Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 1 (2020) 100003

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/caeai

A fuzzy expert system-based adaptive learning approach to improving

students’ learning performances by considering affective and
cognitive factors
Gwo-Jen Hwang a, *, Han-Yu Sung b, Shao-Chen Chang c, Xing-Ci Huang a
a
Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, 43, Sec.4, Keelung Rd., Taipei, 106, Taiwan
b
Department of Allied Health Education and Digital Learning, National Taipei University of Nursing and Health Sciences, No.365, Ming-te Road, Peitou District, Taipei
City, Taiwan
c
Department of International Bachelor Program in Informatics and the Department of Information Communication, Yuan Ze University, No. 135, Yuandong Rd., Zhongli
Dist., Taoyuan City, 320, Taiwan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Scholars have indicated the importance of providing guidance and support for individual learners. In the past
Artificial intelligence decades, most studies have developed adaptive learning systems to address this issue mainly based on students’
Adaptive learning cognitive status, such as their learning achievements. However, several educators have pointed out the need to
Fussy inference
take learners’ affective status into account. Therefore, this study proposed an expert system approach by taking
Expert system
Personalization
into account both the affective and cognitive status of individual learners. An adaptive learning system was
implemented based on the proposed approach. In addition, an experiment was conducted in a fifth-grade
Mathematics course to compare the learning performances and perceptions of the students who learned with
the adaptive learning system with affective and cognitive status analysis, a cognitive-status-based adaptive
learning system, and a conventional learning system. The ANCOVA results revealed that the adaptive learning
model with the affective and cognitive performance analysis mechanism outperformed the other two approaches
in terms of improving the students’ learning achievement (F ¼ 3.12, p < 0.05) and reducing their mathematical
anxiety (F ¼ 5.59, p < 0.01). In addition, it was found that the proposed approach helped the low achievers
successfully complete the learning tasks, while those learning with the conventional cognitive factor-based
approach were more likely to give up some learning tasks, and were more reliant on the detailed version of
the instructional materials.

1. Introduction
In the traditional one-on-many instructional approach, due to the
limitation of such factors as teaching process, human power, and so on,
instructors can only provide all students with the same materials, and
they tend to employ an identical teaching approach and rate of progress.
It is difficult to consider the learning needs of individual students
(Sampayo-Vargas, Cope, He, & Byrne, 2013). This means that students
with better proficiency levels are limited by instructors’ teaching prog-
ress so they cannot make effective use of class time to learn. On the other
hand, students with insufficient proficiency levels may not be able to
understand the course content (Looi et al., 2009). To tackle this problem,
researchers have proposed a student-centered adaptive learning model;
that is, a model that takes students’ individual differences into account in
the design of the learning materials in order to obtain better learning
achievement (Islam, Beer, & Slack, 2015).
Using artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to simulate teachers’
knowledge and experience to provide individual students with person-
alized supports or guidance has been recognized as a potential solution
(Pai, Kuo, Liao, & Liu, 2020; Xiao & Yi, 2020). Several researchers have
begun to develop such adaptive learning systems using AI technologies.
For instance, Pai et al. (2020) proposed an intelligent tutoring system to
help fifth-grade students learn the mathematical unit of multiplication
and division. They found that the intelligent tutoring system (ITS) not
only improved students’ mathematics learning performance, but also
increased their learning motivation. Hooshyar et al. (2016) applied an

