You are here:

Effects of Modality and Learner Control on Instructional Efficiency in Multimedia Learning Using Animated Demonstration: A Preliminary Study
PROCEEDINGS

, Center for General Education, National Taichung University of Education, Taiwan ; , Department of Education, National Taichung University of Education, Taiwan

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, NV, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-13-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of different levels of leaner control and presentation modality on instructional efficiency in learning computer-based tasks using interactive animated demonstration (AD). Instructional efficiency was a combined effect of perceived cognitive load and test performance. A total of 224 college students were randomly assigned in equal numbers (N = 28) to one of the eight conditions in a 4 x 2 factorial design with different levels of learner control (system-paced vs. segmented with a continue button vs. not-segmented with a pause/continue button + a slider bar vs. segmented with a navigational menu + a pause/continue button + a slider bar) and modality (narrated AD vs. captioned AD) as the between-subjects factors. This is a work-in-progress project and is now under the data analysis. The results will offer suggestions as follows: (a) to determine the relative effectiveness of different levels of learner control to students of differ

Citation

Chen, C.Y. & Yang, Y.H. (2015). Effects of Modality and Learner Control on Instructional Efficiency in Multimedia Learning Using Animated Demonstration: A Preliminary Study. In D. Rutledge & D. Slykhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2015--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2255-2260). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 14, 2024 from .

© 2015 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. 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, 123-135.
  2. Chen, C-Y. (2014). Cognitive support for learning computer-based tasks using animated demonstration. Interactive Learning Environments,
  3. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  4. De Souza, J.M.B., & Dyson, M. (2008). Are animated demonstrations the clearest and most comfortable way to communicate onscreen instructions? Information Design Journal, 16(2), 107-124.
  5. Despotakis, T.C., Palaigeorgiou, G.E., & Tsoukalas, I.A. (2007). Students’ attitudes towards animated demonstrations as computer learning tools. Educational Technology& Society, 10(1), 196-205.
  6. Ertelt, A., Renkl, A., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning a new computer application using on-screen videos. In A. Méndez Vilas, B.G. Pereira, J.M. Gonzáles, & J.A.M. Gonzáles (Eds.), Recent research developments in learning technologies Vol.2 (pp.757-762).
  7. Hasler, B.S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 713-729.
  8. Höffler, T.N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 722-738.
  9. Kalyuga, S. (2007). Enhancing instructional efficiency of interactive e-learning environments: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 387-399.
  10. Leahy W., & Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation and the transient information effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 943-951.
  11. Leppink, J., Paas, F., van Gog, T., vander Vleuten, C.P.M., & Van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2014). Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 30, 32-42.
  12. Mayer, R.E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  13. 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, 390-397.
  14. 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, 806-813
  15. 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, 737-743.
  16. Palmiter, S., & Elkerton, J. (1993). Animated demonstrations for learning procedural computer-based tasks. Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 193-216.
  17. Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2007). Learner control in hypermedia environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 285-307.
  18. Shneiderman, B., & Plaisant, C. (2005). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction (4th Ed.), Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  19. Spanjers, I.A.E., van Gog, T., & Van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2010). A theoretical analysis of how segmentation of dynamic visualizations optimizes students‘ learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 411-423.
  20. Spanjers, I.A.E., van Gog, T., Wouters, P., & Van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2012). Explaining the segmentation effect in learning from animations: The role of pausing and temporal cueing. Computers& Education, 59, 274-280.
  21. Spanjers, I.A.E., Wouters, P., van Gog, T., & Van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2011). An expertise reversal effect of segmentation in learning from animated worked-out examples. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 46-52.
  22. Spannagel, C., Girwidz, R., Löthe, H., Zendler, A., & Schroeder, U. (2008). Animated demonstrations and training wheels interfaces in a complex learning environment. Interacting with Computers, 20, 97-111.
  23. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123-128.
  24. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.
  25. Tabbers, H., & De Koeijer, B. (2010). Learner control in animated multimedia instructions. Instructional Science, 38, 441-453.
  26. Tabbers, H., Martens, R., & Van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 71-81.
  27. Trimble, S.K., Nathan, B.R., & Decker, P.J. (1991). The effect of positive and negative models on learning in behavior modeling training: Testing for proactive and retroactive interference. Journal of Human Behavior& Learning, 7, 1-12.
  28. Tversky, B., Morrison, J.B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247-262.
  29. Waterson, P., & O’Malley, C. (1992). Using animated demonstrations to teach graphics skills. In A. Monk, D. Diaper, & M.D. Harrison (Eds.), People and Computers VII. Proceedings of HCI 92 (pp. 463-474). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  30. Wong, A., Leahy, W., Marcus, N., & Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e-learning. Learning and Instruction, 22, 449-457.
  31. Wouters, P., Tabbers, H.K., & Paas, F. (2007). Interactivity in video-based models. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 327-342.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Pages You've Visited

Abstracts