Popular in Formal Sciences

Formal Sciences

Diameter rigidity for Kähler manifolds with positive bisectional curvature

Indian Institute of Science Ved Datar

Formal Sciences

Rank-Based Multivariate Sarmanov for Modeling Dependence

McMaster University Anas Abdallah

Formal Sciences

The Hybrid High-Order Method for Polytopal Meshes

Monash University

Formal Sciences

Financial Informatics: An Information-Based Approach to Asset Pricing

University of Surrey

Formal Sciences

Multiplicative orders of Gauss periods and the arithmetic of real quadratic fields

University of Newcastle

Formal Sciences

Some Numerical Methods for the Hele-Shaw Equations

University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Formal Sciences

Geometric stabilisation via p-adic integration

University of Toronto

Increasing learner interactions with E-learning systems

View more insights in Sciences - Computer Science - Formal Sciences

View more figures from UNSW Sydney

View the page of Ali Darejeh

Ali Darejeh discusses the effects of increasing interactions between learners and digitally presented subject matter

Image courtesy of interviewee. May 23, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

The research project aimed to evaluate how different elements affect e-learning systems used for teaching complex software applications, like Photoshop and Excel. The focus was on enhancing learning performance while minimizing cognitive load. Cognitive load theory highlights the limitations of short-term memory in learning new concepts.

The study specifically assessed the impact of two elements: interactive animation and a pedagogical agent (essentially a talking avatar). Interactive animation allows users to engage with the material actively, while the pedagogical agent serves as a virtual instructor.

The hypothesis was that interactive animation would reduce cognitive load and enhance learning performance, while the pedagogical agent might have mixed effects depending on its interaction style. Researchers conducted experiments with 80 participants unfamiliar with Microsoft Access, the software taught. The experiment compared traditional static animation with interactive animation, and audio-only content with audio plus a pedagogical agent.

Findings showed that interactive animation significantly improved user performance and reduced perceived difficulty for complex (high interactivity) materials, demonstrating its effectiveness in enhancing learning. However, the pedagogical agent increased cognitive load, leading to worse performance, due to redundancy and distraction.

The study suggests avoiding additional graphical elements like pedagogical agents in teaching contexts that emphasize software application use while recommending further research into their efficacy in different educational settings, such as language learning or teaching motor skills.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.185 --> 00:02.685
The main purpose of this research project was evaluating

00:02.745 --> 00:05.805
the effect of different elements on e-learning systems

00:05.875 --> 00:08.445
that are designed for teaching software applications,

00:08.795 --> 00:10.445
because it's really important

00:10.475 --> 00:14.525
that we can increase learning performance by decreasing,

00:14.525 --> 00:17.445
cognitive load when we wanna teach software applications,

00:17.445 --> 00:20.005
because software applications are commonly

00:20.005 --> 00:22.045
complicated applications.

00:22.265 --> 00:25.045
Uh, I mean, I'm talking about applications such

00:25.045 --> 00:29.045
as Photoshop, such as, Excel access,

00:29.465 --> 00:30.485
SQL.

00:31.505 --> 00:34.845
And, these systems should be designed in a way

00:34.845 --> 00:38.925
that users can have, I mean, we can maximize learning

00:39.145 --> 00:41.245
and decrease learning performance.

00:41.945 --> 00:43.165
Uh, sorry.

00:43.205 --> 00:45.165
I mean, we can increase learning performance

00:45.185 --> 00:46.525
and decrease cognitive load.

00:46.825 --> 00:51.205
But, before we continue, let me explain the concept

00:51.385 --> 00:52.765
of cognitive load theory.

00:53.705 --> 00:57.125
Uh, cognitive load theory is an educational theory

00:58.265 --> 01:00.165
and also a psychological theory,

01:00.375 --> 01:04.005
which emphasizes on the limitation of, of a working memory.

01:05.005 --> 01:07.925
Actually, this theory says that we have unlimited long-term

01:07.925 --> 01:10.565
memory, which is responsible for,

01:10.565 --> 01:13.965
memorizing information, but we have a short term.

