Advertisement

Learner Control Aids Learning from Instructional Videos with a Virtual Human

  • Noah L. Schroeder
  • Joshua Chin
  • Scotty D. CraigEmail author
Original research

Abstract

Experimental research around virtual humans acting as pedagogical agents has often taken place in learner-paced learning environments. However, virtual humans are increasingly embedded in educational materials such as instructional videos, where the pacing of the environment can be fundamentally different than a stand-alone learner-controlled software package. This study examined the influence of three types of pacing with varying levels of learner control when learning from an instructional video with an embedded virtual human. The results of our three-group randomized study indicate that increased learner control led to the strongest learning outcomes, although moderate learner control was the most instructionally efficient. The results suggest that some aspects of learner control can be beneficial when learning from instructional videos with embedded virtual humans.

Keywords

Pedagogical agent Virtual human Pacing Learner control Instructional video 

Notes

References

  1. Ayres, P. (2018). Subjective measures of cognitive load: What can they reliably measure? In R. Z. Zheng (Ed.), Cognitive load measurement and application: A theoretical framework for meaningful research and practice (pp. 9–28). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Carolan, T. F., Hutchins, S. D., Wickens, C. D., & Cumming, J. M. (2014). Costs and benefits of more learner freedom: Meta-analyses of exploratory and learner control training methods. Human Factors, 56(5), 999–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chi, M. T., Kang, S., & Yaghmourian, D. L. (2017). Why students learn more from dialogue-than monologue-videos: Analyses of peer interactions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26, 10–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chi, M. T., Roy, M., & Hausmann, R. G. (2008). Observing tutorial dialogues collaboratively: Insights about human tutoring effectiveness from vicarious learning. Cognitive Science, 32(2), 301–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Craig, S. D., Chi, M. T. H., & VanLehn, K. (2009). Improving classroom learning by collaboratively observing human tutoring videos while problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 779–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., Brittingham, J. K., Williams, J., & Shubeck, K. T. (2012). Promoting vicarious learning of physics using deep questions with explanations. Computers & Education, 58, 1042–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 428–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craig, S. D., & Schroeder, N. L. (2018). Design principles for virtual humans in educational technology environments. In K. Millis, D. Long, J. Magliano, & K. Wiemer (Eds.), Deep learning: Multi-disciplinary approaches (pp. 128–139). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Craig, S. D., Sullins, J., Witherspoon, A., & Gholson, B. (2006). Deep-level reasoning questions effect: The role of dialog and deep-level reasoning questions during vicarious learning. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 565–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Bruin, A. B., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2017). Bridging cognitive load and self-regulated learning research: A complementary approach to contemporary issues in educational research. Learning and Instruction, 51, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doolittle, P. E., Bryant, L. H., & Chittum, J. R. (2015). Effects of degree of segmentation and learner disposition on multimedia learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1333–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Gay, G. (1986). Interaction of learner control and prior understanding in computer-assisted video instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gholson, B., & Craig, S. D. (2006). Promoting constructive activities that support vicarious learning during computer-based instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 119–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Graesser, A. C., Cai, Z., Morgan, B., & Wang, L. (2017). Assessment with computer agents that engage in conversational dialogues and trialogues with learners. Computers in Human Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hannafin, M. J., & Colamaio, M. A. E. (1987). The effects of variations in lesson control and practice on learning from interactive video. ECTJ, 35(4), 203–212.Google Scholar
  19. Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review, 6(1), 27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 62–66.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, W. L., & Lester, J. C. (2016). Face-to-face interaction with pedagogical agents, twenty years later. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karich, A. C., Burns, M. K., & Maki, K. (2014). Updated meta-analysis of learner control within educational technology. Review of Educational Research, 84(3), 392–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lawless, K. A., & Brown, S. W. (1997). Multimedia learning environments: Issues of learner control and navigation. Instructional Science, 25(2), 117–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 43–71). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 33, 403–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 390–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mayer, R. E., Dow, G. T., & Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 806–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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(2), 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mayer, R. E., & Pilegard, C. (2014). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pre-training and modality principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 316–344). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22, 276–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Belmont: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 27–42). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35(4), 737–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Paas, F. G. W. C., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Adam, J. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79(1), 419–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scheiter, K. (2014). The learner control principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 487–512). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2007). Learner control in hypermedia environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schroeder, N. L., & Adesope, O. O. (2013). How does a contextually-relevant peer pedagogical agent in a learner-attenuated system-paced learning environment affect cognitive and affective outcomes? Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 2(2), 114–133.Google Scholar
  43. Schroeder, N. L., & Adesope, O. O. (2015). Impacts of pedagogical agent gender in an accessible learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 401–411.Google Scholar
  44. Schroeder, N. L., Adesope, O. O., & Gilbert, R. B. (2013). How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schroeder, N. L., & Craig, S. D. (2017). The effect of pacing on learners’ perceptions of pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(7), 937–950.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116689790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Szpunar, K. K., Jing, H. G., & Schacter, D. L. (2014). Overcoming overconfidence in learning from video-recorded lectures: Implications of interpolated testing for online education. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(3), 161–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Winne, P. H. (2011). A cognitive and metacognitive analysis of self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 15–32). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wright State UniversityDaytonUSA
  2. 2.Arizona State UniversityMesaUSA

Personalised recommendations