Refine your search
Collections
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Kaushal, Rajesh Kumar
- Proposing Effective Framework for Animation Based Learning Environment for Engineering Students
Abstract Views :248 |
PDF Views:97
Authors
Affiliations
1 Chitkara University Institute of Engineering & Technology, Chitkara University, Punjab, IN
1 Chitkara University Institute of Engineering & Technology, Chitkara University, Punjab, IN
Source
Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, Vol 33, No 3 (2020), Pagination: 48-61Abstract
Computer animations have been used since a long time to improve comprehension and the learning outcome but the outcomes of the past empirical studies were not uniform. Some studies statistically proved the effectiveness of computer animations but other studies failed to produce evidences in favour of computer animations. There is need of a standard framework that can suggest what should be there in an effective computer animation based learning environment. The present research is proposing a standard framework that suggests under which conditions computer animations are effective, which combination of scaffolding is effective in such environments, does design principles matter while making animations and which design principles are the most effective. A meta-analysis was conducted to find out the effective conditions. An empirical study was conducted to find out effective combination of scaffolding and another empirical study was conducted to find out the effective design principles. The study discovered that computer animations are effective when offered to high prior knowledge students. The study also found that indirect support and adaptive fading is the best combination of scaffolding. Segmentation, cueing/signaling, prediction prompts and modality are proved as the effective design principles.Keywords
Computer Animations, Effective Design Principles, Effective Scaffolding, Animation Based Effective Framework.Full Text
References
- Ali, A. Z. M., & Madar, A. R. (2010). Effects of segmentation of instructional animation in facilitating learning. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 2(2).
- Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Winters, F. I., Moos, D. C., & Greene, J. A. (2005). Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents' selfregulated learning with hypermedia . Instructional Science, 33(5-6), 381–412.
- Barzilai, S., & Blau, I. (2014). Scaffolding game-based learning: Impact on learning achievements, perceived learning, and game experiences. Computers & Education, 70, 65– 79.
- Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Olsen, M. W., & Leary, H. (2015). A pilot meta-analysis of computer-based scaffolding in STEM education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 183.
- Berney, S., & Bétrancourt, M. (2016). Does animation enhance learning? A meta-analysis.Computers & Education, 101, 150–167.
- Boucheix, J.-M., & Guignard, H. (2005). What animated illustrations conditions can improve technical document comprehension in young students? Format, signaling and control of the presentation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(4), 369–388.
- Boucheix, J.-M., & Schneider, E. (2009). Static and animated presentations in learning dynamic mechanical systems. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 112–127.
- Byrne, M. D., Catrambone, R., & Stasko, J. T. (1999). Evaluating animations as student aids in learning computer algorithms. Computers & Education, 33(4), 253–278.
- ChanLin, L. (2001). Formats and prior knowledge on learning in a computer-based lesson. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 409–419.
- Chanlin, L.-J. (1999). Visual treatment for different prior knowledge. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(2), 213.
- Cornoldi, C., & Vecchi, T. (2004). Visuospatial working memory and individual differences. Psychology Press.
- Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. M. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 428.
- De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2007). Attention cueing as a means to enhance learning from an animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 21(6), 731–746.
- De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2011). Improved effectiveness of cueing by self-explanations when learning from a complex animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(2), 183–194.
- de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher--student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296.
- Devolder, A., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2012). Supporting self-regulated learning in computer-based learning environments: systematic review of effects of scaffolding in the domain of science education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(6), 557–573.
- Fischer, S. (2008). Temporal Manipulations in Instructional Animation Design: Is Attention Guiding Thought? Logos Verlag.
- Fischer, S., Lowe, R. K., & Schwan, S. (2008). Effects of presentation speed of a dynamic visualization on the understanding of a mechanical system. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 22(8), 1126–1141.
- Fong, S. F. (2013). Effects of segmented animated graphics among students of different spatial ability levels: A cognitive load perspective. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2).
- Garg, A., Norman, G. R., Spero, L., & Maheshwari, P. (1999). Do virtual computer models hinder anatomy learning? Academic Medicine.
- Garg, A. X., Norman, G., & Sperotable, L. (2001). How medical students learn spatial anatomy. The Lancet, 357(9253), 363–364.
- Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Cunha, P. V. (2009). A review and evaluation of meta-analysis practices in management research. Journal of Management, 35(2), 393–419.
- Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 21(6), 713–729.
- Hays, T. A. (1996). Spatial abilities and the effects of computer animation on short-term and long-term comprehension. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(2), 139– 155.
- Hegarty, M. (2004). Dynamic visualizations and learning: Getting to the difficult questions. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 343–351.
