Effects of cueing by a pedagogical agent in an instructional animation: A cognitive load approach

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 153-160

  Yung, Hsin I ^a   Paas, Fred ^b  

^a NATIONAL TAIPEI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Taiwan)

^b ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cognitive load; Cueing; Pedagogical agent

Indexed keywords

EID: 84938093243     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Amadieu, F., Mariné, C., & Laimay, C. (2011). The attention-guiding effect and cognitive load in the comprehension of animations. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 36-40. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.009
2. Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416-427. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.416
3. Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 135-146). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
4. Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2007a). Can the cognitive load approach make instructional animations more effective? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 811-820. doi:10.1002/acp.1351
5. Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2007b). Making instructional animations more effective: A cognitive load approach. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 695-700. doi:10.1002/acp.1343
6. Baylor, A. L. (2009). Promoting motivation with virtual agents and avatars: Role of visual presence and appearance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1535), 3559-3565. doi:10.1098/rstb. 2009.0148
7. Boucheix, J. M., & Lowe, R. K. (2010). An eye tracking comparison of external pointing cues and internal continuous cues in learning with complex animations. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 123-135. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.015
8. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2), 233-246. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1992.tb01017.x
9. 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), 1-22.
10. De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M., & Paas, F. (2009). Attention guidance in learning from a complex animation: Seeing is understanding? Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 111-122. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.010
11. Fischer, S., & Schwan, S. (2010). Comprehending animations: Effects of spatial cueing versus temporal scaling. Learning and Instruction, 20(6), 465-475. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.05.005
12. Florax, M., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). What contributes to the split-attention effect? The role of text segmentation, picture labeling, and spatial proximity. Learning and Instruction, 20(3), 216-224. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.021
13. Hegarty, M. (2004). Dynamic visualizations and learning: Getting to the difficult questions. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 343-351. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.007
14. Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 722-738. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.013
15. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13(4), 351-371.
16. Leppink, J., Paas, F., van der Vleuten, C. P., van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1058-1072. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0334-1
17. Lewalter, D. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 177-189. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00019-1
18. Lowe, R. K., & Boucheix, J. M. (2011). Cueing complex animations: Does direction of attention foster learning processes? Learning and Instruction, 21(5), 650-663. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.02.002
19. 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. doi:10.1002/acp.1347
20. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles of multimedia learning based on social cues: Personalization, voice, and image principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 201-212). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
21. 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.
22. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
23. Moreno, R. (2007). Optimizing learning from animations by minimizing cognitive load: Cognitive and affective consequences of signaling and segmentation methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 765-781. doi:10.1002/acp.1348
24. Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 177-213. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1902_02
25. Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429-434. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429
26. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 1-4. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1
27. Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2012). 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, 24(1), 27-45. doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9179-2
28. Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35(4), 737-743. doi:10.1177/001872089303500412
29. Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122-133. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.122
30. Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(2), 185-213. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1996.0048
31. Spanjers, I. A., van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2010). A theoretical analysis of how segmentation of dynamic visualizations optimizes students' learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22(4), 411-423. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9135-6
32. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296. doi:10.1023/A:1022193728205
33. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123-138. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5
34. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Bétrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(4), 247-262. doi:10.1006/ijhc.2002.1017
35. Wang, N., Johnson, W. L., Mayer, R. E., Rizzo, P., Shaw, E., & Collins, H. (2008). The politeness effect: Pedagogical agents and learning outcomes. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(2), 98-112. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.09.003
36. Wong, A., Marcus, N., Ayres, P., Smith, L., Cooper, G. A., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2009). Instructional animations can be superior to statics when learning human motor skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 339-347. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.012
37. Wouters, P., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2008). How to optimize learning from animated models: A review of guidelines based on cognitive load. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 645-675. doi:10.3102/003465430832 0320