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

doi:10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2016.04.09

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 以往研究发现，动画教学代理对多媒体学习效果的影响不一致，可能受到学习者特征和偏好的调节。本研究以“空调的组成部分及工作原理”为实验材料，采用两个实验控制教学代理有无、经验高低和代理偏好，探讨动画教学代理对多媒体学习的影响。实验1发现与无代理组相比，代理组对教学视频的注视点个数更多，平均眼跳潜伏期更短，学习兴趣也更高；低经验者在代理条件下的迁移成绩更好。实验2发现学习者在偏好代理和非偏好代理条件下的迁移成绩好于无代理组；偏好代理组感知到更低的认知负荷，对总体视频的注视点个数和注视频率更多，平均眼跳潜伏期更短，对学习内容的注视点个数更多。结论认为：在多媒体中加入教学代理不会减少学习者对学习内容的注意，能提高多媒体学习效果，支持社会代理理论假设；教学代理能提高低经验者的学习效果，但对高知识经验者无明显作用；加入学习者偏好的代理形象会促进学习，但加入学习者非偏好的代理形象并没有阻碍学习。

关键词: 动画教学代理, 经验, 人物偏好, 多媒体学习, 眼动

Abstract: Previous studies showed that the effect of Animated Pedagogical Agent (APA) in multimedia learning was debatable. In this study, animations related to the components and working principle of air conditioning were used as multimedia learning materials, and SMI RED 250 Eye tracker was used to record eye movement data. In experiment 1, A 2(Agent: APA vs. non- APA) × 2(Prior knowledge: high vs. low) between-subjects design was employed to investigate whether APA can improve learning and the effect of prior knowledge. In experiment 2, a single factor (preference APA, non-preference APA,non-APA) design was employed to investigate the influence of learners' preference for agent. Results of experiment 1 found that compared with no APA, learners in the APA condition had much more fixation count, shorter saccade latency average for animation, and also had higher learning interest. Learners with low prior knowledge in the APA condition outperformed non-APA on transfer tests, but not for learners with high prior knowledge. Results of experiment 2 found that learners in the preference group and non- preference group performed better on transfer tests than non-APA group. Learners in the preference group perceived lower cognitive load, and had more fixation count for air-condition. In conclusion, APA can promote multimedia learning performance for learners with low prior knowledge, but not for high prior knowledge. APA can facilitate learning when learners preferred the APA image, and can improve the learning performance without reducing the attention to the core learning material. So it supported the Social Agency Theory.

Key words: animated pedagogical agent, prior knowledge, agent preference, multimedia learning, eye movements

中图分类号:

G442

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.

LI Wenjing, TONG Yu, WANG Fuxing, KANG Sujie, LIU Huashan, YANG Chao. Effect of Animation Pedagogical Agent in Multimedia Learning: The Role of Learner's Experience and Agent Preference[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2016, 32(4): 453-462.

参考文献

Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416-427.

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.

Bailenson, J. N., Swinth, K., & Hoyt, C. (2005). The independent and interactive effects of embodied agent appearance and behavior on self-report, cognitive, and behavioral markers of copresence in immersive virtual environments. Presence : Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 14(4), 379-393.

Baylor, A. L., & Kim, S. (2009). Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: When less is more. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 450-457.

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.

Clark, R. E., & Choi, S. (2005). Five design principles for expertiments on the effects of animated pedagogical agents. Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 209-225.

Colak, U., & Ozan, O. (2012). The effect of animaten agents on student's achievement and attitudes. Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 96-111.

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.

De Koning, B. B., & Tabbers, H. K. (2013). Gestures in instructional animations: A helping hand to understanding non-human movements? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(5), 683-689.

Dirkin, K. H., Mishra, P., & Altermatt, E. (2005). All or nothing: Levels of sociability of a pedagogical software agent and its impact on student perceptions and learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(2), 113-127.

Domagk, S. (2010). Do pedagogical agents facilitate learner motivation and learning outcomes? Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 22(2), 84-97.

Dunsworth, Q., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of an animated agent's image. Computers & Education, 49(3), 677-690.

Frechette, C., & Moreno, R. (2010). The roles of animated pedagogical agents' presence and nonverbal communication in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 22(2), 61-72.

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.

Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review, 6(1), 27-54.

Holmes, J. (2007). Designing agents to support learning by explaining. Computers & Education, 48(4), 523-547.

Homer, B. D., & Plass, J. L. (2010). Expertise reversal for iconic representations in science visualizations. Instructional Science, 38(3), 259-276.

Hyönä, J. (2010). The use of eye movements in the study of multimedia learning. Learning & Instruction, 20(2), 172-176.

Johnson, A. M., DiDonato, M. D., & Reisslein, M. (2013). Animated agents in K-12 engineering outreach: Preferred agent characteristics across age levels. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1807-1815.

Johnson, W., L., Rickel, J. W., & Lester, J. C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11(1), 47-78.

Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 509-539.

Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23-31.

Kim, Y., & Wei, Q. (2011). The impact of learner attributes and learner choice in an agent-based environment. Computers & Education, 56(2), 505-514.

Lee, H., Plass, J. L., & Homer, B. D. (2006). Optimizing cognitive load for learning from computer-based science simulations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 902-913.

Louwerse, M. M., Graesser, A. C., Mcnamara, D. S., & Lu, S. (2009). Embodied conversational agents as conversational partners. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1244-1255.

