@article{geden_emerson_carpenter_rowe_azevedo_lester_2021, title={Predictive Student Modeling in Game-Based Learning Environments with Word Embedding Representations of Reflection}, volume={31}, ISSN={["1560-4306"]}, DOI={10.1007/s40593-020-00220-4}, number={1}, journal={INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN EDUCATION}, author={Geden, Michael and Emerson, Andrew and Carpenter, Dan and Rowe, Jonathan and Azevedo, Roger and Lester, James}, year={2021}, month={Mar}, pages={1–23} }
 @article{travis_kaszycki_geden_bunde_2020, title={Some Stress Is Good Stress: The Challenge-Hindrance Framework, Academic Self-Efficacy, and Academic Outcomes}, volume={112}, ISSN={["1939-2176"]}, DOI={10.1037/edu0000478}, abstractNote={Historically, most investigations involving stress have assumed its undesirability, and deleterious effects have been identified across a variety of domains. Recently, however, researchers in management and health have differentiated between types of stress, and revealed a more complicated picture as a result. Specifically, stressors perceived as goal-relevant and manageable (i.e., challenging) are thought to increase motivation, performance, and well-being, while stressors viewed as goal-relevant but unmanageable (i.e., hindering) are believed to hamper performance and occasion maladaptive behaviors. Empirical support for this theoretical framework has accumulated in employment settings, but the model has yet to be adequately extended to higher education. The current study used a longitudinal design and multiple academic outcomes to explore the challenge-hindrance distinction in a large, diverse student sample. Students from 2 Southeastern institutions (N = 853) were assessed for challenge stress (e.g., class difficulty, high expectations), hindrance stress (e.g., ambiguous expectations, favoritism), academic self-efficacy (ASE), grade point average (GPA), hours withdrawn, and transfer intentions. Results were generally theory-consistent, as ratings of challenge and hindrance stress were associated with positive and negative academic outcomes, respectively. ASE did not moderate the challenge–GPA relationship, but emerged as an independent predictor of academic functioning. Implications for stress researchers, educators, and academic decision-makers are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)}, number={8}, journal={JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY}, author={Travis, Justin and Kaszycki, Alyssa and Geden, Michael and Bunde, James}, year={2020}, month={Nov}, pages={1632–1643} }
 @article{geden_smith_campbell_spain_amos-binks_mott_feng_lester_2019, title={Construction and Validation of an Anticipatory Thinking Assessment}, volume={10}, ISSN={["1664-1078"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85077306542&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02749}, abstractNote={Anticipatory thinking is a critical cognitive skill for successfully navigating complex, ambiguous systems in which individuals must analyze system states, anticipate outcomes, and forecast future events. For example, in military planning, intelligence analysis, business, medicine, and social services, individuals must use information to identify warnings, anticipate a spectrum of possible outcomes, and forecast likely futures in order to avoid tactical and strategic surprise. Existing methods for examining anticipatory thinking skill have relied upon task-specific behavioral measures or are resource-intensive, both of which are challenging to scale. Given the increasing importance of anticipatory thinking in many domains, developing a generic assessment of this skill and identifying the underlying cognitive mechanisms supporting it are paramount. The work reported here focuses on the development and validation of the anticipatory thinking assessment (ANTA) for measuring the divergent generative process of anticipatory thinking. Two-hundred and ten participants completed the ANTA, which required them to anticipate possible risks, opportunities, trends, or other uncertainties associated with a focal topic. Responses to the anticipatory thinking and divergent thinking tasks were rated by trained raters on a five-point scale according to the uniqueness, specificity, and remoteness of responses. Results supported the ANTA’s construct validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. We also explored the relationship between the ANTA scores and certain psychological traits and cognitive measures (need for cognition, need for closure, and mindfulness). Our findings suggest that the ANTA is a psychometrically valid instrument that may help researchers investigate anticipatory thinking in new contexts.}, journal={FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY}, author={Geden, Michael and Smith, Andy and Campbell, James and Spain, Randall and Amos-Binks, Adam and Mott, Bradford W. and Feng, Jing and Lester, James}, year={2019}, month={Dec} }
 @article{pearson_geden_mayhorn_2019, title={Who's the real expert here? Pedigree's unique bias on trust between human and automated advisers}, volume={81}, ISSN={["1872-9126"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102907}, abstractNote={We assessed the effects of source type bias (human or automation) on adviser trust in a dual adviser decision-making task.Source type and reliability's effects on adviser trust have been studied in a dual-adviser context, but the influence of pedigree (perceived expertise) across source types lacked robust investigation. As situations with two decision-aids of uneven pedigree can easily arise, it is critical to understand how operators are biased towards a decision-aid of a certain source type and pedigree.A decision-making task similar to the paradigm of Convoy Leader (Lyons and Stokes, 2012) was given to participants, where a military convoy route had to be selected in the presence of IEDs and insurgent activity. We measured behavioral reliance and trust attitudes. Pedigree was manipulated via controlled adviser descriptions, in a manner consistent with past investigations (Madhavan and Wiegmann, 2007a).We found a trust bias towards the human adviser, reversed only when there is a far greater pedigree in the automated adviser. Trust attitudes were also strongly indicative of reliance behaviors.Pedigree is a strong influencer of trust in a decision-aid and biased towards human advisers. Trust is highly predictive of reliance decisions.System designers must take care with how "expert" automation is portrayed, particularly if it is used in conjunction with other human advisers (e.g.: conflicting advice from air-traffic control and an onboard system).}, journal={APPLIED ERGONOMICS}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Pearson, Carl J. and Geden, Michael and Mayhorn, Christopher B.}, year={2019}, month={Nov} }
