The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology (문화기술의 융합)

The International Promotion Agency of Culture Technology (국제문화기술진흥원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effects of Pedagogical Agent and Redundant Text on Learners' Social Presence and Intention to Continue Learning in Video Learning

동영상 학습에서 교육 에이전트와 자막이 학습자의 사회적실재감 및 학습지속의향에 미치는 영향

  • Received : 2023.01.16
  • Accepted : 2023.03.08
  • Published : 2023.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

A 2(pedagogical agent: with vs. without) × 2(on-screen text: with vs. without) between-subject design was used in this study to investigate the effects of pedagogical agent and redundant on-screen text on video learning. In the case of the educational video without redundant on-screen text, there was no difference in social presence, satisfaction, and intention to continue learning regardless of the presence of a pedagogical agent. However, when the educational video contained redundant on-screen text, participants who watched educational video with pedagogical agent perceived higher social presence, satisfaction and intention to continue. In terms of academic achievement, no difference was found whether redundant on-screen text was contained or not. It supports some of the previous studies on the reverse-redundancy effects, suggesting that the inclusion of redundant text does not necessarily cause the reduction of learning outcomes. Video learning shows a higher dropout rate than face-to-face learning. Therefore, it is particularly important to understand how to strengthen interactions with learners and motivate them to keep themselves engaged in learning. This study discussed whether pedagogical agent and on-screen text are factors that induce continuous participation of learners in video learning.

본 연구는 2(교육 에이전트: 유 vs. 무) × 2(자막: 유 vs. 무) 피험자간 요인 설계를 사용하여 교육 에이전트와 음성 내레이션과 중복된 자막이 학습에 미치는 영향에 대해 알아보는 것을 목표로 진행했다. 자막이 없을 때는 교육 에이전트의 포함여부와 관계없이 사회적 실재감, 만족도 및 학습 지속의향에 차이가 없었으나 자막이 있을 때는 교육 에이전트가 있을 때 참가자의 사회적 실재감, 만족도 및 학습 지속의향이 더 높게 나타났다. 학업성취도에서는 음성 내레이션과 중복된 자막에 따른 차이가 발견되지 않았는데 이는 역중복 효과에 대한 선행 연구를 일부 지지하는 결과로 중복된 자막을 포함한다고 하여 반드시 학습 성과가 감소하는 것은 아니라는 것을 시사한다. 비대면으로 진행되는 동영상 학습은 대면 학습에 비해 높은 중도 이탈률을 보인다. 따라서 학습자와의 상호작용을 강화하고 동기를 부여하여 지속적으로 학습에 참여하도록 하는 방법에 대해 이해하는 것이 특히 중요하다. 본 연구에서는 교육 에이전트와 자막이 동영상 학습에서 학습자의 지속적인 참여를 유도할 수 있는 요소인지에 대해 논의하였다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2019년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임 (NRF-2019S1A5C2A03083499)