01:14.105 --> 01:18.325
We have a limited short term memory, which is responsible

01:18.345 --> 01:19.845
for learning new concept.

01:20.865 --> 01:23.805
So we should design e-learning systems in a way

01:23.805 --> 01:24.925
that we can use.

01:25.835 --> 01:28.495
The short term memory is an efficient way.

01:30.095 --> 01:34.195
Uh, in this research project, we, evaluated the effect

01:34.195 --> 01:37.715
of two elements on cognitive load, for,

01:37.715 --> 01:38.955
using e-learning systems.

01:39.735 --> 01:42.475
One of them was, interactive animation,

01:43.175 --> 01:47.155
and the other one a pedagogical agent.

01:48.095 --> 01:50.595
Uh, let's start by the interactive animation.

01:51.615 --> 01:54.955
Uh, interactive animation is a kind of animation

01:55.665 --> 01:59.715
that in contrast with static animations that uses just

02:00.285 --> 02:01.355
watch the animation.

02:01.965 --> 02:04.835
Users can interact with the animation content.

02:05.955 --> 02:08.955
I mean, they can click on different parts,

02:09.185 --> 02:11.315
they can get different feedback.

02:11.455 --> 02:13.315
Let me explain it using an example.

02:14.185 --> 02:17.715
Imagine that you wanna learn Photoshop with the use

02:17.715 --> 02:18.955
of an at interactive animation.

02:20.295 --> 02:24.515
Uh, when the animation is playing, in some parts it'll pause

02:25.255 --> 02:27.715
and, you need to do something so

02:27.715 --> 02:29.595
that the animation continues.

02:30.175 --> 02:33.115
For example, it says, for drawing a circle,

02:34.015 --> 02:38.315
we should click the circle tool and then move the mouse.

02:39.125 --> 02:40.425
Uh, in a circular way,

02:41.195 --> 02:43.385
users should actually move their mouse.

02:43.675 --> 02:46.225
Click the circle tool, on the video,

02:47.165 --> 02:49.425
and then the video will continue.

02:49.815 --> 02:52.545
This is the definition of an interactive animation,

02:54.655 --> 02:58.835
but, pedagogical agent is

02:58.915 --> 03:00.645
A, a kind of a talking avatar,

03:00.945 --> 03:04.845
and maybe the word seems scary when we say pedagogical

03:04.895 --> 03:08.045
agent, but, the easy word for,

03:08.145 --> 03:12.045
for pedagogical agent is, talking avatar.

03:12.305 --> 03:15.685
And I believe all of us are familiar, all of your familiar

03:15.685 --> 03:17.845
with the concept of talking avatar.

03:18.635 --> 03:20.845
It's like a virtual instructor

03:21.265 --> 03:24.445
or a virtual teacher that can have

03:25.015 --> 03:27.965
human body movement, and it has lip syncing.

03:28.435 --> 03:31.155
With audio, we wanted

03:31.175 --> 03:33.835
to see if adding interactive animation

03:34.095 --> 03:37.675
and the pedagogical agent can either decrease

03:38.215 --> 03:40.555
or increase user's cognitive load,

03:40.825 --> 03:43.875
because based on the literature for,

03:43.875 --> 03:46.195
interactive animation,

03:47.615 --> 03:51.185
interactive animation overall can enhance learning

03:51.365 --> 03:55.065
and decrease cognitive load because of embodi cognition.

03:55.665 --> 03:57.585
Embedded cognition is another theory

03:57.895 --> 04:02.505
that emphasizes on engaging two sensory memories, including,

04:03.005 --> 04:06.905
for example, visual and physical sensors at the same time

04:07.055 --> 04:09.665
because it can distribute the load.

04:10.565 --> 04:14.505
Um, so based on some studies like Mire or,

04:14.505 --> 04:19.145
or, Kira, we predict, we hypothesize

04:19.145 --> 04:23.625
that the interactive animation can decrease cognitive load

04:23.885 --> 04:25.625
and increase learning performance.