 @article{geden_staicu_feng_2018, title={Reduced Target Facilitation and Increased Distractor Suppression During Mind Wandering}, volume={65}, ISSN={["2190-5142"]}, DOI={10.1027/1618-3169/a000417}, abstractNote={ Abstract. The perceptual decoupling hypothesis suggests a general mechanism that while mind wandering, our attention is detached from our environment, resulting in diminished processing of external stimuli. This study focused on examining two possible specific mechanisms: the global suppression of all external stimuli, and a combination of reduced target facilitation and increased distractor suppression. An attentional capture task was used in which certain trials measured distractor suppression effects and others assessed target facilitation effects. The global suppression account predicts negative impacts on both types of trials, while the combined mechanisms of reduced target facilitation and increased distractor suppression suggest that only target-present trials would be affected. Results showed no cost of mind wandering on target-absent trials, but significant distractor suppression and target facilitation effects during mind wandering on target-present trials. These findings suggest that rather than perceptual decoupling globally suppressing all stimuli, it is more selective, falling in line with evidence on strong top-down modulation. }, number={6}, journal={EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY}, author={Geden, Michael and Staicu, Ana-Maria and Feng, Jing}, year={2018}, month={Nov}, pages={345–352} }
 @article{geden_smith_campbell_amos-binks_mott_feng_lester_2018, title={Towards Adaptive Support for Anticipatory Thinking}, DOI={10.1145/3183654.3183665}, abstractNote={Adaptive training and support technologies have been used to improve training and performance in a number of domains. However, limited work on adaptive training has examined anticipatory thinking, which is the deliberate, divergent exploration and analysis of relevant futures to avoid surprise. Anticipatory thinking engages the process of imagining how uncertainties impact the future, helps identify leading indicators and causal dependencies of future scenarios, and complements forecasting, which focuses on assessing the likelihood of outcomes. It is particularly important for intelligence analysis, mission planning, and strategic forecasting, wherein practitioners apply prospective sense-making, scenario planning, and other methodologies to identify possible options and their effects during decision making processes. However, there is currently no underlying cognitive theory supporting specific anticipatory thinking methodologies, no adaptive technologies to support their training, and no existing measures to assess their efficacy. We are engaged in an ongoing effort to design adaptive technologies to support the acquisition and measurement of anticipatory thinking. As a first step toward adaptive environments that support the acquisition and application of anticipatory thinking competencies, we have developed a task to measure anticipatory thinking in which participants explore uncertainties and the impacts on the future given a particular topic. We present preliminary results from a study to examine the validity of this measure and discuss multiple factors that affect anticipatory thinking including attention, inhibitory control, need for cognition, need for closure, convergent thinking, and divergent thinking. We then introduce design principles for supporting training, application, and assessment of anticipatory thinking.}, journal={PROCEEDINGS OF THE TECHNOLOGY, MIND, AND SOCIETY CONFERENCE (TECHMINDSOCIETY'18)}, author={Geden, Michael and Smith, Andy and Campbell, James and Amos-Binks, Adam and Mott, Bradford and Feng, Jing and Lester, James}, year={2018} }
 @article{choi_geden_feng_2017, title={More visual mind wandering occurrence during visual task performance: Modality of the concurrent task affects how the mind wanders}, volume={12}, ISSN={["1932-6203"]}, DOI={10.1371/journal.pone.0189667}, abstractNote={Mind wandering has been considered as a mental process that is either independent from the concurrent task or regulated like a secondary task. These accounts predict that the form of mind wandering (i.e., images or words) should be either unaffected by or different from the modality form (i.e., visual or auditory) of the concurrent task. Findings from this study challenge these accounts. We measured the rate and the form of mind wandering in three task conditions: fixation, visual 2-back, and auditory 2-back. Contrary to the general expectation, we found that mind wandering was more likely in the same form as the task. This result can be interpreted in light of recent findings on overlapping brain activations during internally- and externally-oriented processes. Our result highlights the importance to consider the unique interplay between the internal and external mental processes and to measure mind wandering as a multifaceted rather than a unitary construct.}, number={12}, journal={PLOS ONE}, author={Choi, HeeSun and Geden, Michael and Feng, Jing}, year={2017}, month={Dec} }