptive feedback was preferred by students.

    “However, when students were in flow , low-interruptive feedback (a glowing lightbulb which indicates that feedback is available) was preferred by students (Mavrikis et al., 2013).”
  • Students can find it very disruptive when they are interrupted during a learning activity.

    “In the non-affect condition, INSTRUCTIVE feedback, OTHER PROBLEM SOLVING support, and REFLECTIVE prompts were provided in a lowinterruptive way, as research (Mavrikis et al., 2013) has shown that students can find it very disruptive when they are interrupted during a learning activity.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kynigos C (1992) Insights into Pupils' and Teachers' Activities in Pupil- Controlled Problem-Solving Situations. In: Information Technology and Math- ematics Problem Solving: Research in Contexts of Practice, NATO ASI Series, vol 2, Springer Verlag, pp 219-238
  2. Read J, Macfarlane S (2002) Endurability, Engagement and Expectations: Mea- suring Children's Fun. In: Interaction Design and Children, Shaker Publishing, vol 2, pp 1-23

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mavrikis, M., Gutierrez-Santos, S., Geraniou, E., & Noss, R.
Affiliations
University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Mavrikis, Manolis
Venue
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing
Published
2012-05-03
Volume
17
Issue
8
Pages
1605-1620
ISSN
  • 1617-4909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1617-4917
OpenAlex
W2021484521
Cited by
38
References
40
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Personal and Ubiquitous Computing (publishedVersion)
  • BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/E020089/1, RES-139-25-0381)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
exploratory learning, smart learning environments, design requirements, validation metrics, formative assessment, intelligent tutoring systems, helpfulness, comprehension

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review