Supporting multimedia learning with visual signalling and animated pedagogical agent: Moderating effects of prior knowledge

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 97-115

  Johnson, A M ^a   Ozogul, G ^b   Reisslein, M ^a  

^a Arizona State University   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Animated pedagogical agents; Learner characteristics; Multiple external representations; Visual signalling

Indexed keywords

EID: 84923999152     PISSN: 02664909     EISSN: 13652729     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12078     Document Type: Article

References (96)

1. Amadieu, F., Mariné, C., & Laimay, C. (2011). The attention-guiding effect and cognitive load in the comprehension of animations. Computers in Human Behaviors, 27(1), 36-40.
2. Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416-427.
3. Atkinson, R., Lin, L., & Harrison, C. (2009). Comparing the efficacy of different signaling techniques. In G. Siemens & C. Fulford (Ed.), World conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications (Vol. 1, pp. 954-962). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
4. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
5. Bartholome, T., & Bromme, R. (2009). Coherence formation when learning from text and pictures: What kind of support for whom? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 282-293.
6. Baylor, A. L. (2009). Promoting motivation with virtual agents and avatars: Role of visual presence and appearance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 364, 3559-3565.
7. Baylor, A. L. (2011). The design of motivational agents and avatars. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 291-300.
8. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(2), 95-115.
9. Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 70-87.
10. Caballé, S., Mora, N., Feidakis, M., Gañán, D., Conesa, J., Daradoumis, T., & Prieto, J. (2014). CC-LR: Providing interactive, challenging and attractive Collaborative Complex Learning Resources. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, 51-67.
11. Canham, M., & Hegarty, M. (2010). Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 155-166.
12. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.
13. Choi, S., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent for learning English as a second language. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(4), 441-466.
14. Clark, R. E., & Choi, S. (2005). Five design principles for experiments on the effects of animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 209-225.
15. Cook, S. W., Yip, T. K., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2010). Gesturing makes memories that last. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(4), 465-475.
16. Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. M. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 428-434.
17. De Koning, B. B., & Tabbers, H. K. (2013). Gestures in instructional animations: A helping hand to understanding non-human movements? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(5), 683-689.
18. De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M., & Paas, F. (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: Guidelines for research and design. Educational Psychology Review, 21(2), 113-140.
19. De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M., & Paas, F. (2010). Attention guidance in learning from a complex animation: Seeing is understanding? Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 111-122.
20. Dehn, D. M., & van Mulken, S. (2000). The impact of animated interface agents: A review of empirical research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52, 1-22.
21. Dunsworth, Q., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of an animated agent's image. Computers & Education, 49(3), 677-690.
22. Gulz, A. (2005). Social enrichment by virtual characters - differential benefits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 405-418.
23. Hartley, R. (2010). The evolution and redefining of 'CAL': A reflection on the interplay of theory and practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 4-17.
24. Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review, 6, 27-54.
25. Hostetter, A. B. (2011). When do gestures communicate? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 297-315.
26. Hostetter, A. B., & Alibali, M. W. (2008). Visible embodiment: Gestures as simulated action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(3), 495-514.
27. Hostetter, A. B., & Alibali, M. W. (2010). Language, gesture, action! A test of the gesture as simulated action framework. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(2), 245-257.
28. Huk, T., & Steinke, M. (2007). Learning cell biology with close-up views or connecting lines: Evidence for the structure mapping effect. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1089-1104.
29. Jamet, E., Gavota, M., & Quaireau, C. (2008). Attention guiding in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 18, 135-145.
30. Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & van Gog, T. (2010). In the eyes of the beholder: How experts and novices interpret dynamic stimuli. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 146-154.
31. Jeung, H., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17(3), 329-343.
32. Johnson, A. M., DiDonato, M. D., & Reisslein, M. (2013). Animated agents in K-12 engineering outreach: Preferred agent characteristics across age levels. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1807-1815.
33. Johnson, A. M., Ozogul, G., DiDonato, M. D., & Reisslein, M. (2013). Engineering perceptions of female and male K-12 students: Effects of a multimedia overview on elementary, middle-, and high-school students. European Journal of Engineering Education, 38(5), 519-531.
34. Johnson, A. M., Ozogul, G., Moreno, R., & Reisslein, M. (2013). Pedagogical agent signaling of multiple visual engineering representations: The case of the young female agent. Journal of Engineering Education, 102, 319-337.
35. Johnson, W. L., Rickel, J. W., & Lester, J. C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11(1), 47-78.
36. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23-31.
37. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13(4), 351-371.
38. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 126-136.
39. Kester, L., Kirschner, P., & Corbalan, G. (2007). Designing support to facilitate learning in powerful electronic learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1047-1054.
40. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006). A social-cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 569-596.
41. Kim, Y., Baylor, A. L., & Shen, E. (2007). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The impact of agent emotion and gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 220-234.
42. Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 239-264.
43. Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1990). Abstract planning and perceptual chunks: Elements of expertise in geometry. Cognitive Science, 14(4), 511-550.
44. Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949-968.
45. Lane, H. C., Cahill, C., Foutz, S., Auerbach, D., Noren, D., Lussenhop, C., & Swartout, W. (2013). The effects of a pedagogical agent for informal science education on learner behaviors and self-efficacy. In H. Chad Lane, K. Yacef, J. Mostow, & P. Pavlik (Ed.), Artificial intelligence in education (pp. 309-318). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
46. Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Gog, T., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1058-1072.
47. Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A., & Bhogal, R. S. (1997). The persona effect: Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. In S. Pemberton (Ed.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 359-366). New York, NY: ACM.