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: gjhwang.academic@gmail.com (G.-J. Hwang), hanyu.sung@gmail.com (H.-Y. Sung), shao.chen76@gmail.com (S.-C. Chang), ccha813@gmail.
com (X.-C. Huang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100003
Received 18 July 2020; Received in revised form 14 August 2020; Accepted 14 August 2020
2666-920X/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
G.-J. Hwang et al.
online game-based formative assessment in a flowchart-based intelligent
tutoring system. They reported that the 52 university students improved
their learning interest, attitude and computer science learning achieve-
ments after the learning activity. The results revealed that the experi-
mental group exhibited better help-seeking strategies than the control
group. As can be seen, compared to traditional computer-assisted
learning systems, adaptive learning systems can promote students’
learning performance (Truong, 2016).
The cognitive domain includes one’s memory, thinking, recognition
and application of things. It emphasizes that the main feature of
knowledge is the acquisition and application of knowledge (Bloom,
Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956). Researchers have also
revealed that adaptive learning should not just take cognitive status into
consideration (Nakic, Granic, & Glavinic, 2015); instead, learners’
emotional factors, such as the development and change in a person’s
interest, attitude, value, appreciation, and adaptation, need to be taken
into account (Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964, p. 1). For example, Kim,
Lee, and Ryu (2013) showed that students’ characteristics and person-
ality traits are also crucial factors that influence personalized learning.
Hence, in the development of adaptive learning, apart from students’
cognitive status, such factors as students’ learning attitude, learning in-
terest, and affection are issues worthy of attention. For instance, Ehrman,
Leaver, and Oxford (2003) indicated that learner difference includes the
following three factors: learning strategy and affection (e.g., learning
anxiety and attitudes). In addition, Kobsa, Koenemann, and Pohl (2001)
further specified that in order to achieve true “adaptive” learning,
various and different aspects should be incorporated and considered.
To address this issue, this study aimed to develop an adaptive
learning system by taking both the affective and cognitive factors into
account. To explore the effectiveness of the proposed approach, an
experiment was conducted to evaluate the effects of the developed sys-
tem on students’ learning achievement, mathematical anxiety and
cognitive load.
2. Literature review
2.1. Artificial intelligence in adaptive learning
Artificial intelligence refers to a system that simulates humans to
make judgments and decisions that exhibit the characteristics of human
intelligence (Akerkar, 2014). In the past decades, AI technologies have
been adopted by researchers to provide personalized learning guidance
and supports for individual students in various courses, such as data
structure (Daghestani, Ibrahim, Al-Towirgi, & Salman, 2020), computer
programming (Palanca, Terrasa, Carrascosa, & Julian, 2019) and math-
ematics (Pai et al., 2020). Monova-Zheleva (2005) further defined
adaptive learning as a learning model that provides appropriate learning
content based on a user’s needs (Yau & Joy, 2010); these needs could be
justified and evaluated by using the standards of learning technology
such as learner profiles, competency definitions, sequencing rules,
learning objects, and so on. Rosmalen et al. (2006) regarded adaptive
learning as a capability to obtain information through learners’ on-site
task performance or evaluation results in order to improve individual
learners’ learning experience (Zhao & Okamoto, 2011). Yaghmaie and
Bahreininejad (2011) considered adaptive learning as a distinctive
learning process generated based on learners’ characteristics, interest,
and performance so as to accomplish such learning objectives as
enhancing learning performance, learning satisfaction, etc. Yang,
Hwang, and Yang (2013) considered adaptive learning as the approach of
revising learning content or ways of presentation in the learning process
based on learners’ capabilities, interest, conditions or personality traits.
Thus, adaptive learning includes the two major aspects of cognitive status
and affective status.
Considering learners’ individual cognitive status to provide corre-
sponding learning content, learning paths or ways of presentation are an
essential mechanism; making use of learning content which matches
2
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 1 (2020) 100003
learners’ prior knowledge can increase learners’ learning performance
(Dochy, 1992; Moerkerke, 1996; Weibelzahl, 2001). Learning content
that is either too difficult or too easy cannot facilitate learning motivation
(Schunk, 1999); providing teaching models not based on learning needs
may become the obstacle for students’ cognitive development (Looi et al.,
2009). As a result, how to evaluate learners’ cognitive status and then
design adaptive learning activities is an issue that is worth emphasizing.
Chen, Liu, and Chang (2006) indicated that even though several re-
searchers have paid attention to developing learning systems appropriate
for learners’ reading habits, they did not carefully consider the situation
of the gap between students’ learning capabilities and the difficulty level
of the recommended courses, which resulted in cognitive load and sub-
sequently reduced learning performance. Therefore, Chen et al. (2006)
designed a personalized learning system which was able to dynamically
change learning paths and content, and developed and embedded into it
numerous forms of learning content relevant to programming language.
Besides, they classified the learning content, and set up the coefficient
based on its difficulty level; they cross-analyzed students’ feedback on
the difficulty level after they had learned the content and the coefficient
the system set up, and then arranged the following adequate learning
content. The results showed that this adaptive learning system which
could adjust learning content based on students’ cognitive capabilities
could significantly enhance students’ learning efficiency. Chen, Hsieh,
and Hsu (2007) specified that ignoring learners’ misconceptions would
cause a decrease in learning achievement. The recent adaptive learning
system could arrange course content or ways of representation according
to learners’ characteristics, but it was difficult to assist learners in
examining whether they were able to truly understand the learning
content embedded in the system on their own. In an effort to help
learners clarify their misunderstandings during their learning process,
Chen et al. (2007) developed systematic association rules for each
learning concept, and presented personalized learning content and
learning paths based on learners’ different cognitive status after they
provided wrong answers, which then clarified their misconceptions and
increased their learning achievement. Tseng, Chu, Hwang, and Tsai
(2008) developed a learning system that provided personalized learning
content based on cognitive status. The system set up the major learning
materials and achievement test for each unit; students had to read ma-
terials in the learning system and finish the achievement test. The
learning system would then provide learning materials at an adequate
difficulty level for the next learning activity based on the student’s
achievement test score in that unit as the reference for evaluating their
cognitive status. This could effectively promote the learners’ learning
achievement. It was found that the experimental group using adaptive
learning materials had better learning efficiency than the control group.
However, several educators have indicated that learning achievement
from a broad perspective should consider the three aspects of cognition,
affection, and skills. Kim et al. (2013) specified that learners’ personal-
ities and characteristics are crucial factors that influence personalized
learning. Numerous researchers have further found that such individual
differences as learners’ gender, prior knowledge and learning preferences
might bring about different learning performances (Cassidy, 2012; Chen,
2010; Chen & Macredie, 2010; Chen & Sun, 2012; Jonassen & Gra-
bowski, 2012). Kobsa et al. (2001) revealed that to achieve “adaptive”
learning, the learner’s profile including his/her interests, capabilities as
well as the learning portfolio and learning environment data such as the
learning environment and adopted equipment should be considered to
accommodate the learner’s individual needs. In addition, researchers
have specified that in the field of teaching design, in order to develop an
adaptive learning environment, individual differences between learners
such as their prior knowledge, skills, abilities, and affective variables
should be taken into consideration, which could help them complete the
learning tasks in a more effective way (Shute & Zapata-Rivera, 2012;
Vandewaetere, Desmet, & Clarebout, 2011). However, due to the diffi-
culty of evaluating overall mental capabilities, in most of the practical
applications, learning achievement only included comprehension ability
G.-J. Hwang et al.
of course content and memory as the evaluation standards in the cogni-
tive aspect. Among the parameters of developing adaptive learning sys-
tems, test scores are usually used to represent learning achievement
(Hwang, Sung, Hung, & Huang, 2013). However, in order to achieve
truly adaptive learning, not only cognitive status but also other aspects
should be taken into account.
2.2. Adaptive learning based on affection performance
Morshead (1965) defined the affective domain as the domain of
exploring the development and change in a person’s interest, attitude,
value, appreciation, and adaptation. The educational objectives of the
affective domain can be divided into five phases: Receiving or Attending,
Responding, Valuing, Organization, and Characterization by value or
value complex.
Receiving or Attending in the affective domain includes how to
arouse, maintain, and guide students’ concentration, while Responding
shows whether students are able to actively participate in learning, and is
mostly relevant to learning interest (Al-Samarraie & Saeed, 2018). Apart
from incorporating learning states into the learning process as the
adaptive factor for affective status, researchers have also integrated
learner interest into developing an adaptive learning system. Ku and
Sullivan (2002) designed an adaptive learning system integrated with
learner interest. At first, the system investigated learners’ favorite food,
sport types, and store types, and then integrated them into the mathe-
matics questions as the learning content. The results revealed that this
could not only enhance students’ learning achievement, but also had a
positive influence on their learning attitude. Moreover, numerous studies
have verified that paying attention to students’ affection in their learning
process could facilitate and improve their learning experiences (Johnson,
Rickel, & Lester, 2000; Lehman, Matthews, D’Mello, & Person, 2008).
Furthermore, when developing adaptive learning systems, students’
affection (e.g., happy, interested, depressed, bored, focused) should be
examined to provide adaptive feedback (Katsionis & Virvou, 2004)
because these affective moods imply the possibility that students would
begin to engage in activities which were not related to learning (Rodrigo
et al., 2007). In view of this, Hernandezet, Sucar, and Arroyo-Figueroa
(2010) took advantage of a dynamic Bayesian network to develop an
affective model in advance, and embedded it into an intelligent tutoring
system to predict students’ affective reactions in an effort to improve
students’ learning achievement and learning motivation.
In brief, cognition can change affection, and vice versa. Learners’
individual differences not only exist in intelligence or learning achieve-
ment, but may also be influenced by such personality traits as learning
style, cognitive style, and so on. Thus, considering learners’ character-
istics in the learning context to develop an adaptive environment that
accommodates individual learning needs can not only have substantial
benefits for students’ learning achievement, but also has the potential to
become the key to encouraging learners’ learning motivation and atti-
tude. However, even though the field of education has long emphasized
that developing students’ interest, motivation, and attitude is an essential
objective, cognitive status has been taken as the foremost evaluation
indicator in schools at all levels, while the development of the affective
field has received insufficient emphasis. Above all, adaptive learning
aims to attribute the learning agent to the learners themselves, and en-
ables every learner to be taught in accordance with their aptitude, per-
sonal characteristics or learning status. As a result, the present study
aimed to develop an adaptive learning system integrated with individual
learners’ affective and cognitive status, and to explore its effects on
learners’ learning achievement, cognitive load and mathematical
anxiety.
3. An expert system-based adaptive learning system with
affective and cognitive factors
The affective and cognitive factors-based adaptive learning system
3
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 1 (2020) 100003
(ACALS) is implemented using HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript and MySQL. It
consists of a learning module, a testing model, a learning status recording
module, and an expert system module, as shown in Fig. 1. The learning
model enables students to learn by watching online videos and
completing learning sheets. The testing model is used to perform tests to
evaluate individual students’ knowledge level. The learning status
recording module records the learning behaviors of individual students
in the system logs for further analysis. The expert system module is used
to analyze students’ affective status and to determine the learning con-
tent for individual students based on their affective status and knowledge
level.
3.1. Expert system module
For each learning unit, there are three candidate versions of the
learning materials; that is, “standard version,” “detailed version” and
“advanced” version. Each version consists of the major learning mate-
rials, which present the standard learning content (see Fig. 2), and the
“standard,” “detailed” or “advanced” instructions provided by the
teacher.
Fig. 3 shows the standard instructions. This version is the same as the
traditional instructional content the teacher delivers to students in the
class. Therefore, it is designed for average students or for those students
whose learning status is unclear when starting a new unit.
Fig. 4 shows the detailed version, in which detailed explanations with
reference to the prior knowledge required for learning the unit are pro-
vided. This version is designed for those whose learning status is below
average.
Fig. 5 shows the advanced version, which provides extensive sup-
plementary materials for those whose learning performances are above
the average.
In the expert system, the students’ learning status, such as their an-
swers to the exercises, is recorded as their cognitive status, and their
online learning behaviors are analyzed to determine their affectie status.
Fuzzy inferencing is used to analyze the students’ cognitive and affective
status by using the fuzzy membership functions and inference rules
suggested by Hwang (1998). For example, the fuzzy membership func-
tion for analyzing students’ cognitive performance is shown in Fig. 6.
Moreover, the following fuzzy rules are used to determine the version
of learning materials provided to individual students based on their
recent learning status:
(1) R1: If Current version is Advanced version and learning level is
High
Then go to Advanced version.
(2) R2: If Current version is Advanced version and learning level is
Medium
Then go to Advanced version.
(3) R3: If Current version is Advanced version and learning level is
Low
Then go to Standard version.
(4) R4: If Current version is Advanced version and learning level is
Poor
Then learn this lesson once again.
(5) R5: If Current version is Standard version and learning level is
High
Then go to Advanced version.
G.-J. Hwang et al. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 1 (2020) 100003