Lusk, M. M., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Animated pedagogical agents: Does their degree of embodiment impact learning from static or animated worked examples? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 747-764.

Mayer, R. E. (2010). Unique contributions of eye-tracking research to the study of learning with graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 167-171.

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.

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), 419-425.

Moreno, R. (2005). Multimedia learning with animated pedagogical agents. In R. E. Mayer(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook on multimedia learning(pp. 507-524). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Moreno, R., & Flowerday, T. (2006). Students' choice of animated pedagogical agents in science learning: A test of the similarity-attraction hypothesis on gender and ethnicity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(2), 186-207.

Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., & Spires, H. A. (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), 117-213.

Ozogul, G., Johnson, A. M., Atkinson, R. K., & Reisslein, M. (2013). Investigating the impact of pedagogical agent gender matching and learner choice on learning outcomes and perceptions. Computers & Education, 67, 36-50.

Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422.

Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457-1506.

Reisslein, J., Atkinson, R. K., Seeling, P., & Reisslein, M. (2006). Encountering the expertise reversal effect with a computer-based environment on electrical circuit analysis. Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 92-103.

Scheiter, K., & van Gog, T. (2009). Using eye tracking in applied research to study and stimulate the processing of information from multi-representational sources. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1209-1214.

Schilbach, L., Wohlschlaeger, A. M., Kraemer, N. C., Newen, A., Shah, N. J., Fink, G. R., & Vogeley, K. (2006). Being with virtual others: Neural correlates of social interaction. Neuropsychologia, 44(5), 718-730.

van der Meij, H., van der Meij, J., & Harmsen, R. (2012). Animated pedagogical agents: Do they advance student motivation and learning in an inquiry learning environment? Internal report, Center for Telematics and Information Technology (CTIT), University of Twente.

van Gog, T., & Scheiter, K. (2010). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 95-99.

Woo, H. L. (2009). Designing multimedia learning environments using animated pedagogical agents: Factors and issues. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(3), 203-218.

王福兴, 段朝辉, 周宗奎. (2013). 线索在多媒体学习中的作用. 心理科学进展, 21(8), 1430-1440.

王福兴, 段朝辉, 周宗奎, 陈珺. (2015). 邻近效应对多媒体学习中图文整合的影响: 线索的作用. 心理学报, 47(2), 224-233.

谢和平, 王福兴, 周宗奎, 吴鹏. (2016). 多媒体学习中线索效应的元分析. 心理学报, 48(5), 540-555.

杨永胜,丁锦红. (2008). 系列眼跳的产生及其心理学意义. 心理科学进展, 16(2), 240-249.

闫国利, 熊建萍, 臧传丽, 余莉莉, 崔磊, 白学军. (2013). 阅读研究中的主要眼动指标评述. 心理科学进展, 4 (4), 589-605.

郑俊,赵欢欢,颜志强,王福兴,马征,张红萍. (2012). 多媒体视频学习中的教师角色. 心理研究, 5(5), 85-90.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

[1]	王敬欣, 赵赛男, 徐倩倩. 字间空格与词频对青年人和老年人阅读的影响:眼动研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(6): 781-787.
[2]	高子惠, 焦雨, 王曦, 刘肖岑. 电子绘本文字的动静态呈现方式对幼儿阅读体验和学习效果的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(6): 817-824.
[3]	李继娜, 王玮玮, 张维军, 屈智勇. 累积创伤对儿童复杂性创伤后应激障碍的影响：经验回避与消极认知情绪调节策略的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(5): 683-691.
[4]	苏金龙, 苏彦捷. 早期亲子触觉经验促进个体社会性发展的心理机制[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(5): 739-748.
[5]	葛国宏. 成人依恋与心理理论的关系:认知融合与经验性回避的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(2): 223-235.
[6]	于晓, 张涵, 陈英和, 戚玥, 刘爱芳, 刘丽丽. 类比推理的眼动研究:揭示个体类比推理策略发展的有效手段[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(6): 897-903.
[7]	窦芬, 李巧灵, 王书豪. 自我分化与大学生经验回避:羞怯的中介作用及其性别差异[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(4): 517-524.
[8]	施芳婷, 郑晨烨, 颜秀琳, 陆露, 王静梅, 邸波, 卢英俊. 5~6岁幼儿对不同文化背景卡通面孔再认的眼动研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(3): 323-334.
[9]	马安然, 王燕青, 王福兴, 周治金. 教学微视频的播放速度对学习效果的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(3): 391-399.
[10]	辛聪, 张曼曼, 郭盈秀, 郭云飞, 陈幼贞. 前瞻记忆意向后效应的加工机制:来自眼动的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(2): 138-145.
[11]	刘志方, 仝文, 张骏. 中文阅读中词汇加工的年老化:眼动证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(6): 665-677.
[12]	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.
[13]	王薇, 徐知宇, 李永鑫, 程奕芸. 情绪主题绘本阅读对自闭症谱系障碍儿童情绪理解障碍的干预效果[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(5): 566-572.
[14]	贾彦茹, 张守臣, 金童林, 张璐, 赵思琦, 李琦. 依恋焦虑对大学生囤积行为的影响:无法忍受不确定性与经验性回避的序列中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(4): 393-400.
[15]	张骏, 仝文, 刘志方. 不同词长中文句子阅读知觉广度的年老化:眼动证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(3): 312-319.