04:26.485 --> 04:28.225
But for the pedagogical agent,

04:28.495 --> 04:30.105
this story is more complicated

04:30.175 --> 04:35.145
because some researchers believe that interactive animation

04:35.885 --> 04:40.305
can, sorry, the pedagogical agent can increase

04:41.145 --> 04:42.745
learning performance because it can

04:43.025 --> 04:44.225
increase user's motivation.

04:44.845 --> 04:49.465
Uh, the researchers such as Atkinson, such as,

04:50.365 --> 04:54.025
Zi, Fabio, these researchers believe that

04:54.095 --> 04:56.945
because of the nature of the pedagogical agent,

04:56.945 --> 05:01.145
because of that, interesting traction

05:01.765 --> 05:03.785
and that human-like interaction,

05:04.285 --> 05:06.425
it can make the learning more engaging.

05:07.445 --> 05:11.745
But some researchers such as John Swer, such as Fred Pass,

05:12.365 --> 05:16.545
or Paul Iris, believe that, elements such

05:16.545 --> 05:17.985
as pedagogical agent

05:18.095 --> 05:22.185
because of the na their nature, they are redundant

05:22.285 --> 05:26.065
and they are just, a dec element.

05:26.965 --> 05:28.665
Uh, I call them redundant

05:28.825 --> 05:31.345
because they are redundant to the audio,

05:32.205 --> 05:35.585
and we have the audio, and we have the agent,

05:35.925 --> 05:38.025
and we have the software user interface.

05:38.805 --> 05:40.105
So actually,

05:40.815 --> 05:44.185
this pedagogical agent can be a redundant content

05:44.885 --> 05:47.105
and it can split users' attention

05:47.225 --> 05:50.665
because they should have a full concentration on the video

05:51.205 --> 05:53.185
and on the software user interface.

05:53.605 --> 05:56.825
But the pedagogical agent can change their focus,

05:57.505 --> 06:00.565
and it'll be considered as a redundant element

06:01.265 --> 06:02.605
for the audio.

06:03.305 --> 06:05.085
So it was the reason that we wanted

06:05.085 --> 06:06.965
to discover if in the context

06:07.105 --> 06:09.845
of teaching software application, using e-learning systems,

06:10.175 --> 06:11.525
using pedagogical agent

06:11.525 --> 06:16.005
and interactive animation would be efficient methods or not.

06:16.425 --> 06:20.445
Um, regarding the methodology, we employed 80 participants,

06:20.735 --> 06:22.605
40 in each experiment.

06:22.865 --> 06:23.885
Uh, we had,

06:23.945 --> 06:27.365
and then we divided them into, two groups

06:27.385 --> 06:29.565
of 2020 in the control group,

06:29.565 --> 06:32.405
and 20 in the experimental group,

06:32.865 --> 06:36.565
the participants had the same characteristics,

06:36.575 --> 06:39.365
which means that we used a screening protocol

06:39.585 --> 06:42.085
to select homogenized participants.

06:42.745 --> 06:47.245
Uh, we collected data, at UNSW, the University

06:47.245 --> 06:48.965
of New South Wales,

06:49.345 --> 06:53.365
and all the participants had a good English proficiency.

06:54.555 --> 06:57.445
They didn't have a good computer background.

06:57.715 --> 07:00.645
They could work with computer, definitely all users can work

07:00.645 --> 07:04.325
with computers, but they were not professional computer

07:04.415 --> 07:07.605
users because we wanted to teach them a software.

07:08.105 --> 07:11.845
And also they didn't have any familiarity

07:11.915 --> 07:13.405
with Microsoft Access.

07:13.775 --> 07:16.125
Maybe you ask me why Microsoft Access.

07:16.625 --> 07:19.405
The reason is Microsoft Access was the experimental

07:19.405 --> 07:23.165
application that we use, in our e-learning system

07:23.265 --> 07:24.525
to teach to participants.