- Hegarty, M., & Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Types of visual--spatial representations and mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 684.
- Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21(4), 209–249.
- Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. (2005). Individual differences in spatial abilities. The Cambridge Handbook of Visuospatial Thinking, 121–169.
- Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 722–738.
- Höffler, T. N., Prechtl, H., & Nerdel, C. (2010). The influence of visual cognitive style when learning from instructional animations and static pictures. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(5), 479–483.
- Hui-Yu, Y. (2016). The effects of attention cueing on visualizers' multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 249.
- Huk, T. (2006). Who benefits from learning with 3D models? The case of spatial ability. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(6), 392–404.
- Isaak, M. I., & Just, M. A. (1995). Constraints on the processing of rolling motion: The curtate cycloid illusion. Journal of Experimental Psyc hology: Human P er ce ption a nd Performance, 21(6), 1391.
- Jeung, H.-J., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17(3), 329–345.
- Johnson, A. M., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2015). Supporting multimedia learning with visual signalling and animated pedagogical agent: Moderating effects of prior knowledge.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(2), 97–115.
- Kalyuga, S. (2008). Relative effectiveness of animated and static diagrams: An effect of learner prior knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 852–861.
- Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 13(4), 351–371.
- Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 126.
- Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J.(2001). Learner experience and efficiency of instruc tional guidance . Educ ationa l Psychology, 21(1), 5–23.
- Khacharem, A., Zoudji, B., Kalyuga, S., & Ripoll, H. (2013). Developing tactical skills through the use of static and dynamic soccer visualizations: An expert -- nonexpert differences investigation. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 25(3), 326–340.
- Khacharem, A., Zoudji, B., & Ripoll, H. (2013).Effect of presentation format and expertise on attacking-drill memorization in soccer. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 25(2), 234–248.
- Khacharem, A., Zoudji, B., Spanjers, I. A. E., & Kalyuga, S. (2014). Improving learning from animated soccer scenes: Evidence for the expertise reversal effect. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 339–349.
- Khooshabeh, P., & Hegarty, M. (2010).Inferring cross-sections: When internal visualizations are more important than properties of external visualizations. HumanComputer Interaction, 25(2), 119–147.
- Kopper, K. E., McKenzie, D., & Peterson, D.L. (2009). The evaluation of meta-analysis techniques for quantifying prescribed fire effects on fuel loadings. Res. Pap. PNW-RP582. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 24 P., 582.
- Lajoie, S. P., Guerrera, C., Munsie, S. D., & Lavigne, N. C. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29(2), 155–186.
- Large, A., Beheshti, J., Breuleux, A., & Renaud, A. (1996). Effect of animation in enhancing descriptive and procedural texts in a multimedia learning environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(6), 437–448.
- Lee, D. Y., & Shin, D.-H. (2011). Effects of spatial ability and richness of motion cue on learning in mechanically complex domain. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1665– 1674.
- Lee, E. A.-L., & Wong, K. W. (2014). Learning with desktop virtual reality: Low spatial ability learners are more positively affected. Computers & Education, 79, 49–58.
- Lin, L., Atkinson, R. K., Savenye, W. C., & Nelson, B. C. (2016). Effects of visual cues and self-explanation prompts: empirical evidence in a multimedia environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(4), 799–813.
- Lowe, R., & Boucheix, J. (2007). Eye tracking as a basis for animation design. In Bi-annual meeting of the European Association of Research on Learning and Instruction, Budapest.
- Malone, S., & Brünken, R. (2013). Assessment of driving expertise using multiple choice questions including static vs. animated presentation of driving scenarios. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 51, 112–119.
- Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 377.
- Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 444.
- 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(2), 390.
- Mayer, R. E., DeLeeuw, K. E., & Ayres, P. (2007). Creating retroactive and proactive interference in multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 795–809.
- Mayer, R. E., Dow, G. T., & Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive selfexplaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 806.
- Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A splitattention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312.
- Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 389.
- McEldoon, K. L., Durkin, K. L., & RittleJohnson, B. (2013). Is self-explanation worth the time? A comparison to additional practice. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 615–632.
- McElhaney, K. W., Chang, H.-Y., Chiu, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Evidence for effective uses of dynamic visualisations in science curriculum materials. Studies in Science Education, 51(1), 49–85.
- Moreno, R. (2007). Optimising learning from animations by minimising cognitive load: Cognitive and affective consequences of signalling and segmentation methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 21(6), 765–781.
- Moreno, R. (2009). Learning from animated classroom exemplars: The case for guiding student tea che rs' observa tions with metacognitive prompts. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(5), 487–501.
- Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358.modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358.
- Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 598.
- 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.
- Murphy, N., & Messer, D. (2000). Differential benefits from scaffolding and children working alone. Educational Psychology, 20(1), 17–31.
- Narayanan, N. H., & Hegarty, M. (2002). Multimedia design for communication of dynamic information. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(4), 279–315.
- O'Neil, H. F., Mayer, R. E., Herl, H. E., Niemi, C., Olin, K., & Thurman, R. A. (2000). Instructional strategies for virtual aviation training environments. Aircrew Training and Assessment, 105–130.
- Ollerenshaw, A., Aidman, E., & Kidd, G. (1997). Is an illustration always worth ten thousand words? Effects of prior knowledge, learning style and multimedia illustrations on text comprehension. International Journal of Instructional Media, 24(3), 227.
- Park, O., & Gittelman, S. S. (1992). Selective use of animation and feedback in computerbased instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(4), 27–38.
- Park, S. I., Lee, G., & Kim, M. (2009). Do students benefit equally from interactive computer simulations regardless of prior knowledge levels? Computers & Education, 52(3), 649–655.
- Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (2003). Cognitive load in reading a foreign language text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(2), 221– 243.
- Pratt, M. W., & Savoy-Levine, K. M. (1998). Contingent tutoring of long-division skills in fourth and fifth graders: Experimental tests of some hypotheses about scaffolding. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19(2), 287–304.
- Rieber, L. P. (1990). Using computer animated graphics in science instruction with children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 135.
- Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006). Promoting transfer: Effects of self-explanation and direct instruction. Child Development, 77(1), 1–15.
- Schneider, S., Beege, M., Nebel, S., & Rey, G. D. (2018). A meta-analysis of how signaling affects learning with media. Educational Research Review, 23, 1–24.
- Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting effects of animations in multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 47.
- Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning en vironments . Interactive Learning Environments,15(1),27–46 . https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820600996972
- Sims, V. K., & Hegarty, M. (1997). Mental animation in the visuospatial sketchpad: Evidence from dual-task studies. Memory & Cognition, 25(3), 321–332.
- Smit, N., van de Grift, W., de Bot, K., Jansen, E., de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2017). A classroom observation tool for scaffolding reading comprehension . Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296.
- Spanjers, I. A. E., Wouters, P., Van Gog, T., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2011). An expertise reversal effect of segmentation in learning from animated worked-out examples. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 46–52.
- Stebner, F., Kühl, T., Höffler, T. N., Wirth, J., & Ayres, P. (2017). The role of process information in narrations while learning with animations and static pictures. Computers & Education, 104, 34–48.
- Steinke, M., Huk, T., & Floto, C. (2003). Helping teachers developing computer animations for improving learning in science education. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3022–3025).
- Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002) . Animation: can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(4), 247–262. van Wely, M. (2014). The good, the bad and the ugly: meta-analyses. Oxford University Press.
- Xie, H., Wang, F., Zhou, Z., & Wu, P. (2016). Cueing effect in multimedia learning: A metaanalysis. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48(5), 540–555
- Improving Learning Outcome with Segmentation and Cueing
Abstract Views :189 |
PDF Views:101
Authors
Affiliations
1 Chitkara University Institute of Engineering & Technology, Chitkara University, Punjab, IN
1 Chitkara University Institute of Engineering & Technology, Chitkara University, Punjab, IN
Source
Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, Vol 35, No 1 (2021), Pagination: 60-65Abstract
The computer animations certainly help in deeply understanding the complex concepts. Moreover, computer animations are broadly used for nearly all subject disciplines. Some past studies highlighted that comprehension can be improved by deploying effective design principles within the computer animations. Thus, this study is aimed at finding the effectiveness of design principles particularly when segmentation and cueing design principles are served together within computer animations. A quantitative experimental study was designed and conducted. A total of 56 students willingly participated in the study which were then randomly divided into two groups of 28 students each. Both groups got different treatments and after the post-test the independent t-test was applied on the quantitative data and it was observed that modern animations made with segmentation and cueing design principles were more effective as compared to conventional animations. The mean post-test score of group-1 (M=7.6429, SD=0.95) who was treated with modern animations was comparatively much higher than the group-2 (M=5.5000, SD=1.13). The limitation of the present study is that it did not consider the individual growth of students. In fact, cumulative group scores were measured. The implication of the present study is that it can certainly support the educational institutions in designing effective animations which in turn can improve the learning outcome.Keywords
Computer Animations, Effective Design Principles, Segmentation and Cueing.Full Text
References
- Ali, A. Z. M., & Madar, A. R. (2010). Effects of segmentation of instructional animation in facilitating learning. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 2(2), 15-29.
