增加测验互动的教学代理对多媒体学习的影响

doi:10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2025.06.09

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 当前对于教学代理的研究大多都通过改善代理本身的属性和特征来提高其教学效果,很少有研究探讨增加代理的互动特征的作用。本研究将探讨测验是否能够作为代理互动的特征促进学习效果。实验采用2(有代理、无代理)×2(测验、重复学习)的被试间设计来探讨代理与测验对学习效果以及社会存在感、心理努力和学习动机等主观体验的影响。结果发现,代理和测验都可以分别有效促进学习效果;代理测验组的学习者表现最好;代理的存在提高了学习者的社会存在感、心理努力、学习动机以及学习兴趣;测验会提高学习者的社会存在感、心理努力和感知材料难度,降低学习者的学习兴趣和学习动机。在实际的教学视频的设计中,不仅要考虑加入教学代理的形象,同时也应该提高代理与学习者之间的互动。

关键词: 教学代理, 测验, 多媒体学习, 社会存在感, 迁移成绩

Abstract: Most of the previous studies on pedagogical agents focused on their effect by improving the attributes and characteristics of the agents themselves, but few studies explored the role of the interactive characteristics of the agents. Therefore, this study explored whether testing can be used as a feature of agent interaction to facilitate learning. The experiment used 2 (agent vs. without agent) × 2 (testing vs. restudy) between-subjects design to explore the effect of agent and testing on learning and subjective experience such as social presence, mental effort and learning motivation. The results showed that both agent and testing can effectively promote learning respectively. Learners in the agent-testing group performed best. The existence of agent improved learners’ social presence, mental effort, learning motivation and interest. Testing could improve learners’ social presence, mental effort and perceived material difficulty, and reduced learners’ interest and motivation. In the design of the practical instructional video, we should not only consider adding the image of the pedagogical agent, but also improve the interaction between the agent and the learners.

Key words: pedagogical agents, testing, multimedia learning, social presence, transfer performance

中图分类号:

G442

乔沛桦, 成美霞, 王福兴. 增加测验互动的教学代理对多媒体学习的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(6): 850-858.

QIAO Peihua, CHENG Meixia, WANG Fuxing. Pedagogical Agent with Testing Interaction Could Facilitate Multimedia Learning[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2025, 41(6): 850-858.

参考文献

Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A., & Sundararajan, N. (2017). Rethinking the use of tests: A meta-analysis of practice testing. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 659-701.
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.
Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2014). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 206-226). Cambridge University Press.
Barenberg, J., & Dutke, S. (2019). Testing and metacognition: Retrieval practise effects on metacognitive monitoring in learning from text.Memory, 27(3), 269-279.
Beege, M., Nebel, S., Schneider, S., & Rey, G. D. (2019). Social entities in educational videos: Combining the effects of addressing and professionalism.Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 40-52.
Carpenter, S. K. (2009). Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: The benefits of elaborative retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(6), 1563-1569.
Cheng, M., Wang, F., & Mayer, R. E. (2023). Benefits of asking students to make an instructional video of a multimedia lesson: Clarifying the learning-by-teaching hypothesis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(5), 1636-1651.
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes.Educational Psychologist, 49, 219-243.
Chiou, E. K., Schroeder, N. L., & Craig, S. D. (2020). How we trust, perceive, and learn from virtual humans: The influence of voice quality. Computers & Education, 146, 103756.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103756
Colliot, T., & Jamet, é. (2018). Understanding the effects of a teacher video on learning from a multimedia document: An eye-tracking study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 66(6), 1415-1433.
Daradoumis, T., & Arguedas, M. (2020). Cultivating students’ reflective learning in metacognitive activities through an affective pedagogical agent.Educational Technology & Society, 23(2), 19-31.
Davis, R. O. (2018). The impact of pedagogical agent gesturing in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis.Educational Research Review, 24, 193-209.
Duffy, M. C., & Azevedo, R. (2015). Motivation matters: Interactions between achievement goals and agent scaffolding for self-regulated learning within an intelligent tutoring system.Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 338-348.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015).Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote understanding. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016a). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 717-741.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016b). Effects of observing the instructor draw diagrams on learning from multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 528-546.
Frechette, C., & Moreno, R. (2010). The roles of animated pedagogical agents’ presence and nonverbal communication in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Media Psychology, 22(2), 61-72.
Glaser, J., & Richter, T. (2022). The testing effect in the lecture hall: Does it depend on learner prerequisites? Psychology Learning & Teaching, 22(2), 159-178.
Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences.International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2), 147-166.
Hanham, J., Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2017). Cognitive load theory, element interactivity, and the testing and reverse testing effects.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31(3), 265-280.
Harley, J. M., Taub, M., Azevedo, R., & Bouchet, F. (2017). Let’s set up some subgoals: Understanding human-pedagogical agent collaborations and their implications for learning and prompt and feedback compliance.IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 11(1), 54-66.
Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2009). A testing effect with multimedia learning.Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 621-629.
Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2016). Research based design of pedagogical agent roles: A review, progress, and recommendations.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 160-169.
Kreijns, K., Xu, K., & Weidlich, J. (2022). Social presence: Conceptualization and measurement. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 139-170.
Kuang, Z., Wang, F., Andrasik, F., & Hu, X. (2023). Instructor’s direct gaze not body orientation affects learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(2), 731-741.
Kubik, V., Gaschler, R., & Hausman, H. (2021). Enhancing student learning in research and educational practice: The power of retrieval practice and feedback.Psychology Learning & Teaching, 20(1), 1-20.
Lardi, C., & Leopold, C. (2022). Effects of interactive teacher-generated drawings on students’ understanding of plate tectonics.Instructional Science, 50(2), 273-302.
Leopold, C., Mayer, R. E., & Dutke, S. (2019). The power of imagination and perspective in learning from science text.Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 793-808.
Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A., & Bhogal, R. S. (1997).The persona effect: Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. Paper presented at the meeting of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems, New York.
Li, W., Wang, F., Mayer, R. E., & Liu, H. (2019). Getting the point: Which kinds of gestures by pedagogical agents improve multimedia learning?Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(8), 1382-1395.
Li, W., Wang, F., Mayer, R. E., & Liu, T. (2022). Animated pedagogical agents enhance learning outcomes and brain activity during learning.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(7), 621-637.
Lin, L., Ginns, P., Wang, T., & Zhang, P. (2020). Using a pedagogical agent to deliver conversational style instruction: What benefits can you obtain?Computers & Education, 143, 103658.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103658
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2014).The cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e-learning.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 403-423.
Mayer, R. E. (2021). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Naujoks, N., Harder, B., & Händel, M. (2022). Testing pays off twice: Potentials of practice tests and feedback regarding exam performance and judgment accuracy.Metacognition and Learning, 17(2), 479-498.
Okita, S. Y., & Schwartz, D. L. (2013). Learning by teaching human pupils and teachable agents: The importance of recursive feedback.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(3), 375-412.
Polack, C. W., & Miller, R. R. (2022). Testing improves performance as well as assesses learning: A review of the testing effect with implications for models of learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 48(3), 222-241.
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-255.
Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432-1436.
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.
Schwieren, J., Barenberg, J., & Dutke, S. (2017). The testing effect in the psychology classroom: A meta-analytic perspective. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 16(2), 179-196.
Shimada, S., & Oki, K. (2012). Modulation of motor area activity during observation of unnatural body movements. Brain and Cognition, 80(1), 1-6.
Sikström, P., Valentini, C., Sivunen, A., & Kärkkäinen, T. (2022). How pedagogical agents communicate withstudents: A two-phase systematic review. Computers & Education, 188, 104564.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104564
Sondermann, C., & Merkt, M. (2023). Like it or learn from it: Effects of talking heads in educational videos.Computers & Education, 193, 104675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104675
Song, D., & Kim, D. (2020). Effects of self-regulation scaffolding on online participation and learning outcomes.Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 53(3), 249-263.
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1991). Evidence for cognitive load theory. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 351-362.
Szpunar, K. K., Khan, N. Y., & Schacter, D. L. (2013). Interpolated memory tests reduce mind wandering and improve learning of online lectures.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(16), 6313-6317.
van Wermeskerken, M., Ravensbergen, S., & van Gog, T. (2018). Effects of instructor presence in video modeling examples on attention and learning.Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 430-438.
Wang, F., Li, W., Mayer, R. E., & Liu, H. (2018). Animated pedagogical agents as aids in multimedia learning: Effects on eye-fixations during learning and learning outcomes.Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2), 250-268.
Wang, F., Li, W., & Zhao, T. (2022). Multimedia learning with animated pedagogical agents. In R. E. Mayer & L. Fiorella, (Eds.),The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (3rd ed., pp. 450-460). Cambridge University Press.
Wang, J., & Antonenko, P. (2017). Instructor presence in instructional video: Effects on visual attention, recall, and perceived learning.Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 79-89.
Wang, J., Antonenko, P., & Dawson, K. (2020). Does visual attention to the instructor in online video affect learning and learner perceptions? An eye-tracking analysis.Computers & Education, 146, 103779.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103779
Williams, E. H., Cristino, F., & Cross, E. S. (2019). Human body motion captures visual attention and elicits pupillary dilation. Cognition, 193, 104029.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104 029
Yilmaz, R., & Yilmaz, F. G. K. (2020).Examination of the effectiveness of the task and group awareness support system used for computer-supported collaborative learning (pp.1-26). Educational Technology Research and Development.
Zhang, Q., & Fiorella, L. (2019). Role of generated and provided visuals in supporting learning from scientific text.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 101808.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101808
冷晓雪, 成美霞, 王福兴. (2022). 测验与反馈在分段视频学习中的作用. 心理与行为研究, 20(1), 52-58.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

