Features of Computerized Multimedia Environments that Support Vicarious Learning Processes

Chapter

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to identify specific features of computer-based multimedia environments that support vicarious learning. As used here vicarious learning occurs in contexts, such as distance learning and some classroom settings, in which learners have no opportunities to physically interact in any way with the source of the content they are attempting to master. We primarily focus on research that identified features of multimedia environments that support vicarious comprehension/learning processes and how these features have been (or may be) readily implemented. Research findings from laboratory-style research in these environments are quite promising. For example, providing multiple perspectives on new information and using a personalized presentation style improve comprehension, but these findings have not been widely implemented in web-based environments or in classroom applications. Similarly, introducing new course content in the context of vicarious deep questions enhances learning, as does providing explanations that state something beyond the information given. We also explore selected research in which learners engaged in supplemental overt activities designed to support learning gains in otherwise vicarious environments. The intent in this latter section is to suggest how vicarious analogs of these overt activities may be readily implemented.

Keywords

Dioxide Depression Coherence Hull Posit 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant # R305H0R0169 to The University of Memphis. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

References

  1. Ainsworth, S., & Burcham, S. (2007). The impact of text coherence on learning by self-explanation. Learning and Instruction, 17, 286–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, A. (1995). Negotiating coherence in dialogue. In M. A. Gernsbacher & T. Givon (Eds.), Coherence in spontaneous text (pp. 1–40). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, A. H., Clark, A., & Mullin, J. (1994). Interactive skills in children. Journal of Child Language, 21, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldwin, J. M. (1906). Mental development in the child and the race (3rd rev. ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (1962). Social learning through imitation. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium of motivation (pp. 211–269). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. (1963). Vicarious reinforcement and initiative learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 601–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beck, L., McKeown, M. G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the author: A yearlong classroom implementation to engage students in text. Elementary School Journal, 96, 385–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1. Cognitive Domain. New York: McKay.Google Scholar
  12. Bloom, B. S. (1964). The 2-Sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Research, 13, 4–16.Google Scholar
  13. Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2-sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Research, 13, 4–16.Google Scholar
  14. Britton, B. K., & Gulgoz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch’s computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 329–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown, G., Anderson, A. H., Shillcock, R., & Yule, G. (1984). Teaching talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In Glaser, R. (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161–238). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chi, M. T. H., Roy, M., & Hausmann, R. G. M. (2008). Observing tutorial dialogues collaboratively: Insights about human tutoring effectiveness from vicarious learning. Cognitive Science, 32, 301–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S. A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chi, M. T. H., de Leew, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.Google Scholar
  23. Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237–248.Google Scholar
  24. Cox, R., McKendree, J., Tobin, R., Lee, J., & Mayes, T. (1999). Vicarious learning from dialogue and discourse. Instructional Science, 27, 431–458.Google Scholar
  25. Craig, S. D., Brittingham, J., Williams, J., Cheney, K. R., & Gholson, B. (2009). Incorporating vicarious learning environments with discourse scaffolds into physics classrooms. In V. Dimitrova, R. Mizoguchi, B. du Boulay, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education, Building learning systems that care: From Knowledge representation to affective modeling (680–682). Washington, DC: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  26. Craig, S. D., Chi, M. T. H., & VanLehn, K. (2009). Improving classroom learning by collaboratively observing human tutoring videos while problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology 101, 779–789.Google Scholar
  27. Craig, S. D., Driscoll, D., & Gholson, B. (2004). Constructing knowledge from dialogue in an intelligent tutoring system: Interactive learning, vicarious learning, and pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13, 163–183.Google Scholar
  28. Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 428–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., Ventura, M., Graesser, A. C., & The Tutoring Research Group. (2000). Overhearing dialogues and monologues in virtual tutoring sessions: Effects on questioning and vicarious learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 242–253.Google Scholar
  30. Craig, S. D., Sullins, J., Witherspoon, A., & Gholson, B. (2006). The deep-level- reasoning-question effect: The role of dialogue and deep-level reasoning questions during vicarious learning. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 565–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Davey, B., & McBride, S. (1986). Effects of question generating training on reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 256–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dillon, J. T. (1988). Questioning and teaching: A manual of practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  33. Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature on leaning comprehension, control, and style. Review of Educational Research, 68, 322–349.Google Scholar
  34. Driscoll, D., Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., Ventura, M., Hu, X., & Graesser, A. (2003). Vicarious learning: Effects of overhearing dialogue and monologue-like discourse in a virtual tutoring session. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29, 431–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Flavell, J. H. (1963). The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fox Tree, J. E. (1999). Listening in on monologues and dialogues. Discourse Processes, 27, 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fox Tree, J. E., & Mayer, S. A. (2008). Overhearing single and multiple perspectives. Discourse Processes, 45, 160–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gavelek, J., & Raphael, T. (1985). Metacognition, instruction, and the role of questioning activities. In D. Forrest-Pressley, G. MacKinnon, & T. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  39. Ge, X., Chen, C.-H., & Davis, K. K. (2005). Scaffolding novice instructional designers: Problem-solving processes using question prompts in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33, 219–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gholson, B., & Craig, S. D. (2006). Promoting constructive activities that support learning during computer-based instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 119–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gholson, B., Witherspoon, A., Morgan, B., Brittingham, J., Coles, R., Graesser, A. C., Sullins, J., & Craig, S. D. (2009). Exploring the deep-level reasoning questions effect during vicarious learning among eighth to eleventh graders in the domains of computer literacy and Newtonian physics. Instructional Science, 37, 487–493.Google Scholar