- Amadieu, F., Mariné, C., & Laimay, C. (2011). The attention-guiding effect and cognitive load in the comprehension of animations. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 36–40.
- Arslan-Ari, I. (2018). Learning from instructional animations: How does prior knowledge mediate the effect of visual cues? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(2), 140–149.
- Berney, S., & Bétrancourt, M. (2016). Does animation enhance learning? A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 101, 150–167.
- Biard, N., Cojean, S., & Jamet, E. (2018). Effects of segmentation and pacing on procedural learning by video. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 411–417.
- Boucheix, J.-M., & Guignard, H. (2005). What animated illustrations conditions can improve technical document comprehension in young students? Format, signaling and control of the presentation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(4), 369–388.
- De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2011). Improved effectiveness of cueing by self-explanations when learning from a complex animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(2), 183–194.
- Fischer, S., Lowe, R. K., & Schwan, S. (2008). Effects of presentation speed of a dynamic visualization on the understanding of a mechanical system. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 22(8), 1126–1141.
- Fong, S. F. (2013). Effects of segmented animated graphics among students of different spatial ability levels: A cognitive load perspective. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2).
- Ganesh, K. E., & Pranesha, T. S. (2018). Enhancement of Learning Outcomes through Implementation of best practices in Teaching Learning Process: A case study. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 32(1), 12–14.
- Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 21(6), 713–729.
- Kaushal, R. K., & Panda, S. N. (2019). A Meta Analysis on Effective Conditions to Offer Animation Based Teaching Style. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 16(1), 129–153.
- Kaushal, R., Panda, S. N., & Kumar, N. (2020). Proposing Effective Framework for Animation Based Learning Environment for Engineering Students. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations.
- Khacharem, A. (2017). Top-down and bottom-up guidance in comprehension of schematic football diagrams. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(12), 1204–1210.
- Lee, E. A.-L., & Wong, K. W. (2014). Learning with desktop virtual reality: Low spatial ability learners are more positively affected. Computers & Education, 79, 49–58.
- Lin, L., Atkinson, R. K., Savenye, W. C., & Nelson, B. C. (2016). Effects of visual cues and self-explanation prompts: empirical evidence in a multimedia environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(4), 799–813.
- McEldoon, K. L., Durkin, K. L., & RittleJohnson, B. (2013). Is self-explanation worth the time? A comparison to additional practice. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 615–632.
- Nguyen, N., Nelson, A. J., & Wilson, T. D. (2012). Computer visualizations: Factors that influence spatial anatomy comprehension. Anatomical Sciences Education, 5(2), 98–108.
- Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.
- Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 61–86.
- Schneider, S., Beege, M., Nebel, S., & Rey, G. D. (2018). A meta-analysis of how signaling affects learning with media. Educational Research Review, 23, 1–24.
- Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 469–508.
- Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010a). A closer look at split visual attention in system-and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 100–110.
- Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010b). Explaining the modality and contiguity effects : New insights from investigating students' viewing behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 24(2), 226–237.
- Spanjers, I. A. E., Wouters, P., Van Gog, T., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2011). An expertise reversal effect of segmentation in learning from animated worked-out examples. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 46–52.
- Stebner, F., Kühl, T., Höffler, T. N., Wirth, J., & Ayres, P. (2017). The role of process information in narrations while learning with animations and static pictures. Computers & Education, 104, 34–48.
- Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner's mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5–13.
- Xie, H., Wang, F., Zhou, Z., & Wu, P. (2016). Cueing effect in multimedia learning: A metaanalysis. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48(5), 540–555.
- Identification of Effective Scaffolding to Novices Using CBLE
Abstract Views :148 |
PDF Views:1
Authors
Affiliations
1 Chitkara University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chitkara University, Punjab, IN
1 Chitkara University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chitkara University, Punjab, IN
Source
Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, Vol 35, No 4 (2022), Pagination: 95-103Abstract
The aim of this study is to discover which kind of scaffolding can effectively promote learning. The past studies have shown mixed results in this regard. The process in which a domain expert gives and withdraws support in order to make a novice learner complete the task is known as scaffolding. A total of four distinct scaffold combinations and four groups were made. This experimental study was repeated twice to cross verify the outcomes using computer based learning environment (CBLE). The CBLE was designed with intelligent web program in PHP and jQuery to evaluate the solutions submitted by the learners instantly. The CBLE acted as an intelligent feedback system. In the first study, it was found that there was a significant effect of different scaffolding treatments on the learning outcomes, F (3,76) = 5.762, p=.001. The result analysis involves multiple comparisons based on Tukey HSD test and indicated that the mean score for the indirect support and adaptive fading (M=4.45, SD=1.191) was considerably different than the others. Likewise, second study also found that there was a significant effect of different scaffold treatments on the learning outcome, F (3,76) = 4.258, p=.008. The Tukey HSD test applied during the second study indicated that the mean score for the indirect support and adaptive fading (M=4.55, SD=1.19) was again significantly different than the others. The present study additionally measured the flow state of all the four groups using Kruskal-Wallis H test and found that indirect support and adaptive fading group was significantly different than direct support and adapting fading group as well as direct support and gradual fading group in both the studies.Keywords
Computer Based Learning Environment (CBLE), Effective Scaffolding, Intelligent Feedback System.