Fig. 1. The structure of the adaptive learning system.

Fig. 2. An example of the major learning materials.

(6) R6: If Current version is Standard version and learning level is (8) R8: If Current version is Standard version and learning level is
Medium Poor

Then go to Standard version. Then learn this lesson once again.

(7) R7: If Current version is Standard version and learning level is Low (9) R9: If Current version is Detailed version and learning level is High

Then go to Detailed version. Then go to Standard version.

4
G.-J. Hwang et al. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 1 (2020) 100003

Fig. 3. An example of the standard learning materials.

Fig. 4. An example of the detailed learning materials.

5
G.-J. Hwang et al. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 1 (2020) 100003

Fig. 5. An example of the advanced learning materials.

Fig. 6. A graphic of a function on cognitive performance.

(10) R10: If Current version is Detailed version and learning level is (11) R11: If Current version is Detailed version and learning level is
Medium Low

Then go to Detailed version. Then go to Detailed version.

6
G.-J. Hwang et al.
(12) R12: If Current version is Detailed version and learning level is
Poor
Then learn this lesson once again.
Based on the students’ cognitive performance, suitable learning ma-
terials are provided.
In terms of the affective performance analysis mechanism, students’
degrees of concentration, patience, and learning willingness are evalu-
ated based on the system logs.
(13) “Concentration” refers to the degree to which students focus on
materials. During the process when students read through the
materials, the system would randomly show a pop-up window.
The study processed the time it took for students to respond to the
window by using the fuzzy-theory engine; the quicker they
responded (see Fig. 7), the higher concentration level they had,
and vice versa. When a student had low concentration, it would
pop up with short answer questions relevant to the learning ma-
terials (see Fig. 8) to arouse the student’s concentration.
(14) “Patience” is an indicator to examine whether students were pa-
tient with the recent unit. When they entered into each unit about
the area of a diagram, the system would start to calculate their
learning time. If a student’s learning time was higher than the
average of all students, the system would show a tip or reminder to
take a rest (see Fig. 9).
(15) “Learning willingness” refers to students’ willingness to devote
themselves to learning in the unit; it integrates the two variables
of concentration and learning time to conduct the fuzzy theory. If
students had low learning willingness, the system would show a
joke to encourage their learning willingness.
3.2. Adaptive learning process
Three versions of the learning system were implemented in this study:
(1) The adaptive learning process with the affective and cognitive per-
formance analysis mechanism; (2) The adaptive learning process with the
cognitive performance analysis mechanism; and (3) The learning process
Fig. 7. Pop-up window to examine concentration.
7
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 1 (2020) 100003
with the conventional learning system. The learning content in the sys-
tem includes four topics, that is, parallelogram, triangle, trapezoid, and
compound graphics in the mathematics course. The learning processes of
the three versions of the learning system are given as follows:
(16) The adaptive learning process with the affective and cognitive
performance analysis mechanism (see Fig. 10): due to the cogni-
tive performance analysis mechanism, students had different
versions of materials, which were determined after evaluating
their cognitive status by the fuzzy theory. After reading the
teaching materials, there were 10 test items for practice. Based on
this test result, the fuzzy theory was adopted to decide the ma-
terials with an appropriate level of difficulty for the next unit. If
the result was poor, the system would not show the next learning
unit; students must stay in that unit until they reached a certain
proficiency level. At the same time, the system would investigate
the students’ affective status (concentration, patience, and
learning willingness) when they read the materials and did the
exercise. Through the fuzzy theory, the system could judge
whether adequate assistance was provided.
(17) The adaptive learning process with the cognitive performance
analysis mechanism: due to the cognitive performance analysis
mechanism, students had different versions of materials, which
was determined after evaluating their cognitive status by the fuzzy
theory. After reading the teaching materials, there were 10 test
items for practice. Based on this test result, the fuzzy theory was
adopted to decide the materials with appropriate difficulty level
for the next unit. If the result was poor, the system would not show
the next learning unit; students must stay in that unit until they
reached a certain proficiency level.
(18) The learning process with the conventional learning system: stu-
dents used the learning materials in the standard version to learn
during the learning process.
The interface of the adaptive learning system (see Fig. 11): students
learned in order and were required to finish the achievement test before
entering the next unit. The check mark symbol represented those units
G.-J. Hwang et al. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 1 (2020) 100003

Fig. 8. Pop-up window for short answer questions.

