Evaluating Two Modes of Observational Learning in Cognitive-Spatial Task Training

  • Nirit Gavish
  • Michal Shelef
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8019)


The focus of the current study was to evaluate the effect of two modes of observational learning, dyad trainer-trainee performance and preliminary observational learning part, on training, as well as the interaction between them. We conducted an experimental study with a 3-D computerized puzzle. Each trainer offered four trainees instruction in solving this puzzle in a 2X2 between-participants design: with or without preliminary observational learning, and with dyad trainer-trainee performance or with verbal guidance only during training (16 trainees in each group). Results demonstrated that the preliminary observational learning resulted in longer training time but better performance in terms of success rates, and that dyad trainer-trainee performance led to shorter training time and did not influence performance. No significant interaction between the two modes was found. The cost-effectiveness matrix that was found in this study can assist in designing guidelines for choosing the appropriate observational learning methods in training.


Observational learning Training Dyad performance Cognitive tasks 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bandura, A., Jeffery, R.W.: Role of Symbolic Coding and Rehearsal Processes in Observational Learning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 26, 122–130 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wouters, P., Tabbers, H.K., Pass, F.: Interactivity in Video-based Models. Educational Psychology Review 19, 327–342 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wulf, G., Shea, C.H.: Principles Derived from the Study of Simple Skills Do Not Generalize to Complex Skill Learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9, 185–211 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bandura, A.: Social Foundation oF Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1986)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carroll, W.R., Bandura, A.: Representational guidance of action production in observational guidance of action production in observational learning: A causal analysis. Journal of Motor Behavior 22, 85–97 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Herrnstein, R.J., Loewenstein, G.F., Prelec, D., Vaughan Jr., W.: Utility maximization and melioration: Internalities in individual choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 6, 149–185 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herrnstein, R.J., Prelec, D.: Melioration: A theory of distributed choice. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5, 137–156 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shebilske, W.L., Regian, J.W., Arthur, W., Jordan, J.A.: A dyadic protocol for training complex skills. Human Factors 34, 369–374 (1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mane, A., Donchin, E.: The Space Fortress game. Acta Psychologica 71, 17–22 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arthur, W., Strong, M.H., Jordan, J.A., Williamson, J.E., Shebilske, W.L., Regain, J.W.: Visual attention: Individual differences in training and predicting complex task performance. Acta Psychologica 88, 3–23 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arthur, W., Day, E.A., Bennett, W., McNelly, T.L., Jordan, J.A.: Dyadic versus individual training protocols: Loss and reacquisition of a complex skill. Journal of Applied Psychology 82, 783–791 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arthur, W., Young, B., Jordan, J.A., Shebilske, W.L.: Effectiveness of individual and dyadic training protocols: The influence of trainee interaction anxiety. Human Factors 38, 79–86 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Day, E.A., Arthur, W., Shebilske, W.L.: Ability determinants of complex skill acquisition: Effects of training protocol. Acta Psychologica 97, 145–165 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sanchez-Ku, M.L., Arthur, W.: A dyadic protocol for training complex skills. Human Factors 42, 512–520 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shebilske, W.L., Jordan, J.A., Goettl, B.P., Paulus, L.E.: Observation versus hands-on practice of complex skills in dyadic, triadic, and tetradic training-teams. Human Factors 40, 525–540 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yechiam, E., Erev, I., Parush, A.: Easy first steps and their implication to the use of a mouse-based and a script-based strategy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 10, 89–96 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yuviler-Gavish, N., Yechiam, E., Kallai, A.: Learning in multimodal training: Visual guidance can be both appealing and disadvantageous in spatial tasks. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 69, 113–122 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nirit Gavish
    • 1
  • Michal Shelef
    • 2
  1. 1.Ort Braude CollegeKarmielIsrael
  2. 2.Technion – Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations