Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 136–171 | Cite as

Analysis of instructional support elements for an online, educational simulation on active listening for women graduate students in science and engineering

  • Bianca L. Bernstein
  • Jennifer M. Bekki
  • Kerrie G. Wilkins
  • Caroline J. Harrison
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Strong interpersonal communication skills (ICS) are critical for educational and career success, but effective and widely accessible training systems are not available. This paper describes a 2 × 2 × 2 experimental study of an online, educational simulation for practice with the ICS of active listening. The simulation was customized for women graduate students in the natural sciences and engineering. In such environments, where gender stereotyping is common, ICS can make the difference between continued progress and discouraging setbacks. The pedagogical effects of following three instructional support variables were investigated: (1) elaborative versus simple feedback (2) presence versus absence of a static image to accompany the content delivered aurally by a human pedagogical agent, and (3) presence versus absence of instructional hints. The four outcome measures were self-reported knowledge about, skill in applying, and self-efficacy with respect to active listening, along with the usability of the simulation itself. Participants in the study included N = 137 women in the natural sciences and engineering. Results showed that the instructional support variables were significantly related to the outcome measures of knowledge, skills, and usability, but not self-efficacy with respect to active listening. A three-way interaction among all three of the instructional support variables was found to be statistically significant for both the knowledge and skills outcome variables; for both, the highest scores were obtained by participants who were presented with elaborative feedback and neither pedagogical agent image nor hints. Also, participants who received elaborative feedback reported the simulation to have significantly greater usability than those who received simple feedback.

Keywords

Online educational simulation Graduate women in STEM Interpersonal communication skills Active listening Elaborative feedback Hints 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work reported here was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Grant 0910384. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions and recommendations expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Robert Atkinson in conceptualizing this study.