Fig. 9. Reminder to take a rest.

that had already been learned, while the play button was used to show
the unit that was currently being learned. When students acquired
learning materials of a graphic, they were asked to finish the learning
achievement test to strengthen their memory. The interface in the upper
part showed the progress bar, enabling the students to know how much
they had finished. In addition, the options were all designed by the re-
searchers; they could provide corresponding evaluation and feedback on
misconceptions based on the answers the students chose.
4. Experiment design
4.1. Participants
A quasi-experimental design was adopted in the present study. The
participants were six classes of fourth graders from an elementary school
in southern Taiwan. Two classes with 53 students (26 male and 27 fe-
male) were assigned to experimental group A (an adaptive learning

8
G.-J. Hwang et al.
Fig. 10. The affective and cognitive performance analysis mechanism.
Fig. 11. The interfaces of the adaptive learning system.
system with the affective and cognitive performance analysis mecha-
nism), two classes with 53 students (26 male and 27 female) were
experimental group B (an adaptive learning system with the cognitive
performance analysis mechanism), and the other two classes with 56
students (26 male and 30 female) were the control group (a conventional
learning system). The average age of the participants was 10. All the
participants had already learned the definition of basic graphics
(including square, rectangle) and relevant concepts before the experi-
ment, and they were taught by the same mathematics teacher.
4.2. Experimental procedure
Before the experiment, the three groups of students were all required
to take the 30-min pre-test for the area unit, and to complete the math-
ematical anxiety pre-questionnaire. Afterwards, they started to engage in
the learning activities for 120 min. Experimental group A made use of the
adaptive learning system with the affective and cognitive performance
analysis mechanism; experimental group B adopted the adaptive learning
9
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 1 (2020) 100003
system with the cognitive performance analysis mechanism; and the
control group used the conventional learning system with no adaptive
mechanism. In the learning activities, students from the three groups all
used tablet computers to enter the adaptive learning system. When
reading the learning materials, if there were calculation items, students
could make use of scratch paper designed in the present study to help
with memory and thinking. After they finished learning the materials of a
unit, they began to do the exercise in the learning system. After the
learning activities, all students were asked to finish the 40-min post-test
for the area unit, the mathematical anxiety post-questionnaire and the
cognitive load questionnaire. The complete experimental process is
shown in Fig. 12.
4.3. Measuring tools
The learning achievement test in the present study was designed by
two experienced math teachers; the course content consisted of learning
materials in regular elementary school mathematics courses. Before the
G.-J. Hwang et al.
Fig. 12. The experiment process.
experiment, a pre-test was administered to ensure that the participants
had similar prior knowledge. The pre-test questions included five True/
False items (10%), 12 Fill-in-the-Blanks (28%), two Try & Check (18%),
and 12 Calculation items (42%); the perfect score was 100. There were
13 post-test questions, with six Fill-in-the-Blanks (30%) and seven
Calculation items (70%); the perfect score was 100. The reliability of the
post-test was 0.74.
The mathematical anxiety questionnaire developed by Fennema and
Sherman (1976) was used to examine students’ mathematical anxiety.
The questionnaire consisted of four sub-scales, namely worry (10 items),
dislike (9 items), test anxiety (8 items), and perception of stress (5 items).
The Cronbach’s α was 0.93.
The cognitive load questionnaire was modified by Hwang, Yang, and
Wang (2013) based on the measure developed by Paas, Tuovinen, Tab-
bers, and Van Gerven (2003). The first five items were classified into
mental load, while the last three items were for mental efforts. The
questionnaire with a total of eight items aimed to investigate students’
cognitive load while they were using the adaptive learning system to
learn. The questionnaire used a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree,
5 ¼ strongly agree). The overall Cronbach’s α of the cognitive load scale
was 0.92, while that of mental efforts and mental load was 0.86 and 0.85,
respectively.
5. Experimental results
5.1. Analysis of mathematic learning achievement
One-way ANCOVA was adopted to examine the three groups’ math-
ematics learning achievement test scores. The result (F ¼ 0.41; p ¼ 0.66
>0 .05) of the Levene’s test for equality of variances indicated that the
assumption of the homogeneity of variances in the groups was met. The
test results (F ¼ 0.93; p ¼ 0.39 >0 .05) of the interaction effects between
the independent variable and covariance, which indicated the
Table 1
The ANCOVA results of students’ learning achievement.
Group N Mean SD
(a)Experimental Group A 53 66.32 18.37
(b)Experimental Group B 53 58.77 20.73
(c)Control Group 56 59.02 16.52
*p < 0.05.
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 1 (2020) 100003
assumption of homogeneity of regression coefficients for each group, was
satisfied for the remainder of the tests. The ANCOVA results revealed that
after excluding the effects of the mathematics pre-test scores, there was a
significant difference between the two groups (F ¼ 3.12, p ¼ 0.04 <0
.05), indicating that the students had significantly different learning
achievements as a result of using the different learning models. As shown
in Table 1, the average achievement test score of experimental group A
(M ¼ 67.3) was significantly higher than that of experimental group B (M
¼ 58.17) and the control group (M ¼ 58.65). This indicated that the
students who used the adaptive learning system with the affective and
cognitive performance analysis mechanism outperformed those who
used the adaptive learning system with only the cognitive performance
analysis mechanism and those who used the conventional learning sys-
tem. The findings showed that the adaptive learning system which took
the learners’ affective and cognitive status into account at the same time
was conducive to improving their learning achievement.
5.1.1. Analysis of mathematical anxiety
One-way ANCOVA was used to uncover whether students in different
learning models had significant differences in the mathematical anxiety
post-questionnaire. The result (F ¼ 1.75; p ¼ 0.18 >0 .05) of the Levene’s
test for equality of variances showed that the assumption of the homo-
geneity of variances in the three groups was met. The test results (F ¼
0.22; p ¼ 0.79 >0 .05) of between-subjects effects, which indicated the
assumption of homogeneity of regression coefficients for each group, was
satisfactory for the remainder of the tests.
The ANCOVA results depicted that after excluding the effects of the
mathematical anxiety pre-questionnaire, the between-group test (F ¼
5.59; p ¼ 0.004 <0 .01) reached a significant level, showing that the
students had significant differences in their mathematical anxiety when
using the different learning models. Table 2 shows that the average
mathematical anxiety score of experimental group A was significantly
lower than that of the control group, but experimental groups A and B did
Adjusted Mean SE F η2 Post Hoc (LSD)
67.31 2.44 3.12* 0.038 (a)>(b)
58.17 2.44 (a)>(c)
58.65 2.37
10
G.-J. Hwang et al. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 1 (2020) 100003