[1]	衡书鹏, 赵换方, 周宗奎. 虚拟教学代理对认知专注的影响及其内在机制[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(4): 482-490.
[2]	郭滢, 陈晓丹, 刘文志, 刘雨彤, 朱皕. 青少年语义错误记忆发展:学习测验因素[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(1): 12-21.
[3]	李文福, 王康程, 陈井婷, 刘传新, 邱江. 基于远距离联想测验的聚合思维脑机制研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(1): 22-31.
[4]	周丽, 王福兴, 谢和平, 陈佳雪, 辛亮, 赵庆柏. 积极的情绪能否促进多媒体学习?基于元分析的视角[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(6): 697-709.
[5]	顾红磊, 温忠麟. 多维测验分数的报告与解释:基于双因子模型的视角[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33(4): 504-512.
[6]	陈光辉, 孔艳红. 特里尔社会应激测验对儿童皮质醇分泌的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(5): 532-538.
[7]	王玉鑫, 谢和平, 王福兴, 安婧, 郝艳斌. 多媒体学习的图文整合:空间邻近效应的元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(5): 565-578.
[8]	李文静, 童钰, 王福兴, 康素杰, 刘华山, 杨超. 动画教学代理对多媒体学习的影响:学习者经验与偏好的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(4): 453-462.
[9]	钱莹莹, 王福兴, 段朝辉, 周宗奎. 动画速度和学习者经验对多媒体学习的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(2): 191-197.
[10]	罗杰, 周瑗, 陈维, 潘运, 赵守盈. 大五人格测验在中国应用的信度概化分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(1): 121-128.
[11]	张娟, 程刚, 王智, 张大均. 大学生性别情绪刻板印象的内隐和外显研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2015, 31(6): 668-675.
[12]	陈朝阳, 马兵兵, 马婷, 张锋. 亲社会视频游戏对玩家人性化知觉水平的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(6): 561-569.
[13]	李小平, 闫鸿磊, 云祥, 陈陈. 作为情境变量的移情对暴力态度的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(5): 466-473.
[14]	陈浩彬, 汪凤炎. 大学生智慧内隐认知的实验研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(4): 363-370.
[15]	龚少英, 段婷, 王福兴, 周宗奎, 卢春晓. 装饰图片影响多媒体学习的眼动研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(4): 403-410.