References
- Anwar, I. Y., Irawan, E. B., & As’ari, A. R. (2017). Investigation of contingency patterns of teachers scaffolding in teaching and learning mathematics. Journal on Mathematics Education, 8(1), 65-76.
- Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (1983). Instructional scaffolding: Reading and writing as natural language activities. Language Arts, 60(2), 168–175.
- Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Johnson, A. M., & Chauncey, A. D. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory processes during hypermedia learning: Issues and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 210–223.
- Bliss, J., Askew, M., & Macrae, S. (1996). Effective teaching and learning: Scaffolding revisited. Oxford Review of Education, 22(1), 37–61.
- Cazden, C. (1979). Peekaboo as an Instructional Model: Discourse Development at Home and at School. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, No. 17.
- Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, 18, 32–42.
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow. The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York (HarperPerennial) 1990.
- D. González-Gómez and J. S. Jeong, “EdusciFIT: A computer-based blended and scaffolding toolbox to support numerical concepts for flipped science education,” Educ. Sci., vol. 9, no. 2, p. 116, 2019.
- de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher--student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296.
- Devolder, A., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2012). Supporting self-regulated learning in computer-based learning environments: systematic review of effects of scaffolding in the domain of science education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(6), 557–573.
- Englert, C. S. (1992). Writing instruction from a sociocultural perspective: The holistic, dialogic, and social enterprise of writing. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(3), 153–172.
- Gaffney, J. S., & Anderson, R. C. (1991). Two-tiered scaffolding: Congruent processes of teaching and learning. Center for the Study of Reading Technical Report; No. 523.
- Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, 2, 115–140.
- Jackson, S. A., Martin, A. J., & Eklund, R. C. (2008). Long and short measures of flow: The construct validity of the FSS-2, DFS-2, and new brief counterparts. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30(5), 561–587.
- Kaushal, R., Panda, S. N., & Kumar, N. (2020). Proposing Effective Framework for Animation Based Learning Environment for Engineering Students. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations.
- Lajoie, S. P., Guerrera, C., Munsie, S. D., & Lavigne, N. C. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29(2), 155–186.
- Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1986). Chapter 5: Reading and Writing Instruction: Toward a Theory of Teaching and Learning. Review of Research in Education, 13(1), 171–194.
- Li, D. D., & Lim, C. P. (2008). Scaffolding online historical inquiry tasks: A case study of two secondary school classrooms. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1394–1410.
- Martin, A. J., & Jackson, S. A. (2008). Brief approaches to assessing task absorption and enhanced subjective experience: Examining “short”and “core”flow in diverse performance domains. Motivation and Emotion, 32(3), 141–157.
- Metcalf, S. J. (1999). The design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments. University of Michigan.
- Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21(1-2), 73–98.
- Palincsar, A. S. (1991). Scaffolded instruction of listening comprehension with first graders at risk for academic difficulty. Toward the Practice of Theory-Based Instruction: Current Cognitive Theories and Their Educational Promise, 50–65.
- Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehensionfostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
- P. Denny, J. Prather, B. A. Becker, Z. Albrecht, D. Loksa, and R. Pettit, “A Closer Look at Metacognitive Scaffolding: Solving Test Cases Before Programming,” in Proceedings of the 19th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, 2019, pp. 1–10.
- Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.
- Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.
- Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.
- Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77–96.
- Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 27–46.
- Smit, N., van de Grift, W., de Bot, K., & Jansen, E. (2017). A classroom observation tool for scaffolding reading comprehension. System, 65, 117–129.
- van de Pol, J., & Elbers, E. (2013). Scaffolding student learning: A micro-analysis of teacher-student interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2(1), 32–41.
- van de Pol, J., Mercer, N., & Volman, M. (2019). Scaffolding student understanding in smallgroup work: Students’ uptake of teacher support in subsequent small-group interaction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(2), 206-239.
- Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). 1976: The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17: 89-100.