Table 2
The ANCOVA results of students’ mathematical anxiety.
Group N Mean SD Adjusted Mean SE F η2 Post Hoc (LSD)

(a)Experimental Group A 53 2.52 1.05 2.53 0.07 5.59** 0.066 (a)<(c)

(b)Experimental Group B 53 2.64 1.02 2.72 0.07
(c)Control Group 56 2.86 0.99 2.78 0.07

**p < 0.01.

not differ significantly in terms of their mathematical anxiety. This

Table 4
indicated that students using the adaptive learning system with the af-
The coding scheme for analyzing the learning records.
fective and cognitive performance analysis mechanism had significantly
lower levels of mathematical anxiety than those who used the conven- Versions of Learning units
materials
tional learning system. The results demonstrated that students’ mathe- Parallelogram Triangle Trapezoid Compound
matical anxiety could not be significantly decreased by using the (A) (B) (C) graphics (D)
adaptive learning system with only the cognitive performance analysis Detailed (1) A1 B1 C1 D1
mechanism or the conventional learning system. Besides, compared to Standard (2) A2 B2 C2 D2
the conventional learning system with no adaptive mechanism, the Advanced (3) A3 B3 C3 D3

adaptive learning system with the affective and cognitive performance

analysis mechanism could help reduce students’ mathematical anxiety. table of the high achievers in experimental group A and experimental
group B. According to the definition of Bakeman and Gottman (1997), we
5.1.2. Analysis of cognitive load converted the adjusted residual table into sequential behavior graphs.
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to explore the Figs. 13 and 14 show the learning paths of the high achievers in
effects of different learning models on students’ cognitive load. The ho- experimental group A, who learned with the adaptive learning system
mogeneity test showed no significant difference (Levene ¼ 0.17; p ¼ with the affective and cognitive performance analysis mechanism, and
0.84 > 0.05) among the three groups. The overall result of cognitive load those in experimental group B, who learned with the adaptive learning
is shown in Table 3. The average scores of experimental groups A and B system with the cognitive performance analysis mechanism. It was found
and the control group are 2.59, 2.70, and 2.72, respectively. There was that the learning paths of the students mainly consisted of the standard
no significant difference among the three groups in terms of their version (B2→C2→D2 in Fig. 13 and A2→B2→C2 in Fig. 14), and the
cognitive load (F ¼ 0.18; p ¼ 0.83 > 0.05). Besides, the average score of materials of the advanced version (C3→D3 in Fig. 13 and B3→C3→D3 in
cognitive load was between 2.5 and 2.7 with a moderate range, indi- Fig. 14). This indicates that the high achievers were capable of learning
cating that the difficulty level of the materials and the arrangement of the easier units (e.g., parallelogram and triangle) in the standard and
this system were all acceptable for the three groups of students. That is, advanced versions. However, when faced with the harder learning units
the arrangement of the learning activities was at a moderate difficulty (e.g., trapezoid and compound graphics), the two learning approaches
level and quantity, which did not cause the students cognitive load that brought about different influences. Unlike the learning paths of experi-
was either too high or too low. mental group B with only the cognitive performance analysis mechanism,
the support of the affective and cognitive performance analysis mecha-
5.1.3. Analysis of learning records nism enabled learners in experimental group A to maintain their cogni-
The learning records of the students in the two experimental groups tive status at a certain level even though they were faced with more
are further analyzed. The students are divided into high achievers and difficult learning units (C2→D2 and C3→D3 in Fig. 13). In contrast,
low achievers based on their post-test scores; that is, the students whose C1→D1 in Fig. 14 implied that experimental group B did not perform
post-test scores were in the top 33% are high achievers and those in the well without the affective status support. This indicated that the affective
last 33% are low achievers. The portfolio coding scheme is shown in status support could be conducive to improving students’ cognitive status
Table 4. It consists of the four units (i.e., parallelogram (A), triangle (B), when they came across difficult learning materials.
trapezoid (C), and compound graphics (D)) with three versions of In addition, we also generated sequential behavior graphs based on
learning materials (i.e., detailed (1), standard (2) and advanced (3)). the adjusted residual table of the low-achievement students (Table 7 and
To analyze the differences in the students’ learning behavior in the Table 8).
two experimental groups, behavioral sequence analysis was conducted. When comparing the learning paths of the low achievers, it was found
At first, we used the GSEQ 5.1 to generate the adjusted residual table that they generally learned with the detailed version (A1→B1→C1 in
(Quera, Bakeman, & Gnisci, 2007), and the z score was used to evaluate Fig. 15 and B1→C1→D1 in Fig. 16), implying that the low achievers in
the coding results of each group. When the z value is higher than 1.96, it experimental group B really needed detailed instructions from the
represents that the sequence behavior has statistical significance (Bake- teacher. Several learning paths (e.g., A1→B1→C1, B2→C2→D2 in Fig. 15
man & Gottman, 1997). Table 5 and Table 6 shows the adjusted residual and B1→C1→D1 in Fig. 16) further reveal that the cognitive status of the
low achievers was generally in the same level when they were learning
the more difficult units. Nevertheless, when comparing the learning
Table 3 paths of the two experimental groups, it was found that the affective
The ANOVA results of students’ cognitive load. performance analysis mechanism could improve the students’ cognitive
N M SD F status. For instance, C2→D3 in Fig. 15 specified that, by considering the
Cognitive load Experimental Group A 53 2.59 1.13 0.18 students’ affective status, it is possible to enhance low achievers’
Experimental Group B 53 2.70 1.06 cognitive performances. That is, it is important to encourage or remind
Control Group 56 2.72 1.15 the low achievers in time to help them overcome their learning
Mental efforts Experimental Group A 53 2.45 1.19 0.85
difficulties.
Experimental Group B 53 2.66 1.08
Control Group 56 2.73 1.20
Mental load Experimental Group A 53 2.83 1.18 0.20 6. Discussion and conclusions
Experimental Group B 53 2.76 1.15
Control Group 56 2.69 1.18
With regard to learning achievement, students using the adaptive

11
G.-J. Hwang et al. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 1 (2020) 100003

Table 5
The Adjusted residual table of the high achievers in experimental group A.
Z A1 B1 C1 D1 A2 B2 C2 D2 A3 B3 C3 D3

A1 0.09 0 0.16 0 1 1.57 0.2 0.16 0 0.2 0.26 0.13

B1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C1 0.13 0 4.47* 0 1.41 0.65 0.29 0.22 0 0.29 0.37 0.18
D1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A2 0.78 0 2.25 0 3.59* 0.8 2.93 1.04 0 0.1 3.75 1.83
B2 0.56 0 1.78 0 2.04 0.34 3.03* 0.97 0 0.88 1.81 0.79
C2 0.16 0 0.27 0 0.57 1.12 0.35 3.57* 0 0.35 1.95 0.22
D2 0.13 0 0.22 0 1.41 0.65 0.29 4.47* 0 0.29 0.37 0.18
A3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B3 0.2 0 0.35 0 0.44 0.46 1.88 0.35 0 0.46 1.29 0.29
C3 0.18 0 0.32 0 2.02 1.3 0.41 0.32 0 0.41 3.66* 7.9*
D3 0.09 0 0.16 0 1.01 0.64 0.2 0.16 0 0.2 0.26 0.13

*p < 0.05.