References

  1. Joo, Y. J., So, H. J., & Kim, N. H. (2018). Examination of relationships among students' self-determination, technology acceptance, satisfaction, and continuance intention to use K-MOOCs. Computers & Education, 12 , 260-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.003
  2. Cho Y. S. (2020). Current status and improvement tasks of K-MOOC (Korean Massive Open Online Course). NARS ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 171, National Assembly Research Service, 1-20.
  3. Donath, J. (2007). Virtually trustworthy. Science, 317(5834), 53-54. DOI: 10.1126/science.1142770
  4. Qiu, L., & Benbasat, I. (2009). Evaluating anthropomorphic product recommendation agents: A social relationship perspective to designing information systems. Journal of management information systems, 25(4), 145-182. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222250405
  5. Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416. DOI: 10.1037//0022-0663.94.2.416
  6. Choi, S., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent for learning English as a second language. Journal of educational computing research, 34(4), 41-466. https://doi.org/10.2190/A064-U776-4208-N145
  7. Clark, R. E., & Choi, S. (2005). Five design principles for experiments on the effects of animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 209-225. https://doi.org/10.2190/7LRM-3BR2-44GW-9QQY
  8. Horovitz, T., & Mayer, R. E. (2021). Learning with human and virtual instructors who display happy or bored emotions in video lectures. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 106724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106724
  9. Wouters, P., Paas, F., & van Merrienboer, J. J. (2008). How to optimize learning from animated models: A review of guidelines based on cognitive load. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 645-675.https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308320320
  10. Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of educational psychology, 93(1), 187. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.187
  11. Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educationa Psychology,100(2) 380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.380
  12. Ari, F., Flores, R., Inan, F. A., Cheon, J., Crooks, S. M., Paniukov, D., & Kurucay, M. (2014). The effects of verbally redundant information on student learning: An instance of reverse redundancy. Computers & Education, 76 199-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpedu.2014.04.002
  13. Chan, K. Y., Lyons, C., Kon, L. L., Stine, K., Manley, M., & Crossley, A. (2020). Effect of on-screen text on multimedia learning with native and foreign-accented narration. Learning and Instruction, 67, 101305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101305
  14. Ozdemir, M., Izmirli, S., & Sahin-Izmirli, O. (2016). The effects of captioning videos on academic achievement and motivation: Reconsideration of redundancy principle in instructional videos. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(4), 1-10.
  15. Gullberg, M., & Holmqvist, K. (2006). What speakers do and what addressees look at: Visual attention to gestures in human interaction live and on video. Pragmatics & Cognition, 14(1), 53-82. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.14.1.05gul
  16. Langton, S. R., Watt, R. J., & Bruce, V. (2000). Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention. Trends in cognitive sciences, 4(2), 50-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S.1364-6613(99)01436-9
  17. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Effects of observing the instructor draw diagrams on learning from multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 528-546.https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000065
  18. Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2014). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 206-226). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139547369.011
  19. Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Whitmore, G. A. (1993). Applied statistics (p . 531-649). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  20. Wang, J., & Antonenko, P. D. (2017). Instructor presence in instructional video: Effects on visual attention, recall, and perceived earning. Computers in human behavior, 71, 79-89.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.049
  21. Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed., pp. 43-71). New York, NY: Camnridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139547369.005
  22. Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American journal of distance education, 16(3), 131-150. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603_2
  23. Berger, J. B., & Milem, J. F. (1999). The role of student involvement and perceptions of integration in a causal model of student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40(6), 641-664. DOI: 10.1023/A:1018708813711
  24. Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115-136. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v9i3.1788
  25. Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 49(2), 193-213.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.06.011
  26. Reio, T. G., Jr., & Crim, S. J. (2013). Social presence and student satisfaction as predictors of online enrollment intent. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(2), 122-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2013.775801
  27. Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students' satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001
  28. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikzentmihaly, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (Vol. 1990). New York: Harper & Row.
  29. Steel, J. P., & Fullagar, C. J. (2009). Facilitators and outcomes of student engagement in a college setting. The Journal of Psychology, 143(1), 5-27. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.143.1.5- 27
  30. Park S. A., & Lee S. M. (2022). Factors Affecting Academic Achievement of Nursing Students in Non-face-to-face Distance Learning. The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology (JCCT), 8(5), 111-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.17703/JCCT.2022.8.5.111
  31. Kim E. J., & Joung S. Y. (2008). The Character Effect on the Sense of Social Presence in the Multimedia Learning Environment. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 14(1), 73-98.
  32. Chen, C. M., & Wu, C. H. (2015). Effects of different video lecture types on sustained attention, emotion, cognitive load, and learning performance. Computers & Education, 80, 108-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.015
  33. Maldonado, H., & Nass, C. (2007). Emotive characters can make learning more productive and enjoyable: it takes two to learn to tango. Educational Technology, 33-38.
  34. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American journal of distance education, 1 (3), 8-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649709526970
  35. Picciano, A. G. (2019). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Online Learning, 6(1), 21-40. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v6i1.1870
  36. Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The Flow State Scale. Journal of sport and exercise psychology, 18(1),17-35. https://doi.org/10.1123/ jsep.18.1.17
  37. Kim J. H. (2003). A Structural analysis of factors affecting the participants' learning flow in adult learning program (Doctor dissertation, Seoul National University).
  38. Shin, N., & Chan, J. K. (2004). Direct and indirect effects of online learning on distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(3), 275-288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0007-1013.2004.00389.x
  39. Shin, N. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance learning. Distance education, 24(1), 69-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910303048