48. Lin, L., & Atkinson, R. K. (2011). Using animations and visual cueing to support learning of scientific concepts and processes. Computers & Education, 56(3), 650-658.
49. Lindström, P., Gulz, A., Haake, M., & Sjödén, B. (2011). Matching and mismatching between the pedagogical design principles of a math game and the actual practices of play. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 90-102.
50. Lusk, M. M., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Animated pedagogical agents: Does their degree of embodiment impact learning from static or animated worked examples? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 747-764.
51. Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 377-389.
52. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8, 240-246.
53. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 31-48). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
54. Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. The American Psychologist, 63(8), 760-769.
55. Mayer, R. E., & DaPra, C. S. (2012). An embodiment effect in computer-based learning with animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 18(3), 239-252.
56. Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187-198.
57. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312-320.
58. Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., Cifuentes, L., Kwok, O., & Davis, T. J. (2013). Exploring 3-D virtual reality technology for spatial ability and chemistry achievement. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 579-590.
59. Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
60. Mitrovic, A., & Suraweera, P. (2000). Evaluating an animated pedagogical agent. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1839, 73-82.
61. Moon, Y., & Nass, C. (1996). How 'real' are computer personalities? Psychological responses to personality types in human-computer interaction. Communication Research, 23(6), 651-674.
62. Moreno, R. (2005). Multimedia learning with animated pedagogical agents. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 507-524). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
63. Moreno, R. (2006). Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the method-affects-learning hypothesis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 149-158.
64. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358-368.
65. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 117-125.
66. Moreno, R., Reisslein, M., & Ozogul, G. (2009). Optimizing worked-example instruction in electrical engineering: The role of fading and feedback during problem-solving practice. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 83-92.
67. Moreno, R., Reisslein, M., & Ozogul, G. (2010). Using virtual peers to guide visual attention during learning: A test of the persona hypothesis. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 22(2), 52-60.
68. Moundridou, M., & Virvou, M. (2002). Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in a tutoring system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 253-261.
69. Nelson, B. C., Kim, Y., Foshee, C., & Slack, K. (2014). Visual signaling in virtual world-based assessments: The SAVE Science project. Information Sciences, 264, 32-40.
70. Nietfeld, J. L., & Schraw, G. (2002). The effect of knowledge and strategy training on monitoring accuracy. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 131-142.
71. Ozcelik, E., Arslan-Ari, I., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behaviors, 26(1), 110-117.
72. Ozcelik, E., Karakus, T., Kursun, E., & Cagiltay, K. (2009). An eye-tracking study of how color coding affects multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 53, 445-453.
73. Ozogul, G., Johnson, A. M., Atkinson, R. K., & Reisslein, M. (2013). Investigating the impact of pedagogical agent gender matching and learner choice on learning outcomes and perceptions. Computers & Education, 67, 36-50.
74. Ozogul, G., Johnson, A. M., Moreno, R., & Reisslein, M. (2012). Technological literacy learning with cumulative and stepwise integration of equations into electrical circuit diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Education, 55(4), 480-487.
75. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
76. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
77. Reisslein, M., Moreno, R., & Ozogul, G. (2010). Pre-college electrical engineering instruction: The impact of abstract vs. contextualized representation and practice on learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 225-235.
78. Roth, W. M. (2001). Gestures: Their role in teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 365-392.
79. Ryokai, K., Vaucelle, C., & Cassell, J. (2003). Virtual peers as partners in storytelling and literacy learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 195-208.
80. Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 469-508.
81. Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting effects of animations in multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 47-58.
82. Schraw, G., & Nietfeld, J. (1998). A further test of the general monitoring skill hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 236-248.
83. Schroeder, N. L., & Adesope, O. O. (2014). A systematic review of pedagogical agents' persona, motivation, and cognitive load implications for learners. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(3), 229-251.
84. Shute, V. J., Ventura, M., Bauer, M., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2009). Melding the power of serious games and embedded assessment to monitor and foster learning: Flow and grow. In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Serious games: Mechanisms and effects (pp. 295-321). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.
85. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas (Australian Education Review No. 43). New York, NY: PCS Data Processing.
86. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
87. Tabbers, H. K., Martens, R. L., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 71-81.
88. Van Gog, T., Kester, L., Nievelstein, F., Giesbers, B., & Paas, F. (2009). Uncovering cognitive processes: Different techniques that can contribute to cognitive load research and instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 325-331.
89. Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Kester, L. (2005). The four-component instructional design model: Multimedia principles in environments for complex learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 71-93). New York: Cambridge University Press.
90. Van Merriënboer, J. J., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner's mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5-13.
91. Van Mulken, S., Andre, E., & Muller, J. (1998). The persona effect: How substantial is it? In H. Johnson, L. Nigay, & C. Roast (Eds.), People and computers XIII: Proc. of HCI'98 (pp. 53-66). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
92. Veletsianos, G. (2009). The impact and implications of virtual character expressiveness on learning and agent-learner interactions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 345-357.
93. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
94. Woo, H. L. (2009). Designing multimedia learning environments using animated pedagogical agents: Factors and issues. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 203-218.
95. Yung, H. I. (2009). Effects of an animated pedagogical agent with instructional strategies in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 18(4), 453-466.
96. Zhang, M. (2013). Supporting middle school student' online reading of scientific resources: Moving beyond cursory, fragmented, and opportunistic reading. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 138-152.