07:25.305 --> 07:29.645
So if participants had any background with Microsoft Access,

07:30.225 --> 07:33.005
we couldn't actually evaluate the efficiency

07:33.005 --> 07:35.485
of our e-learning, system.

07:37.295 --> 07:41.395
So, in the first experiment, we designed two systems.

07:42.015 --> 07:44.075
One of them had the interactive animation,

07:44.495 --> 07:46.515
and the other one had a static animation.

07:47.175 --> 07:51.155
The content were exactly the same. Everything was the same.

07:51.205 --> 07:53.675
There wasn't any difference between the systems.

07:53.975 --> 07:57.835
And the only independent variable was the existence

07:57.855 --> 07:59.635
of the interactive animation

08:00.535 --> 08:03.155
and the static animation in the control system.

08:04.455 --> 08:07.995
Um, and also we designed four lessons

08:08.375 --> 08:09.675
for our e-learning systems.

08:10.335 --> 08:13.595
Two lessons with low element interactivity materials,

08:14.015 --> 08:17.835
and two lessons with high element interactivity materials.

08:18.215 --> 08:20.595
Uh, let me explain the difference between low

08:20.775 --> 08:24.035
and high element interactivity materials.

08:24.975 --> 08:28.595
Uh, when we are dealing with, teaching a concept,

08:29.295 --> 08:32.355
we can divide the concept, the, the teaching

08:32.415 --> 08:36.275
and, the, the learning concept that, I mean, the concept

08:36.465 --> 08:40.195
that we want to teach into two different categories, low

08:40.575 --> 08:44.715
and high element interactivity, low element interactivity.

08:44.715 --> 08:46.075
This concept are the concept

08:46.105 --> 08:48.315
that users can learn in isolation.

08:48.785 --> 08:51.475
They are not integrated with the other elements.

08:52.135 --> 08:55.725
Uh, but high element inactivity concepts are the elements

08:55.835 --> 08:57.645
that users need to have a background.

08:57.915 --> 09:00.205
They are integrated with the other elements,

09:00.465 --> 09:02.765
and overall, they are more complicated

09:02.905 --> 09:04.885
and more difficult for users to learn.

09:05.295 --> 09:06.725
Lemme give you two examples.

09:07.065 --> 09:11.725
For example, saving a file is considered as an element

09:11.935 --> 09:13.005
below interactivity,

09:13.395 --> 09:14.765
because users just need

09:14.765 --> 09:16.405
to click the save button and that's it.

09:16.405 --> 09:21.285
They can save it. But, working with,

09:21.945 --> 09:23.205
for example, chart

09:23.545 --> 09:28.345
or formulas in Microsoft Excel are considered

09:28.405 --> 09:30.305
as high element interactivity tasks.

09:30.415 --> 09:33.905
Because for writing a formula, users need

09:33.905 --> 09:35.065
to have a background.

09:35.295 --> 09:37.665
They need to know the logic behind that formula.

09:38.015 --> 09:41.225
They need, they need to know what parameters they can,

09:41.255 --> 09:42.585
they can add to that formula,

09:43.245 --> 09:45.705
or for adding a chart, they should know the difference

09:45.705 --> 09:46.905
between different types of charts.

09:47.285 --> 09:51.465
And also how to select a range, how to feed the chart

09:51.805 --> 09:53.025
and how to draw it.

09:53.525 --> 09:56.425
So that one is considered as high element interactivity.

09:56.805 --> 10:00.065
And we wanted to know if interactive animation

10:00.205 --> 10:04.825
and the pedagogical agent, can have the same performance

10:04.965 --> 10:07.665
for low and high element interactivity materials.

10:07.775 --> 10:10.505
This is the reason that we designed,

10:10.775 --> 10:12.865
four different lessons, two with low

10:12.965 --> 10:15.745
and two with high element inter activities.

10:17.385 --> 10:21.205
And, regarding the procedure of data collection,

10:21.465 --> 10:24.685
we asked participants to come to our HCI Lab,

10:24.695 --> 10:26.405
human Computer Interaction Lab.

