Learning from observing hands in static and animated versions of non-manipulative tasks

Learning and Instruction

Volumn 34, Issue , 2014, Pages 11-21

  Castro Alonso, Juan C ^a   Ayres, Paul ^a   Paas, Fred ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Animation static comparison; Cognitive load theory; Embodied cognition; Non manipulative task; Transient information

Indexed keywords

EID: 84905915995     PISSN: 09594752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.07.005     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Adobe Web premium CS4 [computer software] 2008, Author, San José.
2. Antonenko P., Paas F., Grabner R., van Gog T. Using electroencephalography to measure cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review 2010, 22(4):425-438. 10.1007/s10648-010-9130-y.
3. Ayres P., Marcus N., Chan C., Qian N. Learning hand manipulative tasks: when instructional animations are superior to equivalent static representations. Computers in Human Behavior 2009, 25(2):348-353. 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.013.
4. Ayres P., Paas F. Can the cognitive load approach make instructional animations more effective?. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2007, 21(6):811-820. 10.1002/acp.1351.
5. Ayres P., Paas F. Making instructional animations more effective: a cognitive load approach. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2007, 21(6):695-700. 10.1002/acp.1343.
6. Barsalou L.W. Grounded cognition: past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science 2010, 2(4):716-724. 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01115.x.
7. Boucheix J.-M., Lowe R.K., Putri D.K., Groff J. Cueing animations: dynamic signaling aids information extraction and comprehension. Learning and Instruction 2013, 25:71-84. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.005.
8. Brockmole J.R., Davoli C.C., Abrams R.A., Witt J.K. The world within reach: effects of hand posture and tool use on visual cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2013, 22(1):38-44. 10.1177/0963721412465065.
9. Buchmann V., Nilsen T., Billinghurst M. Interaction with partially transparent hands and objects 2005, Paper presented at the 6th Australasian Conference on User Interface, Newcastle, Australia.
10. Castro-Alonso J.C., Ayres P., Paas F. Dynamic visualisations and motor skills. Handbook of human centric visualization 2014, 551-580. Springer, New York, NY. 10.1007/978-1-4614-7485-2_22. W. Huang (Ed.).
11. Cochin S., Barthelemy C., Roux S., Martineau J. Observation and execution of movement: similarities demonstrated by quantified electroencephalography. European Journal of Neuroscience 1999, 11(5):1839-1842. 10.1046/j.1460-9568.1999.00598.x.
12. Cosman J.D., Vecera S.P. Attention affects visual perceptual processing near the hand. Psychological Science 2010, 21(9):1254-1258. 10.1177/0956797610380697.
13. Cowan N. The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2001, 24(1):87-185. 10.1017/S0140525X01003922.
14. Davoli C.C., Brockmole J.R. The hands shield attention from visual interference. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 2012, 74(7):1386-1390. 10.3758/s13414-012-0351-7.
15. Ekstrom R.B., French J.W., Harman H.H. Kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests 1976, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.
16. Fadiga L., Fogassi L., Pavesi G., Rizzolatti G. Motor facilitation during action observation: a magnetic stimulation study. Journal of Neurophysiology 1995, 73(6):2608-2611.
17. Garland T.B., Sánchez C.A. Rotational perspective and learning procedural tasks from dynamic media. Computers & Education 2013, 69:31-37. 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.014.
18. Geary D.C. Reflections of evolution and culture in children's cognition: implications for mathematical development and instruction. American Psychologist 1995, 50(1):24-37.
19. Geary D.C. Principles of evolutionary educational psychology. Learning and Individual Differences 2002, 12(4):317-345. 10.1016/s1041-6080(02)00046-8.
20. Geary D.C. Educating the evolved mind: conceptual foundations for an evolutionary educational psychology. Psychological perspectives on contemporary educational issues 2007, 1-99. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC. J.S. Carlson, J.R. Levin (Eds.).
21. Glenberg A.M. What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1997, 20(1):1-55. 10.1017/S0140525X97470012.
22. van Gog T., Paas F. Instructional efficiency: revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist 2008, 43(1):16-26. 10.1080/00461520701756248.
23. van Gog T., Paas F., Marcus N., Ayres P., Sweller J. The mirror neuron system and observational learning: implications for the effectiveness of dynamic visualizations. Educational Psychology Review 2009, 21(1):21-30. 10.1007/s10648-008-9094-3.
24. Grill-Spector K., Malach R. fMR-adaptation: a tool for studying the functional properties of human cortical neurons. Acta Psychologica 2001, 107(1-3):293-321. 10.1016/s0001-6918(01)00019-1.
25. Hamzei F., Rijntjes M., Dettmers C., Glauche V., Weiller C., Büchel C. The human action recognition system and its relationship to Broca's area: an fMRI study. NeuroImage 2003, 19(3):637-644. 10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00087-9.
26. Hari R., Forss N., Avikainen S., Kirveskari E., Salenius S., Rizzolatti G. Activation of human primary motor cortex during action observation: a neuromagnetic study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 1998, 95(25):15061-15065.
27. Höffler T.N., Leutner D. Instructional animation versus static pictures: a meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction 2007, 17(6):722-738. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.013.
28. Höffler T.N., Schwartz R.N. Effects of pacing and cognitive style across dynamic and non-dynamic representations. Computers & Education 2011, 57(2):1716-1726. 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.012.