  43. Graesser, A. C., Baggett, W., & Williams, K. (1996). Question-driven explanatory reasoning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, S17–S32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Graesser, A. C., Lu, S., Jackson, G. T., Mitchell, H., Ventura, M., Olney, A., & Louwerse, M. M. (2004). AutoTutor: A tutor with dialogue in natural language behavior research methods. Instruments & Computers, 36, 180–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104–137.Google Scholar
  46. Graesser, A. C., Person, N., Harter, D., & The Tutoring Research Group (2001). Teaching tactics and dialog in auto tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 257–279.Google Scholar
  47. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  48. Hausmann, R. G. M., & Chi, M. T. H. (2002). Can a computer interface support self- explaining? Cognitive Technology, 7, 4–14.Google Scholar
  49. Hausmann, R. G. M., & VanLehn, K. (2007). Explaining self-explaining: A contrast between content and generation. Paper presented at the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Marina Del Rey, CA.Google Scholar
  50. Hull, C. L. (1920). Quantitative aspects of the evolution of concepts, an experimental study. Psychological Monographs, 28, (1, Whole No. 123).Google Scholar
  51. Humphrey, G. (1921). Imitation and the conditioned reflex. Pedagogical Seminary, 28, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. King, A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students’ comprehension of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 366–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effect of teaching children how to question and explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 338–368.Google Scholar
  55. King, A., Staffieri, A., & Adelgais, A. (1998). Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 134–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Kintsch, W., Welsch, D. M., Schmalhofer, F., & Zimny, S. (1990). Sentence memory: Aetical analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 133–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lepper, M. R. (1985). Microcomputers in education: Motivational and social issues. American Psychologist, 40, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lin, H., Kidwai, K., Munyofu, M., Swain, J., Ausman, B., & Dwyer, F. (2005). The effect of verbal advance organizers in complementing animated instruction. Journal of Visual Literacy, 25, 237–248.Google Scholar
  61. Lorch, R. F. Jr., & Lorch, E. P. (1995). Effects of organizational signals on text processing strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 537–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Map Task Corpus: http://www.hcrc.ed.ac.uk/maptask/ (accessed: October 12, 2008).
  63. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 390–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mayer, R.E., Fennell, S., Farmer, L., & Campbell, J. (2004). 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
  67. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. McDougall, W. (1926). An introduction to social psychology (Rev. ed.). Boston: John W. Luce.Google Scholar
  70. McKendree, J., Good, J., & Lee, J. (2001, June). Effects of dialogue characteristics on performance of overhearers. Presented at the International Conference on Communication, Problem-solving, and Learning. Strathclyde, Scotland.Google Scholar
  71. McKowen, M. G., Beck, I. L., Sanatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1992). The contribution of prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading research Quarterly, 27, 78–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high coherence and effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale, 55, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Butler Songer, N., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good tests always better? Interaction of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. McNamara, D. S., Levinstein, I. B., & Boonthum, C. (2004). iStart: Interactive strategy training for active reading and thinking. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 222–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. McNamara, D. S., & Shapiro, A. M. (2005). Multimedia and hypermedia solutions for promoting metacognitive engagement, coherence, and learning. Educational Computing Research, 33, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Miller, N. E., & Dollard, J. (1941). Social learning and imitation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Otero, J., & Kintsch, W. (1992). Failures to detect contradictions in text: What readers believe vs. what they read. Psychological Science, 3, 229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation. In O’Donnell, A. M. & King, A. (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179–196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  81. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence. Madison, CT: International University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Piaget, J. (1968). The mental development of the child. In D. Elkind (Ed.), Six psychological studies (pp. 3–73). New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  84. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 677–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to ask questions: A review of intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.Google Scholar
  87. Rosenthal, T. L., & Bandura, A. (1978). Psychological modeling: Theory and practice. In S. L. Garfield & A. E. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change: An empirical analysis. (2nd ed., pp. 621–658). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  88. Rosenthal, R. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1978). Social learning and cognition. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  89. Roy, M., & Chi, M. T. H. (2005). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 271–286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting problem-solving in computer-mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Scardamelia, M., Bereiter, C., Brett, C., Burtis, P. J., Calhoun, C., & Smith Lea, N. (1992). Educational applications of a networked communal database. Interactive Learning Environments, 2(1), 45–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Schnotz, W., Boeckheler, J., & Grozondziel, H. (1997). Individual and co-operative acquisition of knowledge with static and animated pictures in computer-based learning environments. Proceedings of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) (pp. 182–183). Gutenberg University Publications.Google Scholar
  93. Schober, M. F., & Clark, H. H. (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Smith, S., & Guthrie, E. R. (1921). General psychology in terms of behavior. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
  95. Stasko, J., Badre, A., & Lewis, C. (1993). Do algorithm animations assist learning? An empirical study and analysis. Proceedings of the INTERCHI ‘93 conference of human factors in computing systems (pp. 61–66). The Netherlands: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  96. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning, Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  99. Symons, C. S., & Johnson, B. T. (1997). The self-reliance effect in memory: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 371–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence: Experimental studies. New York: MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Van der Meij, H. (1988). Constraints on question asking in classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 401–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. VanLehn, K., Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., & Rose, C. P. (2007). Natural language tutoring: A comparison of human tutors, computer tutors and text. Cognitive Science, 31, 3–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Vidale-Abarca, E., Martinez, G., & Gilbert, R. (2000). Two procedures to improve instructional text: Effects on memory and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Watson, J. B. (1914). Behavior: An introduction to comparative psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Williams, M. D. (1996). Learner-control and instructional technologies. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 957–983). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyThe University of MemphisMemphisUSA

Personalised recommendations