Aids to computer-based multimedia learning: a comparison of human tutoring and computer support

Learners are usually provided with support devices because they find it difficult to learn from multimedia presentations. A key question, with no clear answer so far, is how best to present these support devices. One possibility is to insert them intothe multimedia presentation (canned support), while another is to have a human agent provide them (human tutoring). Human tutoring poses potential advantages: it uses spoken modality, displays non-verbal cues and implies social interaction. However, there is mixed evidence regarding these supposed advantages, and prior research comparing human and computer support presents problems. Our goal was to explore whether the advantages of human tutoring actually exist while avoiding the problems of prior research. In one experiment, participants learned Geology from a multimedia presentation including one of three forms of support: human tutoring, canned support or no support. After viewing the presentation, participants solved retention and transfer tests. Results revealed that participants in the human tutoring condition outperformed those in the other two conditions, who did not differ from each other. This means that human tutoring is advantageous, a fact that has implications in the design of support devices in multimedia learning.

[1]  R. Azevedo,et al.  The Role of Self-Regulated Learning in Fostering Students' Conceptual Understanding of Complex Systems with Hypermedia , 2004 .

[2]  R. Atkinson.  Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. , 2002 .

[3]  A. Renkl.  Worked-out examples: instructional explanations support learning by self- explanations , 2002 .

[4]  Kristen N. Moreno,et al.  AutoTutor Improves Deep Learning of Computer Literacy : Is it the Dialog or the Talking Head ? , 2004 .

[5]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design , 1998 .

[6]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[7]  Jeeheon Ryu,et al.  The Effects of Image and Animation in Enhancing Pedagogical Agent Persona , 2003 .

[8]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Failures to Detect Contradictions in a Text: What Readers Believe versus what they Read , 1992 .

[9]  Susan R. Goldman,et al.  Structural Aspects of Constructing Meaning From Text , 2000 .

[10]  Douglas J. Hacker,et al.  Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. , 1998 .

[11]  Roger Azevedo,et al.  Self-efficacy and prior domain knowledge: to what extent does monitoring mediate their relationship with hypermedia learning? , 2009 .

[12]  Roger Azevedo,et al.  Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? q , 2004 .

[13]  Douglas J. Hacker,et al.  Metacognition in educational theory and practice. , 1998 .

[14]  Douglas J. Stanwyck,et al.  Illusion of Knowing in Adult Readers: Effects of Reading Skill and Passage Length , 1997 .

[15]  Shaaron Ainsworth,et al.  Examining the Effects of Different Multiple Representational Systems in Learning Primary Mathematics , 2002 .

[16]  Wolfgang Schnotz,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: An Integrated Model of Text and Picture Comprehension , 2005 .

[17]  Hector Garcia-Rodicio,et al.  The use of modality in the design of verbal aids in computer-based learning environments , 2008, Interact. Comput..

[18]  Héctor García-Rodicio,et al.  Are instructional explanations more effective in the context of an impasse? , 2009 .

[19]  R. Mayer,et al.  Learning Science in Virtual Reality Multimedia Environments: Role of Methods and Media , 2002 .

[20]  Mirjamaija Mikkilä-Erdmann,et al.  Improving Conceptual Change Concerning Photosynthesis through Text Design. , 2001 .

[21]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning: The Promise of Multimedia Learning , 2001 .

[22]  James C. Lester,et al.  The Case for Social Agency in Computer-Based Teaching: Do Students Learn More Deeply When They Interact With Animated Pedagogical Agents? , 2001 .

[23]  D. McNamara.  SERT: Self-Explanation Reading Training , 2004 .

[24]  R. Mayer,et al.  Questioning as an instructional method: Does it affect learning from lectures? , 2009 .

[25]  Paul Ginns.  Meta-Analysis of the Modality Effect. , 2005 .

[26]  W. Schnotz.  Integrated Model of Text and Picture Comprehension , 2021, The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning.

[27]  P. Chandler,et al.  Assimilating complex information , 2002 .

[28]  Roland Brünken,et al.  Memory characteristics and modality in multimedia learning: An aptitude–treatment–interaction study , 2009 .

[29]  R. D. Walk,et al.  Perception of emotion from moving body cues in photographs , 1988 .

[30]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Teachers’ gestures facilitate students’ learning: A lesson in symmetry , 2003 .

[31]  R. F. Lorch,et al.  Effects of signaling topic structure on text recall , 1993 .

[32]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[33]  P. Ekman,et al.  DIFFERENCES Universals and Cultural Differences in the Judgments of Facial Expressions of Emotion , 2004 .

[34]  C. Kleinke,et al.  Evaluation of an interviewer as a function of interviewer gaze, reinforcement of subject gaze, and interviewer attractiveness. , 1975, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[35]  Alfred Bork,et al.  Multimedia in Learning , 2001 .

[36]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Can computer personalities be human personalities? , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[37]  J. Oakhill,et al.  Children's Reading Comprehension Ability: Concurrent Prediction by Working Memory, Verbal Ability, and Component Skills. , 2004 .

[38]  E. Sanchez,et al.  The relation of knowledge of textual integration devices to expository text comprehension under different assessment conditions , 2009 .