10:26.785 --> 10:28.645
We collected data one by one.

10:29.015 --> 10:30.965
First they signed the consent form, and

10:30.965 --> 10:33.925
after that, they could start learning.

10:34.785 --> 10:37.325
And, during learning each lesson,

10:37.585 --> 10:41.205
we measured time duration for learning each lesson.

10:41.785 --> 10:44.605
And also after finishing each lesson,

10:45.225 --> 10:47.885
we gave them a lecture scale questionnaire.

10:48.345 --> 10:51.485
Uh, it was a difficulty liquor scale questionnaire

10:51.485 --> 10:54.325
with different questions about their experience

10:54.545 --> 10:58.285
and the difficulty of the teaching material for them.

11:00.375 --> 11:05.235
Um, and, regarding the data analysis, we used

11:05.875 --> 11:10.395
a linear mixed model test in SBSS to see,

11:11.095 --> 11:14.155
if, if there is any difference between the time duration

11:14.215 --> 11:17.995
and the liquor scale difficulty questionnaire, between,

11:18.375 --> 11:21.035
low and high element interactivity materials

11:21.035 --> 11:22.795
and between both systems.

11:23.375 --> 11:25.435
Uh, I haven't explained the methodology

11:25.575 --> 11:26.835
for the pedagogical agent.

11:26.895 --> 11:30.115
One because we had the same, methodology,

11:30.535 --> 11:32.915
and the only difference was the system.

11:33.415 --> 11:36.275
In one of the systems we had only audio.

11:36.895 --> 11:40.035
And in the other one we only had, we had

11:40.575 --> 11:44.395
the pedagogical agent in addition to the audio,

11:45.095 --> 11:48.795
but we had, I mean, everything was the same,

11:49.255 --> 11:52.555
the same content, the same interface.

11:53.345 --> 11:56.605
And the only independent variable in the experimental

11:56.745 --> 12:00.845
system, was, the pedagogical agent.

12:01.155 --> 12:04.965
Yeah, a very good question, regarding the findings.

12:05.145 --> 12:08.485
Uh, our linear mix model showed that,

12:08.725 --> 12:11.925
participants in the, in, in the experimental group

12:12.025 --> 12:15.845
of the interactive animation had a better performance.

12:16.245 --> 12:20.325
I mean, they could complete the learning tasks in less time,

12:21.145 --> 12:24.325
and also they reported less difficulty

12:24.855 --> 12:26.845
based on the liquor scale questionnaire.

12:27.425 --> 12:29.085
But this one was just

12:29.385 --> 12:31.925
for high element interactivity materials,

12:32.345 --> 12:34.125
and it was actually predictable

12:34.315 --> 12:38.485
because for learning easy concept, users commonly,

12:39.105 --> 12:40.765
learn it.

12:40.925 --> 12:42.445
I mean, it's easy,

12:42.905 --> 12:46.085
and when you wanna learn an easy concept,

12:46.505 --> 12:48.045
you can learn it with any method.

12:48.345 --> 12:52.365
But for learning difficult concept, it showed that

12:52.465 --> 12:55.325
for high element interactivity materials, yes,

12:55.475 --> 12:57.845
interactive animation can help.

12:58.785 --> 13:02.765
And for the pedagogical agent, the results showed

13:02.765 --> 13:07.245
that unfortunately, the pedagogical agent in the context

13:07.385 --> 13:09.085
of teaching software applications

13:09.825 --> 13:11.565
can increase cognitive load.

13:11.665 --> 13:16.645
And consequently, it can decrease learning performance,

13:16.645 --> 13:19.165
because of the redundancy effect, we can,

13:19.305 --> 13:21.885
we can justify this based on the redundancy effect.

13:22.625 --> 13:25.285
Uh, but, the positive effects

13:25.485 --> 13:28.485
of the interactive animation can be justified based on

13:29.465 --> 13:32.325
the embodied cognition that I explained,

13:32.545 --> 13:34.605
before regarding the inter,

13:34.665 --> 13:36.645
the interpretation of the results.

13:36.745 --> 13:39.365
We could prove. Other hypothesis, we could prove

13:39.365 --> 13:42.405
that interactive animation is useful in the context

13:42.405 --> 13:43.965
of teaching software application,

13:44.315 --> 13:46.845
because we can engage hand movement

13:47.345 --> 13:51.805
and mouse movement in addition to visual and audio sensors.

13:52.305 --> 13:54.445
Uh, and it can distribute the load.

13:54.665 --> 13:57.365
So participants can have a better concentration,

13:57.545 --> 13:59.165
we can decrease cognitive load, and

13:59.445 --> 14:02.925
consequently we could increase the learning performance.

14:03.905 --> 14:06.245
But for pedagogical agent,

14:07.065 --> 14:08.965
it increased cognitive load.

14:09.385 --> 14:13.925
We chose that using the elements such as pedagogical agents,

14:13.925 --> 14:17.885
especially for teaching applications like Microsoft Access.

14:18.425 --> 14:23.005
Uh, that has a user interface is not

14:23.565 --> 14:24.645
actually a good approach.

14:25.065 --> 14:28.725
So we should avoid using, graphical,

14:28.815 --> 14:32.325
additional graphical and additional decorative elements

14:32.355 --> 14:34.685
because it can change users' focus

14:34.785 --> 14:38.045
and it can in increase learning performance, sorry,

14:38.205 --> 14:41.005
learning duration and decrease learning performance.

14:41.865 --> 14:46.565
Uh, for future work, it definitely, wants to

14:47.445 --> 14:50.565
evaluate the effects of both pedagogical

14:50.655 --> 14:53.685
Agent and interactive animations in different contexts,

14:53.795 --> 14:57.685
because now we just evaluated their effects,

14:57.905 --> 15:00.965
in the context of, software applications,

15:01.425 --> 15:03.325
but maybe in other contexts.

15:03.465 --> 15:04.485
Let me give you an example.

15:04.835 --> 15:09.765
Imagine that we wanna learn, a second language,

15:09.765 --> 15:13.085
something like Spanish for learning Spanish.

15:13.735 --> 15:16.045
There isn't any graphical user interface.

15:16.465 --> 15:17.845
We just have some words

15:18.505 --> 15:21.325
and we just need an instructor that talk

15:21.425 --> 15:24.565
and explain the words, sentences and the grammar.

15:25.585 --> 15:28.685
Um, maybe the, the pedagogical agent

15:28.745 --> 15:31.965
or the talking avatar is an efficient method in this context

15:32.275 --> 15:34.405
because it can motivate learners

15:34.505 --> 15:36.125
to have a better concentration

15:37.025 --> 15:38.845
and also interactive animation.

15:39.665 --> 15:43.845
If we talk about this example, I mean, learning

15:44.605 --> 15:49.485
a second language, maybe the interactive animation is not an

15:49.485 --> 15:53.405
appropriate method, and we can get completely different

15:53.405 --> 15:57.525
results if we evaluate the effect of interactive animation

15:57.785 --> 16:02.045
and the pedagogical agent in different contexts

16:02.045 --> 16:03.365
and in different situations

16:03.365 --> 16:05.005
for teaching different materials.

16:06.065 --> 16:07.445
So for future studies,

16:07.885 --> 16:10.285
researchers in different areas can definitely

16:10.805 --> 16:13.645
evaluate these effects, especially

16:13.705 --> 16:15.845
for teaching motor skill tasks.

16:16.075 --> 16:20.725
Something like, for example, teaching children how

16:20.725 --> 16:22.245
to play with Lego pieces.

16:22.815 --> 16:26.685
Definitely using interactive animations would be an

16:26.925 --> 16:29.125
efficient method because the nature of

16:29.725 --> 16:32.205
teaching motor skill tasks are similar to,

16:32.825 --> 16:34.485
software applications.

16:34.985 --> 16:37.365
So interactive animation can be useful,

16:37.505 --> 16:42.165
but pedagogical agent might be harmful in this context.

00:00 - The main purpose of this research project was evaluating the effect of different elements on e-learning systems that are designed for teaching software applications, because it's really important that we can increase learning performance by decreasing, cognitive load when we wanna teach software applications,

00:17 - because software applications are commonly complicated applications. I mean, I'm talking about applications such as Photoshop, such as, Excel access, SQL. And, these systems should be designed in a way that users can have, I mean, we can maximize learning and decrease learning performance. sorry. I mean, we can increase learning performance

00:45 - and decrease cognitive load. But, before we continue, let me explain the concept of cognitive load theory. cognitive load theory is an educational theory and also a psychological theory, which emphasizes on the limitation of, of a working memory. Actually, this theory says that we have unlimited long-term memory, which is responsible for, memorizing information, but we have a short term. We have a limited short term memory, which is responsible

01:18 - for learning new concept. So we should design e-learning systems in a way that we can use. The short term memory is an efficient way. in this research project, we, evaluated the effect of two elements on cognitive load, for, using e-learning systems. One of them was, interactive animation, and the other one a pedagogical agent. let's start by the interactive animation.

01:51 - interactive animation is a kind of animation that in contrast with static animations that uses just watch the animation. Users can interact with the animation content. I mean, they can click on different parts, they can get different feedback. Let me explain it using an example. Imagine that you wanna learn Photoshop with the use of an at interactive animation. when the animation is playing, in some parts it'll pause

02:25 - and, you need to do something so that the animation continues. For example, it says, for drawing a circle, we should click the circle tool and then move the mouse. in a circular way, users should actually move their mouse. Click the circle tool, on the video, and then the video will continue. This is the definition of an interactive animation, but, pedagogical agent is

02:58 - A, a kind of a talking avatar, and maybe the word seems scary when we say pedagogical agent, but, the easy word for, for pedagogical agent is, talking avatar. And I believe all of us are familiar, all of your familiar with the concept of talking avatar. It's like a virtual instructor or a virtual teacher that can have human body movement, and it has lip syncing. With audio, we wanted

03:31 - to see if adding interactive animation and the pedagogical agent can either decrease or increase user's cognitive load, because based on the literature for, interactive animation, interactive animation overall can enhance learning and decrease cognitive load because of embodi cognition. Embedded cognition is another theory that emphasizes on engaging two sensory memories, including, for example, visual and physical sensors at the same time

04:07 - because it can distribute the load. so based on some studies like Mire or, or, Kira, we predict, we hypothesize that the interactive animation can decrease cognitive load and increase learning performance. But for the pedagogical agent, this story is more complicated because some researchers believe that interactive animation can, sorry, the pedagogical agent can increase learning performance because it can

04:43 - increase user's motivation. the researchers such as Atkinson, such as, Zi, Fabio, these researchers believe that because of the nature of the pedagogical agent, because of that, interesting traction and that human-like interaction, it can make the learning more engaging. But some researchers such as John Swer, such as Fred Pass, or Paul Iris, believe that, elements such as pedagogical agent

05:18 - because of the na their nature, they are redundant and they are just, a dec element. I call them redundant because they are redundant to the audio, and we have the audio, and we have the agent, and we have the software user interface. So actually, this pedagogical agent can be a redundant content and it can split users' attention because they should have a full concentration on the video

05:51 - and on the software user interface. But the pedagogical agent can change their focus, and it'll be considered as a redundant element for the audio. So it was the reason that we wanted to discover if in the context of teaching software application, using e-learning systems, using pedagogical agent and interactive animation would be efficient methods or not. regarding the methodology, we employed 80 participants,

06:20 - 40 in each experiment. we had, and then we divided them into, two groups of 2020 in the control group, and 20 in the experimental group, the participants had the same characteristics, which means that we used a screening protocol to select homogenized participants. we collected data, at UNSW, the University of New South Wales,