References

  1. Adams, W. K., Reid, S., Lemaster, R., McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., Dubson, M., & Wieman, C. E. (2008). A study of educational simulations Part 1: Engagement and learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(3), 397–419.Google Scholar
  2. American Board of Medical Specialties. (2014). Standards for the ABMS program for maintenance of certification (MOC). Accessed 4 May 2015. http://www.abms.org/media/1109/standards-for-the-abms-program-for-moc-final.pdf.
  3. 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, 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135–146). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azevedo, R., & Bernard, R. M. (1995). A meta-analysis of the effects of feedback in computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(2), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61, 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bateman, J., & Davies, D. (2011). Virtual patients: Are we in a new era? Academic Medicine, 86(2), 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, S. (2009). Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: When less is more. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 450–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baylor, A. L., & Ryu, J. (2003). The effects of image and animation in enhancing pedagogical agent persona. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(4), 373–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berkhof, M., Van Rijssen, H. J., Schellart, A. J., Anema, J. R., & Van der Beek, A. J. (2011). Effective training strategies for teaching communication skills to physicians: An overview of systematic reviews. Patient Education and Counseling, 84(2), 152–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bernstein, B. L., & Russo, N. F. (2008). Explaining too few women in academic science and engineering careers: A psychosocial perspective. In M. Paludi (Ed.), Series on the psychology of women at work: Challenges and solutions for our female workforce. Vol 2: Obstacles and the identity juggle (pp. 1–33). Westport, CN: Praeger Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Feuerlein, I., & Spada, H. (2004). The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualisations. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Borrego, M., & Newswander, L. K. (2010). Definitions of interdisciplinary research: Toward graduate-level interdisciplinary learning outcomes. The Review of Higher Education, 34(1), 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  17. Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & I. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  18. Bultas, M. W. (2011). Enhancing the pediatric undergraduate nursing curriculum through simulation. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 26(3), 224–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Butow, P., Cockburn, J., Girgis, A., Bowman, D., Schofield, P., D’Este, C., & Tattersall, M. H. (2008). Increasing oncologists’ skills in eliciting and responding to emotional cues: Evaluation of a communication skills training program. Psycho-Oncology, 17(3), 209–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1987). Linking dynamic testing with school achievement. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), dynamic testing (pp. 82–115). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  21. Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (1997). Video-based versus paper-and-pencil method of assessment in situational judgment tests: Subgroup differences in performance and face validity perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chen, L. H. (2010). Web-based learning programs: Use by learners with various cognitive styles. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1028–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Clark, R. E., & Feldon, D. F. (2005). Five common but questionable principles of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 97–115). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cook, D. A., Erwin, P. J., & Triola, M. M. (2010). Computerized virtual patients in health professions education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Academic Medicine, 85, 1589–1602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cook, D. A., & Triola, M. M. (2009). Virtual patients: A critical literature review and proposed next steps. Medical Education, 43, 303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. deJong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38, 105–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Devito, J. A. (2007). The interpersonal communication book (11th ed.). New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  29. Feinstein, A. H., & Cannon, H. M. (2002). Constructs of simulation evaluation. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 425–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ford, N., & Chen, S. Y. (2001). Matching/mismatching revisited: an empirical study of learning and teaching styles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Frechette, C., & Moreno, R. (2010). The roles of animated pedagogical agents’ presence and nonverbal communication in multimedia learning environments. Media Psychology, 22(2), 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gordon, T. (1975). P.E.T: Parent effectiveness training. New York: New American Library.Google Scholar
  33. Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2014). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  34. Guadagno, R. E., Blascovich, J., Bailenson, J. N., & Mccall, C. (2007). Virtual humans and persuasion: The effects of agency and behavioral realism. Media Psychology, 10(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  35. Gunter, R., & Stambach, A. (2005). Differences in men and women scientists’ perceptions of workplace climate. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 11(1), 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hargie, O. (2011). Skilled interpersonal communication: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Hargie, O., Boohan, M., McCoy, M., & Murphy, P. (2010). Current trends in communication skills training in UK schools of medicine. Medical Teacher, 32, 385–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hartman, H. (2002). Scaffolding and cooperative learning. Human learning and instruction (pp. 23–69). New York: City College, University of New York.Google Scholar
  39. Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 249–271). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review, 6, 27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., Oliver, R., & Woo, Y. (2004). Designing authentic activities in web-based courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(1), 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hill, C. (2009). Helping skills: Facilitating exploration, insight and action (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  44. Issenberg, S. B., McGaghie, W. C., Petrusa, E. R., Lee Gordon, D., & Scalese, R. J. (2005). Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: A BEME systematic review. Medical Teacher, 27(1), 10–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jaehnig, W., & Miller, M. L. (2007). Feedback type s in programmed instruction: A systematic review. The Psychological Record, 57(2), 219–232.Google Scholar
  46. Johnson, C. I., & Priest, H. A. (2014). The feedback principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 449–463). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kennedy, G. E. (2004). Promoting cognition in multimedia interactivity research. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15(1), 43–61.Google Scholar
  50. Knapp, M., & Hall, J. (2009). Nonverbal communication in human interaction (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  51. Kraiger, K., Ford, J., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: The affective domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
  53. Kuk, K., Milentijević, I., Rančić, D., & Spalević, P. (2012). Pedagogical agent in multimedia interactive modules for learning–MIMLE. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(9), 8051–8058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kulhavy, R. W., White, M. T., Topp, B. W., Chan, A. L., & Adams, J. (1985). Feedback complexity and corrective efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10(3), 285–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lappalainen, P. (2009). Communication as part of the engineering skills set. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(2), 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Levinson, W., Lesser, C. S., & Epstein, R. M. (2010). Developing physician communication skills for patient-centered care. Health Affairs, 29(7), 1310–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Levitt, D. H. (2001). Active listening and counselor self-efficacy: Emphasis on one micro-skill in beginning counselor training. The Clinical Supervisor, 20(2), 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lin, L., Atkinson, R. K., Christopherson, R. M., Joseph, S. S., & Harrison, C. J. (2013). Animated agents and learning: Does the type of verbal feedback they provide matter? Computers & Education, 67, 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Louwerse, M. M., Graesser, A. C., Lu, S., & Mitchell, H. H. (2005). Social cues in animated conversational agents. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 693–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mason, B. J., & Bruning, R. (2001). Providing feedback in computer-based instruction: What the research tells us. University of Nebraska–Lincoln: Center for Instructional Innovation. Retrieved from http://dwb.unl.edu/Edit/MB/MasonBruning.html.
  61. Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pretraining, and modality principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 169–182). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mayer, R. E. (2014). Principles based on social cues in multimedia learning: Personalization, voice, image, and embodiment principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 345–368). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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.Google Scholar
  67. Mayer, R. E., Dow, G. T., & Mayer, S. (2003a). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 806–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mayer, R. E., Fennell, S., Farmer, L., & Campbell, J. (2004). A personalization effect in multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 279–315). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P. (2003b). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker’s voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 419–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. McGaghie, W. C. (1999). Simulation in professional competence assessment: Basic considerations. In A. Tekian, C. H. McGuire, & W. C. McGaghie (Eds.), Innovative simulations for assessing professional competence (pp. 7–22). Chicago: Department of Medical Education, University of Illinois at Chicago.Google Scholar
  73. Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32(1–2), 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Moreno, R., & Durán, R. (2004). Do multiple representations need explanations? The role of verbal guidance and individual differences in multimedia mathematics learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Multimedia-supported metaphors for meaning making in mathematics. Cognition and instruction, 17(3), 215–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (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), 177–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 640–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Narciss, S., & Huth, K. (2004). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multimedia learning. In H. M. Niegemann, D. Leutner, & R. Brunken (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning (pp. 181–195). Munster, NY: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  81. National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  82. National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2012). Job Outlook 2013. Bethlehem, PA: NACE. Downloaded 12 Aug 2013. http://www.unco.edu/careers/assets/documents/NACEJobOutlookNov2013.pdf.
  83. National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  84. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Darabi, A. (2005). A motivational perspective on the relation between mental effort and performance: Optimizing learner involvement in instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Passow, J. H. (2012). Which ABET competencies do engineering graduates find most important in their work. Journal of Engineering Education, 101, 95–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Perkins, K., Adams, W., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., Reid, S., Wieman, C., & LeMaster, R. (2006). PhET: Interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The Physics Teacher, 44, 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Phillips, B. (1999). Reformulating dispute narratives through active listening. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 17, 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Plass, J., Homer, B. D., & Hayward, E. O. (2009). Design factors for educationally effective animations and simulations. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21, 31–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Pridemore, D. R., & Klein, J. D. (1995). Control of practice and level of feedback in computer-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 444–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Pulakos, E. D., & Schmitt, N. (1996). An evaluation of two strategies for reducing adverse impact and their effects on criterion-related validity. Human Performance, 9, 241–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Stanford, CA: CLSI Publications.Google Scholar
  93. Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  95. Ronen, M., & Eliahu, M. (2000). Simulation—A bridge between theory and reality: The case of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 16(1), 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Rosenberg-Kima, R. B., Baylor, A. L., Plant, E. A., & Doerr, C. E. (2008). Interface agents as social models for female students: The effects of agent visual presence and appearance on female students’ attitudes and beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2741–2756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (1994). Artificial intelligence. Egnlewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  98. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Usability of the ALS, 18(2), 119–144.Google Scholar
  99. Schmitt, N., & Chan, D. (1998). Personnel selection: A theoretical approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  100. Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Shute, V. J., Hansen, E. G., & Almond, R. G. (2007). An assessment for learning system called ACED: Designing for learning effectiveness and accessibility. In ETS Research Report No. RR-07-26, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  103. Smith, S., Hanson, J. L., Tewksbury, L. R., Christy, C., Talib, N. J., Harris, M. A., et al. (2007). Teaching patient communication skills to medical students: A review of randomized controlled trials. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 30(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Strobel, J., Wang, J., Weber, N. R., & Dyehouse, M. (2013). The role of authenticity in design-based learning environments: The case of engineering education. Computers & Education, 64, 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Melbourne: ACER Press.Google Scholar
  106. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review: General, 10, 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Trenholm, S., & Jensen, A. (2004). Interpersonal communication. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  108. Tullis, T., & Albert, B. (2008). Measuring the user experience: collecting, analyzing, and presenting usability metrics. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  109. Van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C., & Eggen, T. J. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes. A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,. doi: 10.3102/0034654314564881.Google Scholar
  110. Van der Kleij, F. M., Timmers, C. F., & Eggen, T. J. (2011). The effectiveness of methods for providing written feedback through a computer-based assessment for learning: A systematic review. CADMO, 19(1), 21–39.Google Scholar
  111. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. VanLehn, K., Lynch, C., Schulze, K., Shapiro, J. A., Shelby, R., Taylor, L., & Wintersgill, M. (2005). The Andes physics tutoring system: Lessons learned. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(3), 147–204.Google Scholar
  113. Weger, H, Jr, Bell, G. R. C., & Emmett, M. C. (2010). Active listening in peer-interviews: The influence of message paraphrasing on perceptions of listening skill. International Journal of Listening, 24, 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Weger, H, Jr, Bell, G. R. C., Minei, M. E., & Robinson, M. C. (2015). The relative effectiveness of active listening in initial interactions. International Journal of Listening, 28, 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., & Perkins, K. K. (2008). PhET: Simulations that enhance learning. Science, 322, 682–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Wilkins, K., Bernstein, B. L., Bekki, J. M., Harrison., C. J., & Atkinson, R. K. (2012) Development of the science technology engineering and mathematics—active listening skills assessment (STEM-ALSA). In Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, pp. 1218–1223.Google Scholar
  117. Wouters, P., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. (2008). How to optimize learning from animated models: A review of guidelines based on cognitive load. Review of Educational Research, 78, 645–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bianca L. Bernstein
    • 1
  • Jennifer M. Bekki
    • 2
  • Kerrie G. Wilkins
    • 1
  • Caroline J. Harrison
    • 3
  1. 1.Counseling and Counseling PsychologyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.The Polytechnic School, Ira A. Fulton Schools of EngineeringArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  3. 3.School of SustainabilityArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options