Cited by 26Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesOnline and Blended Learning

The effects of biofeedback‐based stimulated recall on self‐regulated online learning: A gender and cognitive taxonomy perspective

Zhai, Xuesong, Fang, Qiansheng, Dong, Yan, Wei, Zhihui, Yuan, Jing, Cacciolatti, Luca, Yang, Yalong·2018·Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Abstract

Previous studies posited the effectiveness of stimulated recall. However, few studies explored how SR is implemented in a relatively static context, for example, online self‐directed learning, or took human factors, for example, cognitive style and gender, into consideration in such a context. To fill this gap, the current study, aims to introduce biofeedback as a stimulus for learners to engage in retrospection regarding their learning behavior. A quasi‐experimental design study was carried out over a 12‐week set of EFL self‐regulated online reading activities. Pretest and posttest on reading performance and their cognitive taxonomy were assessed through a developed scale instrument, whereas physiological signal s (e.g., gazing duration, verbal fixation, and brain wave) were captured via eye‐tracking and electroencephalograph (EEG) technology. The results emphasized that (a) students' reading ability and cognitive hierarchy significantly improved through biofeedback stimulation. Moreover, (b) learners in single level‐one cognitive hierarchic groups had significant improvements in both cognitive abilities and reading comprehension, whereas learners in multilevel hierarchic groups had no significant enhancements. Finally, (c) the optical data results and EEG reports showed that males favor procedural feedback and females have a preference for a conclusive assessment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcal.12284

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhai, X., Fang, Q., Dong, Y., Wei, Z., Yuan, J., Cacciolatti, L., & Yang, Y.
Affiliations
  • Anhui Jianzhu University (CN)
  • Beijing Normal University (CN)
  • Shanghai Open University (CN)
  • Anhui Sanlian University (CN)
  • University of Westminster (GB)
Corresponding author
Dong, Yan
Venue
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-07-10
Volume
34
Issue
6
Pages
775-786
ISSN
  • 0266-4909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2729
OpenAlex
W2804697677
Cited by
26
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
3.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (publishedVersion)
  • WestminsterResearch (University of Westminster) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
University Natural Science Research Project of Anhui Province (SK2017A0015, SK2017ZD42, SK2015A632, 2015zdjy115)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
Keywords
stimulated recall, biofeedback, student self-regulation, online self-directed learning, gender differences, cognitive style, cognitive hierarchy, EFL reading, reading comprehension, eye tracking, EEG

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