Table 6
The Adjusted residual table of the high achievers in experimental group B.
Z A1 B1 C1 D1 A2 B2 C2 D2 A3 B3 C3 D3

A1 0.17 3.67* 0.2 0 1.31 0.85 0.56 0.4 0 0.12 0.12 0.12
B1 0.27 2.09* 2.9* 0 2.1 0.23 0.43 0.64 0 5.37* 0.19 0.19
C1 0.12 0.19 6.98* 0 0.93 0.57 0.4 0.28 0 0.08 0.08 0.08
D1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A2 1.23 0.12 2.03 0 5.65* 0.51 5.1 3.37 0 1.17 1.17 1.17
B2 0.73 1.17 0.53 0 2.13 0.69 4.02* 1.77 0 0.52 1.95 0.52
C2 0.48 0.76 0.59 0 2.67 1.05 2.37* 4.03* 0 0.34 0.34 2.99*
D2 0.36 0.58 0.45 0 2.16 0.95 0.79 5.68* 0 0.26 0.26 0.26
A3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
D3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*p < 0.05.

Fig. 13. Comparison of learning paths with the affective and cognitive performance analysis mechanism: high-learning achievement (experimental group A).

learning system with the affective and cognitive performance analysis
mechanism outperformed those using the adaptive learning system with
only the cognitive performance analysis mechanism and those using the
conventional learning system. This revealed that the adaptive learning
system with both the affective and cognitive performance analysis
mechanism would be conducive to facilitating students’ learning
achievement. As for mathematical anxiety, the adaptive learning system
with only the cognitive performance analysis mechanism and the con-
ventional learning system could not significantly decrease students’
mathematical anxiety. In addition, compared to the conventional
learning system with no adaptive mechanism, the adaptive learning
system with the affective and cognitive performance analysis mechanism
could reduce students’ mathematical anxiety. In the aspect of cognitive
load, the difficulty level and arrangement of the materials in the system
were all acceptable to the three groups of students. In other words, for the
three groups of students, the difficulty level and the loading of the
learning activities would not result in cognitive load that was either too
high or too low.
The results showed that experimental group A outperformed experi-
mental group B and the control group on mathematics learning
achievement, which was in line with the points of several scholars who
emphasized the importance of taking affective factors into account when
developing educational systems (Shephard, 2008; Snow & Farr, 1987;
Tsai, Li, & Cheng, 2017; Tseng et al., 2008). For example, Snow and Farr
(1987) indicated that if a sound learning theory did not take holistic
perspectives into account (e.g., not integrating the cognitive and affective
aspects), this theory would be incomplete or impractical. Thus, learners’
affective status in their learning process is not only an issue worth
focusing on, but could also significantly influence education and learning
(Jones & Issroff, 2005).

12
G.-J. Hwang et al. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 1 (2020) 100003

Fig. 14. Comparison of learning paths with the cognitive performance analysis mechanism: high-learning achievement (experimental group B).

Table 7
The Adjusted residual table of the low achievers in experimental group A.
Z A1 B1 C1 D1 A2 B2 C2 D2 A3 B3 C3 D3

A1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B1 0 0.08 0.11 0.08 1.76 0.68 0.42 0.47 0 0.21 0.17 0.13
C1 0 0.08 0.11 13.11* 0.57 0.68 0.42 0.47 0 0.21 0.17 0.13
D1 0 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.57 0.68 0.42 2.14* 0 0.21 0.17 0.13
A2 0 0.71 1 0.71 1.16 3.88* 1.64 3.49 0 1.38 1.6 1.23
B2 0 1.54 0.63 0.65 0.95 1.43 2.93* 3.56 0 0.06 0.51 1.13
C2 0 0.38 1.58 0.38 0.33 1.92 0.43 1.8 0 1.03 0.87 1.07
D2 0 0.43 0.61 0.43 1.27 3.38 1.22 7.16* 0 0.1 0.27 0.75
A3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B3 0 0.19 0.27 0.19 1.48 0.79 1.05 1.17 0 0.51 4.52* 0.33
C3 0 0.15 0.22 0.15 0.03 1.37 0.56 0.37 0 0.42 0.35 3.59*
D3 0 0.11 0.15 0.11 0.81 0.96 0.6 1.18 0 0.29 0.25 5.24*

*p < 0.05.

Table 8
The Adjusted residual table of the low achievers in experimental group B.
Z A1 B1 C1 D1 A2 B2 C2 D2 A3 B3 C3 D3

A1 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.58 1.27 0.4 0.39 0 0.15 0.08 0.08
B1 0.12 0.17 5.89* 0.21 0.83 0.34 0.57 0.56 0 0.21 0.12 0.12
C1 8.43* 0.17 0.17 4.76* 0.83 1.13 0.57 0.56 0 0.21 0.12 0.12
D1 0.15 0.21 0.21 3.82* 1.02 1.38 0.71 2.75* 0 0.26 0.15 0.15
A2 0.7 0.52 1 1.22 0.89 3.27* 1.83 2.75 0 0.02 0.7 0.7
B2 0.74 0.45 0.45 1.28 0.97 1 1.01 2.4 0 1.28 0.74 0.74
C2 0.4 0.57 0.57 0.98 0.57 2.82 0.84 3.79* 0 0.98 0.4 0.4
D2 0.34 0.49 0.49 0.6 0.49 2.11 1.5 3.22* 0 0.6 0.34 0.34
A3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B3 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.83 1.13 0.57 0.56 0 4.76* 8.43* 0.12
C3 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.58 0.79 0.4 0.39 0 0.15 0.08 11.96*
D3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*p < 0.05.

