Effects of visual signaling on pre-college students' engineering learning performance and attitudes: Peer versus adult pedagogical agents versus arrow signaling

ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages

  Ozogul, Gamze ^a   Martin, Reisslein ^a   Johnson, Amy Marcelle ^b  

^a Arizona State University   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85029124503     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21535965     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (29)

1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
2. Goldman, S. (2003). Learning in complex domains: When and why do multiple representations help? Learning and Instruction, 13, 239-244.
3. Mautone, P. D. & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning, Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 377-389.
4. de Koning, B., Tabbers, H., Rikers, R., & Paas, F. (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: Guidelines for research and design. Educational Psychology Review, 21(2), 113-40.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Bradshaw, J. M. (Ed.). (1997). Software agents. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. 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.
9. Choi, S. and Clark, R. E. (2004) Five suggestions for the design of experiments on the effects of animated pedagogical agents. Symposium paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Convention in San Diego California, April 2004.
10. Kim, Y. & Baylor, A (2006). A social-cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions, ETR & D, 54(6), 569-596.
11. Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., & Churchill, E. (Eds.). (2000). Embodied conversational agents. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Mitrovic, A., & Suraweera, P. (2000). Evaluating an animated pedagogical agent. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1839, 73-82.
13. Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416-427.
14. Dunsworth, Q., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of an animated agent's image. Computers and Education, 49, 677-690.
15. 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.
16. Murray, M., & Tenenbaum, G. (2010). Computerized pedagogical agents as an educational means for developing physical self-efficacy and encouraging activity in youth. Journal of Educational Computing and Research. 42(3), 267-283.
17. 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.
18. Moundridou, M., & Virvou, M. (2002). Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in a tutoring system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 253-261.
19. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
20. Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006). Natural information processing systems. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 434-458.
21. Weeks, D.L, Borrousch, S., Bowen, A., Hepler, L., Osterfoss, M., Sandau, A., & Slevin, F. (2005). The influence of age and gender of an exercise model on self-efficacy and quality of therapeutic exercise performance in the elderly. Physiotherapy Theory & Practice, 21(3), 137-146.
22. Baron, R. (1970) Attraction toward the model and model's competence as determinants of adult imitative behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,14(4), 345-351.
23. Baylor, A. L. (2009). Promoting motivation with virtual agents and avatars: role of visual presence and appearance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 3559-3565.
24. Brumbaugh A. M. (1993), "Physical attractiveness and personality in advertising: more than just a pretty face? Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 159-164.
25. 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.
26. Osman, M. (2008). Observation can be as effective as action in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 32, 162-183.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. Paas, F. G. W. C., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometric problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122-133.