29. Hostetter A.B. When do gestures communicate? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 2011, 137(2):297-315. 10.1037/a0022128.
30. Iacoboni M., Woods R.P., Brass M., Bekkering H., Mazziotta J.C., Rizzolatti G. Cortical mechanisms of human imitation. Science 1999, 286(5449):2526-2528.
31. Imhof B., Scheiter K., Edelmann J., Gerjets P. How temporal and spatial aspects of presenting visualizations affect learning about locomotion patterns. Learning and Instruction 2012, 22(3):193-205. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.006.
32. de Koning B.B., Tabbers H.K. Facilitating understanding of movements in dynamic visualizations: an embodied perspective. Educational Psychology Review 2011, 23(4):501-521. 10.1007/s10648-011-9173-8.
33. de Koning B.B., Tabbers H.K. Gestures in instructional animations: a helping hand to understanding non-human movements?. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2013, 27(5):683-689. 10.1002/acp.2937.
34. Koroghlanian C., Klein J.D. The effect of audio and animation in multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 2004, 13(1):23-46.
35. Leahy W., Sweller J. Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation and the transient information effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2011, 25(6):943-951. 10.1002/acp.1787.
36. Lowe R.K. Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction 2003, 13(2):157-176. 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00018-X.
37. Marcus N., Cleary B., Wong A., Ayres P. Should hand actions be observed when learning hand motor skills from instructional animations?. Computers in Human Behavior 2013, 29(6):2172-2178. 10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.035.
38. Mayer R.E. Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning 2005, 183-200. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. R.E. Mayer (Ed.).
39. Mayer R.E., Hegarty M., Mayer S., Campbell J. When static media promote active learning: annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2005, 11(4):256-265. 10.1037/1076-898x.11.4.256.
40. Michas I.C., Berry D.C. Learning a procedural task: effectiveness of multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2000, 14(6):555-575. 10.1002/1099-0720(200011/12)14:6<555::aid-acp677>3.0.co;2-4.
41. Miller G.A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 1956, 63(2):81-97. 10.1037/h0043158.
42. Paas F. Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: a cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology 1992, 84(4):429-434.
43. Paas F., van Merriënboer J.J.G. The efficiency of instructional conditions: an approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors 1993, 35(4):737-743.
44. Paas F., Renkl A., Sweller J. Cognitive load theory and instructional design: recent developments. Educational Psychologist 2003, 38(1):1-4. 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1.
45. Paas F., Sweller J. An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review 2012, 24(1):27-45. 10.1007/s10648-011-9179-2.
46. Paas F., Tuovinen J.E., Tabbers H.K., Van Gerven P.W.M. Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist 2003, 38(1):63-71. 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8.
47. Rizzolatti G., Craighero L. The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience 2004, 27:169-192. 10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230.
48. Scheiter K., Gerjets P., Catrambone R. Making the abstract concrete: visualizing mathematical solution procedures. Computers in Human Behavior 2006, 22(1):9-25. 10.1016/j.chb.2005.01.009.
49. Schwan S., Riempp R. The cognitive benefits of interactive videos: learning to tie nautical knots. Learning and Instruction 2004, 14(3):293-305. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.005.
50. Singh A.-M., Marcus N., Ayres P. The transient information effect: investigating the impact of segmentation on spoken and written text. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2012, 26(6):848-853. 10.1002/acp.2885.
51. Spangenberg R.W. The motion variable in procedural learning. Educational Technology Research and Development 1973, 21(4):419-436.
52. Sweller J. The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning 2005, 159-167. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. R.E. Mayer (Ed.).
53. Sweller J., Ayres P., Kalyuga S. Cognitive load theory 2011, Springer, New York, NY.
54. Sweller J., van Merriënboer J.J.G., Paas F. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 1998, 10(3):251-296. 10.1023/A:1022193728205.
55. Sweller J., Sweller S. Natural information processing systems. Evolutionary Psychology 2006, 4:434-458.
56. Thorndike E.L., Woodworth R.S. The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions (I). Psychological Review 1901, 8(3):247-261.
57. Tseng P., Bridgeman B. Improved change detection with nearby hands. Experimental Brain Research 2011, 209(2):257-269. 10.1007/s00221-011-2544-z.
58. Tversky B., Morrison J.B., Betrancourt M. Animation: can it facilitate?. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 2002, 57(4):247-262. 10.1006/ijhc.2002.1017.
59. Wickelgren W.A. Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics. Acta Psychologica 1977, 41(1):67-85. 10.1016/0001-6918(77)90012-9.
60. Wilson M. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2002, 9(4):625-636. 10.3758/bf03196322.
61. Wong A., Leahy W., Marcus N., Sweller J. Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e-learning. Learning and Instruction 2012, 22(6):449-457. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.004.
62. Wong A., Marcus N., Ayres P., Smith L., Cooper G.A., Paas F., et al. Instructional animations can be superior to statics when learning human motor skills. Computers in Human Behavior 2009, 25(2):339-347. 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.012.