Mathematical anxiety is an important indicator of students’ poor
performance (Vukovic, Kieffer, Bailey, & Harari, 2013). In the current
study, the mathematical anxiety of experimental group A was signifi-
cantly lower than that of the control group. Previous research has spec-
ified that the on-site learning atmosphere would affect students’
formation of mathematical anxiety (Alexander & Martray, 1989);
moreover, the instructor’s attitude might become the reason for students’
mathematical anxiety (Berebitsky, 1985; Vann, 1993). The learning
system developed in this study could dynamically investigate students’
affective status and offer positive feedback and encouragement during
their learning process, which thus influenced the students’ mathematical
anxiety. Furthermore, students using the adaptive learning model with
the affective and cognitive performance analysis mechanism out-
performed the control group on their learning achievement. This not only
implied that computer and information technology could decrease stu-
dents’ mathematical anxiety (Harris & Harris, 1987; Owolabi, Olanipe-
kun, & Iwerima, 2018), but also verified that mathematical anxiety
would have influences on mathematical learning and cognitive reflection
(Morsanyi, Busdraghi, & Primi, 2014). Consequently, paying attention to
students’ affective change during their learning process could improve
their learning experiences (Johnson et al., 2000). A learning model
integrating the cognitive and affective aspects is essential to mathematics
learning (Wang et al., 2014). On the other hand, the results of the present
study revealed that there was no significant difference in the cognitive
load of the students in the three groups, indicating that the difficulty level
and arrangement of materials in the present study would not arouse a
cognitive load that is too high or too low. Paas, Renkl, and Sweller (2003)
implied that when materials are carefully designed, learners’ cognitive

