You are here:

Comparing the Efficacy of Different Signaling Techniques
PROCEEDINGS

, , , Arizona State University, United States

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Honolulu, HI, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-73-0 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

This experiment examined which type, or a combination, of attention-gaining and attention-directing techniques foster learning in a multimedia learning environment. One hundred and sixty-nine participants were randomly assigned to the cells of a 3 x 3 factorial design where the first factor was attention-gaining techniques (none, highlighting, or flashing) and the second factor was attention-directing techniques [none, realistic/concrete pointer (i.e., human hand with pointing finger), or symbolic/abstract pointer (i.e., arrow)]. The results revealed that participants assigned to the static attention-gaining condition (highlighting) outperformed their peers in the other two conditions (no attention-gaining technique and flashing) on learning outcome measures. Participants in the hand and arrow attention-direction conditions produced significantly higher scores on the posttest than their peers that were not provided these attention-directing techniques.

Citation

Atkinson, R., Lin, L. & Harrison, C. (2009). Comparing the Efficacy of Different Signaling Techniques. In G. Siemens & C. Fulford (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2009--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 954-962). Honolulu, HI, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 18, 2023 from .

© 2009 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Atkinson, R.K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 416-427.
  2. Atkinson, R.K., Mayer, R.E., & Merrill, M.M. (2005). Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent ’ s voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 117-139.
  3. Baylor, A.L., & Kim, S. (2009). Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: When less is more. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 450-457.
  4. 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.
  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. De Koning, B.B., Tabbers, H.K., Rikers, R.M.J.P., & Paas, F. (2007). Attention cueing as a means to enhance learning from an animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology.Special Issue: A Cognitive Load Approach to the Learning Effectiveness of Instructional Animation, 21(6), 731-746.
  7. Harp, S.F., & Mayer, R.E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 414-434.
  8. Jamet, E., Gavota, M., & Quaireau, C. (2008). Attention guiding in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 18(2), 135-145.
  9. Jeung, H., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17, 329-433.
  10. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351-371.
  11. Lusk, M.M., & Atkinson, R.K. (2007). Animated pedagogical agents: Does their degree of embodiment impact learning from static or animated work examples? Applied Cognitive Psychology.Special Issue: A Cognitive Load Approach to the Learning Effectiveness of Instructional Animation, 21(6), 747-764.
  12. Mautone, P.D., & Mayer, R.E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 377-389.
  13. Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
  14. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.
  15. Tabbers, H.K., Martens, R.L., & Van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(1), 71-81.
  16. Tversky, B., Morrison, J.B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(4), 247-262.
  17. Wouters, P., Paas, F.G.W.C., & Van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2008). How to optimize learning from animated models: A review of guidelines based on cognitive load. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 645-675.
  18. Zahn, C.J., & Hopper, R. (1985). Measuring language attitudes: The speech evaluation instrument. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4(2), 113-123.
  19. 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, US: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Mayer, R.E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P.D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker's voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 419-419.
  21. Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 87-87.
  22. Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.

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

Suggest Corrections to References

Pages You've Visited

Abstracts