Optimizing learning from animation: Examining the impact of biofeedback

Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate whether EEG biofeedback would help engage learners in obtaining procedural knowledge from animated or static visualizations. Two specific forms of this feedback were investigated. The first was active feedback that required learners to interact with the feedback using hand gestures. The second was constructive feedback that instructed learners to verbally reflect on their learning processes by utilizing the feedback. A total of 116 college students were randomly assigned to one of six experimental conditions formed by a 2 X 3 factorial design with the visualization type (animated vs. static) as one factor and the feedback type as the other factor (constructive vs. active vs. no feedback). The results revealed that learners who received no feedback had significantly higher perceived attentiveness and value than their peers who received constructive feedback. Additionally, when constructive feedback was provided, learning procedural knowledge from animated visualizations reduced perceived difficulty in learners when compared to static visualizations. These findings were discussed in terms of the implications, limitations, and future research directions.

[1]  F. Paas,et al.  An Evolutionary Upgrade of Cognitive Load Theory: Using the Human Motor System and Collaboration to Support the Learning of Complex Cognitive Tasks , 2012 .

[2]  Selen Turkay,et al.  The effects of whiteboard animations on retention and subjective experiences when learning advanced physics topics , 2016 .

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

[4]  B. Tversky,et al.  Effect of computer animation on users' performance : A review , 2000 .

[5]  J. Hattie,et al.  The Power of Feedback , 2007 .

[6]  Takashi Yamauchi,et al.  Learning from human tutoring , 2001, Cogn. Sci..

[7]  Sandra Berney,et al.  Does animation enhance learning? A meta-analysis , 2016, Comput. Educ..

[8]  Fred Paas,et al.  Comparing apples and oranges? A critical look at research on learning from statics versus animations , 2016, Comput. Educ..

[9]  M. Chi,et al.  The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes , 2014 .

[10]  Brian C. Nelson,et al.  Effects of visual cues and self-explanation prompts: empirical evidence in a multimedia environment , 2016, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[11]  Richard Lowe,et al.  A Composition Approach to Design of Educational Animations , 2017 .

[12]  J. Sweller,et al.  Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e-learning , 2012 .

[13]  Joachim Wirth,et al.  The role of process information in narrations while learning with animations and static pictures , 2017, Comput. Educ..

[14]  Jennifer J. Vogel-Walcutt,et al.  Applying the modality principle to real-time feedback and the acquisition of higher-order cognitive skills , 2012 .

[15]  S. Holm.  A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure , 1979 .

[16]  Sharon K Tindall-Ford,et al.  Giving Learning a Helping Hand: Finger Tracing of Temperature Graphs on an iPad , 2015, Educational Psychology Review.

[17]  R. Ryan,et al.  Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. , 1982 .

[18]  Anastasios A. Economides,et al.  The effect of emotional feedback on behavioral intention to use computer based assessment , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[19]  Vicki Blum Cohen,et al.  A Reexamination of Feedback in Computer-Based Instruction: Implications for Instructional Design. , 1985 .

[20]  Fred Paas,et al.  Animations showing Lego manipulative tasks: Three potential moderators of effectiveness , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[21]  John Sweller,et al.  The Mirror Neuron System and Observational Learning: Implications for the Effectiveness of Dynamic Visualizations , 2009 .

[22]  M. Hegarty.  Mental animation: inferring motion from static displays of mechanical systems. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[23]  Jerry Chih-Yuan Sun,et al.  Influence of polling technologies on student engagement: An analysis of student motivation, academic performance, and brainwave data , 2014, Comput. Educ..

[24]  F. Paas,et al.  Uncovering the problem-solving process: cued retrospective reporting versus concurrent and retrospective reporting. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[25]  Patrick Onghena,et al.  A New Study on Educational Effectiveness in Secondary Schools in Flanders: An Introduction , 2002 .

[26]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory , 2003 .

[27]  R. Moreno.  Decreasing Cognitive Load for Novice Students: Effects of Explanatory versus Corrective Feedback in Discovery-Based Multimedia , 2004 .

[28]  Robert K. Atkinson,et al.  Animated agents and learning: Does the type of verbal feedback they provide matter? , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[29]  Björn B. de Koning,et al.  Facilitating Understanding of Movements in Dynamic Visualizations: an Embodied Perspective , 2011 .

[30]  Terry E. Duncan,et al.  Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis. , 1989, Research quarterly for exercise and sport.

[31]  A. Kluger,et al.  The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. , 1996 .

[32]  Gregory Schraw,et al.  Conceptions of Efficiency: Applications in Learning and Problem Solving , 2010 .

[33]  Björn B. de Koning,et al.  Gestures in Instructional Animations: A Helping Hand to Understanding Non-human Movements? , 2013 .

[34]  Fred Paas,et al.  Learning from observing hands in static and animated versions of non-manipulative tasks , 2014 .

[35]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  The Effect of Learner-Generated Drawing and Imagination in Comprehending a Science Text , 2017 .

[36]  Wolfgang Schnotz,et al.  Learning from Static and Dynamic Visualizations: What Kind of Questions Should We Ask? , 2017 .

[37]  Toni M. Kempler,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences: Motivation and Cognitive Engagement in Learning Environments , 2005 .

[38]  Ryan S. Baker,et al.  The State of Educational Data Mining in 2009: A Review and Future Visions. , 2009, EDM 2009.

[39]  Chih-Ming Chen,et al.  Web-based reading annotation system with an attention-based self-regulated learning mechanism for promoting reading performance , 2014, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[40]  Jerry Chih-Yuan Sun,et al.  The effects of attention monitoring with EEG biofeedback on university students' attention and self-efficacy: The case of anti-phishing instructional materials , 2017, Comput. Educ..

[41]  D. Leutner,et al.  Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis , 2007 .

[42]  Jennifer A. Fredricks,et al.  School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence , 2004 .

[43]  Marvin L. Schroth,et al.  The effects of delay of feedback on a delayed concept formation transfer task , 1992 .