13
G.-J. Hwang et al.
Fig. 15. Comparison of learning paths with the affective and cognitive performance analysis mechanism: low-learning achievement (experimental group A).
Fig. 16. Comparison of learning paths with the cognitive performance analysis mechanism: low-learning achievement (experimental group B).
load can be well controlled, and therefore would be helpful for learning,
which corresponded to the findings of the present study.
According to the learning log analysis results, it was found that the
high achievers in the cognitive and affective mode were able to complete
the learning tasks with the standard version. However, those in the
cognitive-only mode might have failed to complete the tasks with the
standard version, and hence were guided to learn with the detailed
version when facing the more difficult content (e.g., trapezoid and
compound graphics). In terms of the low achievers, those learning with
both the cognitive and affective mode and the cognitive-only mode
generally needed to learn with the detailed version. However, it was
found that some of the low achievers in the cognitive and affective mode
switched from the detailed to the standard version. This reveals that the
cognitive and affective mode could keep the high achievers at the higher
knowledge level, while helping the low achievers make progress during
the learning process.
The major contribution of the present study is to show that the con-
ventional adaptive learning model with only the cognitive performance
analysis mechanism may not be good enough in terms of improving
students’ learning performances as well as encouraging them to learn.
That is, it is important to take both the cognitive and affective factors into
account when developing adaptive learning systems.
Despite the valuable findings from the experimental results, there are
some limitations in the present study. First, the participants in this study
were fourth graders, and hence the findings might not be used to predict
the learning outcomes and perceptions of students of different ages.
Second, the proposed approach was applied to a mathematics course;
therefore, to learn more about the effectiveness of the approach, further
studies on other courses are required.
Therefore, for future studies, it is suggested that researchers can
consider applying the proposed approach to other courses in high schools
14
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 1 (2020) 100003
and universities to investigate more regarding its effectiveness. In addi-
tion, more personal factors of students, such as their preferences and self-
efficacy, can be taken into account to develop more effective adaptive
learning environments.
Statements on open data and ethics
The participants were protected by hiding their personal information
in this study. They were voluntary and they knew that they could with-
draw from the experiment at any time. The data can be provided upon
requests by sending e-mails to the corresponding author.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This study is supported in part by the Ministry of Science and Tech-
nology of the Republic of China under contract numbers MOST-109-
2511-H-011-002-MY3 and MOST-108-2511-H-011-005-MY3.
References
Akerkar, R. (2014). Introduction to artificial intelligence. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall.
Al-Samarraie, H., & Saeed, N. (2018). A systematic review of cloud computing tools for
collaborative learning: Opportunities and challenges to the blended-learning
environment. Computers & Education, 124, 77–91.
Alexander, L., & Martray, C. R. (1989). The development of an abbreviated version of the
mathematics anxiety rating scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 22, 143–150.
G.-J. Hwang et al.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential
analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Berebitsky, R. D. (1985). An annotated bibliography of the literature dealing with mathematics
anxiety. Retrieved ERIC Document Reproduction Service. No. ED 257684.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956).
Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David
McKay Co, Inc.
Cassidy, S. (2012). Exploring individual differences as determining factors in student
academic achievement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 37(7),
793–810.
Chen, L. H. (2010). Web-based learning programs: Use by learners with various cognitive
styles. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1028–1035.
Chen, C. M., Hsieh, Y. L., & Hsu, S. H. (2007). Mining learner profile utilizing association
rule for web-based learning diagnosis. Expert Systems with Applications, 33, 6–22.
Chen, C. M., Liu, C. Y., & Chang, M. H. (2006). Personalized curriculum sequencing
utilizing modified item response theory for web-based instruction. Expert Systems with
Applications, 30(2), 378–396.
Chen, S. Y., & Macredie, R. (2010). Web-based interaction: A review of three important
human factors. International Journal of Information Management, 30, 379–387.
Chen, C. M., & Sun, Y. C. (2012). Assessing the effects of different multimedia materials
on emotions and learning performance for visual and verbal style learners. Computers
& Education, 59(4), 1273–1285.
Daghestani, L. F., Ibrahim, L. F., Al-Towirgi, R. S., & Salman, H. A. (2020). Adapting
gamified learning systems using educational data mining techniques. Computer
Applications in Engineering Education, 28(3), 568–589.
Dochy, F. J. R. C. (1992). Assessment of prior knowledge as a determinant for future learning:
The use of knowledge state tests and knowledge profiles. Utrecht/London: Lemma B.V./
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Ehrman, M. E., Leaver, B. L., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). A brief overview of individual
differences in second language learning. System, 31(3), 313–330.
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. A. (1976). Fennema-Sherman mathematics attitudes scales:
Instruments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by
females and males. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7(5), 324–326.
Harris, A. L., & Harris, J. M. (1987). Reducing mathematics anxiety with computer
assisted instruction. Mathematics and Computer Education, 21(1), 16–24.
Hernandez, Y., Sucar, L. E., & Arroyo-Figueroa, G. (2010). November). Evaluating an
affective student model for intelligent learning environments. In Ibero-American
conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 473–482). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Hooshyar, D., Ahmad, R. B., Yousefi, M., Fathi, M., Horng, S. J., & Lim, H. (2016).
Applying an online game-based formative assessment in a flowchart-based intelligent
tutoring system for improving problem-solving skills. Computers & Education, 94,
18–36.
Hwang, G. J. (1998). A tutoring strategy supporting system for distance learning on
computer networks. IEEE Transactions on Education, 41(4), 343–351.
Hwang, G. J., Sung, H. Y., Hung, C. M., & Huang, I. (2013). A learning style perspective to
investigate the necessity of developing adaptive learning systems. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 188–197.
Islam, N., Beer, M., & Slack, F. (2015). E-learning challenges faced by academics in higher
education. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(5), 102–112.
Johnson, W. L., Rickel, J. W., & Lester, J. C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-
to-face interaction in interactive learning environment. International Journal of
Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 47–78.
Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (2012). Handbook of individual differences. Learning and
Instruction. New York, NY: Routledge press.
Jones, A., & Issroff, K. (2005). Learning technologies: Affective and social issues in
computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 44(4), 395–408.
Katsionis, G., & Virvou, M. (2004, October). A cognitive theory for affective user
modelling in a virtual reality educational game. In , Vol. 2. 2004 IEEE international
conference on systems, man and cybernetics (IEEE cat. No. 04CH37583) (pp.
1209–1213). IEEE.
Kim, J., Lee, A., & Ryu, H. (2013). Personality and its effects on learning performance:
Design guidelines for an adaptive e-learning system based on a user model.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 43(5), 450–461.
Kobsa, A., Koenemann, J., & Pohl, W. (2001). Personalised hypermedia presentation
techniques for improving online customer relationships. The Knowledge Engineering
Review, 16(2), 111–155.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives,
handbook ii: Affective domain. New York: David McKay Company. Inc, 0-679-30210-7,
0-582-32385.
Ku, H. Y., & Sullivan, H. J. (2002). Student performance and attitudes using personalized
mathematics instruction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(1),
21–34.
Lehman, B., Matthews, M., D’Mello, S., & Person, N. (2008). What are you feeling?
Investigating student affective states during expert human tutoring sessions. In
Proceedings of the 9th international conference on intelligent tutoring systems (ITS 2008)
(pp. 50–59). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Looi, C.-K., Wong, L.-H., So, H.-J., Seow, P., Toh, Y., Chen, W., et al. (2009). Anatomy of a
mobilized lesson: Learning my way. Computers & Education, 53, 1120–1132.
Moerkerke, G. (1996). Assessment for flexible learning. Utrecht: Lemma.
15
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 1 (2020) 100003
Monova-Zheleva, M. (2005). Adaptive learning in Web-based educational environments.
Cybernetics and Information Technologies, 5(1), 44–55.
Morsanyi, K., Busdraghi, C., & Primi, C. (2014). Mathematical anxiety is linked to reduced
cognitive reflection: A potential road from discomfort in the mathematics classroom
to susceptibility to biases. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 10(1), 31.
Morshead, R. W. (1965). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook ii: Affective
domain. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 4(1), 164–170.
Nakic, J., Granic, A., & Glavinic, V. (2015). Anatomy of student models in adaptive
learning systems: A systematic literature review of individual differences from 2001
to 2013. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(4), 459–489.
Owolabi, J., Olanipekun, P., & Iwerima, J. (2018). Mathematics ability and anxiety,
computer and programming anxieties, age and gender as determinants of
achievement in basic programming. GSTF Journal on Computing, 3(4), 109.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design:
Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. (2003). Cognitive load
measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist,
38(1), 63–71.
Pai, K. C., Kuo, B. C., Liao, C. H., & Liu, Y. M. (2020). An application of Chinese dialogue-
based intelligent tutoring system in remedial instruction for mathematics learning.
Educational Psychology, 1–16.
Palanca, J., Terrasa, A., Carrascosa, C., & Julian, V. (2019). Improving the programming
skills of students in multiagent systems master courses. Computer Applications in
Engineering Education, 27(4), 836–845.
Quera, V., Bakeman, R., & Gnisci, A. (2007). Observer agreement for event sequences:
Methods and software for sequence alignment and reliability estimates. Behavior
Research Methods, 39(1), 39–49.
Rodrigo, M., Baker, R., Maria, L., Sheryl, L., Alexis, M., & Sheila, P. (2007). Affect and
usage choices in simulation problem solving environments. In Proceedings of the 13th
international conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 145–152). CA, USA:
Marina Del Ray.
Rosmalen, P., Vogten, H., Van Es, R., Passier, H., Poelmans, P., & Koper, K. (2006).
Authoring a full life cycle model in standards-based adaptive e-learning. Educational
Technology & Society, 9(1), 72–83.
Sampayo-Vargas, S., Cope, C. J., He, Z., & Byrne, G. J. (2013). The effectiveness of
adaptive difficulty adjustments on students’ motivation and learning in an
educational computer game. Computers & Education, 69, 452–462.
Schunk, D. H. (1999). Social-self interaction and achievement behavior. Educational
Psychologist, 34(4), 219–227.
Shephard, K. (2008). Higher education for sustainability: Seeking affective learning
outcomes. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(1), 87–98.
Shute, V. J., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2012). Adaptive educational systems. Adaptive
technologies for training and education, 7(27), 1–35.
Snow, R., & Farr, M. (1987). Cognitive-conative-affective processes in aptitude, learning,
and instruction: An introduction. Conative and affective process analysis, 3, l–10.
Truong, H. M. (2016). Integrating learning styles and adaptive e-learning system: Current
developments, problems and opportunities. Computers in Human Behavior, 55,
1185–1193.
Tsai, C. Y., Li, Y. Y., & Cheng, Y. Y. (2017). The relationships among adult affective
factors, engagement in science, and scientific competencies. Adult Education
Quarterly, 67(1), 30–47.
Tseng, J. C., Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Development of an adaptive
learning system with two sources of personalization information. Computers &
Education, 51(2), 776–786.
Vandewaetere, M., Desmet, P., & Clarebout, G. (2011). The contribution of learner
characteristics in the development of computer-based adaptive learning
environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 118–130.
Vann, B. D. N. (1993). Mathematics anxiety。parental anxiety as it relates to anxiety in
children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(8), 2724A–2725A.
Vukovic, R. K., Kieffer, M. J., Bailey, S. P., & Harari, R. R. (2013). Mathematics anxiety in
young children: Concurrent and longitudinal associations with mathematical
performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(1), 1–10.
Wang, Z., Hart, S. A., Kovas, Y., Lukowski, S., Soden, B., Thompson, L. A., et al. (2014).
Who is afraid of math? Two sources of genetic variance for mathematical anxiety.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(9), 1056–1064.
Weibelzahl, S. (2001). July). Evaluation of adaptive systems. In International conference on
user modeling (pp. 292–294). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Xiao, M., & Yi, H. (2020). Building an efficient artificial intelligence model for
personalized training in colleges and universities. Computer Applications in Engineering
Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22235
Yaghmaie, M., & Bahreininejad, A. (2011). A context-aware adaptive learning system
using agents. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(4), 3280–3286.
Yang, T. C., Hwang, G. J., & Yang, S. J. H. (2013). Development of an adaptive learning
system with multiple perspectives based on students’ learning styles and cognitive
styles. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(4), 185–200.
Yau, J. Y. K., & Joy, M. (2010). An adaptive context-aware mobile learning framework
based on the usability perspective. International Journal of Mobile Learning and
Organisation, 4(4), 378–390.
Zhao, X., & Okamoto, T. (2011). Adaptive multimedia content delivery for context aware
u-learning. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 5(1), 46–63.