06:49 - and all the participants had a good English proficiency. They didn't have a good computer background. They could work with computer, definitely all users can work with computers, but they were not professional computer users because we wanted to teach them a software. And also they didn't have any familiarity with Microsoft Access. Maybe you ask me why Microsoft Access. The reason is Microsoft Access was the experimental application that we use, in our e-learning system

07:23 - to teach to participants. So if participants had any background with Microsoft Access, we couldn't actually evaluate the efficiency of our e-learning, system. So, in the first experiment, we designed two systems. One of them had the interactive animation, and the other one had a static animation. The content were exactly the same. Everything was the same. There wasn't any difference between the systems. And the only independent variable was the existence

07:57 - of the interactive animation and the static animation in the control system. and also we designed four lessons for our e-learning systems. Two lessons with low element interactivity materials, and two lessons with high element interactivity materials. let me explain the difference between low and high element interactivity materials. when we are dealing with, teaching a concept, we can divide the concept, the, the teaching

08:32 - and, the, the learning concept that, I mean, the concept that we want to teach into two different categories, low and high element interactivity, low element interactivity. This concept are the concept that users can learn in isolation. They are not integrated with the other elements. but high element inactivity concepts are the elements that users need to have a background. They are integrated with the other elements, and overall, they are more complicated

09:02 - and more difficult for users to learn. Lemme give you two examples. For example, saving a file is considered as an element below interactivity, because users just need to click the save button and that's it. They can save it. But, working with, for example, chart or formulas in Microsoft Excel are considered as high element interactivity tasks.

09:30 - Because for writing a formula, users need to have a background. They need to know the logic behind that formula. They need, they need to know what parameters they can, they can add to that formula, or for adding a chart, they should know the difference between different types of charts. And also how to select a range, how to feed the chart and how to draw it. So that one is considered as high element interactivity.

09:56 - And we wanted to know if interactive animation and the pedagogical agent, can have the same performance for low and high element interactivity materials. This is the reason that we designed, four different lessons, two with low and two with high element inter activities. And, regarding the procedure of data collection, we asked participants to come to our HCI Lab, human Computer Interaction Lab. We collected data one by one.

10:29 - First they signed the consent form, and after that, they could start learning. And, during learning each lesson, we measured time duration for learning each lesson. And also after finishing each lesson, we gave them a lecture scale questionnaire. it was a difficulty liquor scale questionnaire with different questions about their experience and the difficulty of the teaching material for them. and, regarding the data analysis, we used

11:05 - a linear mixed model test in SBSS to see, if, if there is any difference between the time duration and the liquor scale difficulty questionnaire, between, low and high element interactivity materials and between both systems. I haven't explained the methodology for the pedagogical agent. One because we had the same, methodology, and the only difference was the system. In one of the systems we had only audio.

11:36 - And in the other one we only had, we had the pedagogical agent in addition to the audio, but we had, I mean, everything was the same, the same content, the same interface. And the only independent variable in the experimental system, was, the pedagogical agent. Yeah, a very good question, regarding the findings. our linear mix model showed that, participants in the, in, in the experimental group of the interactive animation had a better performance.

12:16 - I mean, they could complete the learning tasks in less time, and also they reported less difficulty based on the liquor scale questionnaire. But this one was just for high element interactivity materials, and it was actually predictable because for learning easy concept, users commonly, learn it. I mean, it's easy, and when you wanna learn an easy concept,

12:46 - you can learn it with any method. But for learning difficult concept, it showed that for high element interactivity materials, yes, interactive animation can help. And for the pedagogical agent, the results showed that unfortunately, the pedagogical agent in the context of teaching software applications can increase cognitive load. And consequently, it can decrease learning performance, because of the redundancy effect, we can,

13:19 - we can justify this based on the redundancy effect. but, the positive effects of the interactive animation can be justified based on the embodied cognition that I explained, before regarding the inter, the interpretation of the results. We could prove. Other hypothesis, we could prove that interactive animation is useful in the context of teaching software application, because we can engage hand movement

13:47 - and mouse movement in addition to visual and audio sensors. and it can distribute the load. So participants can have a better concentration, we can decrease cognitive load, and consequently we could increase the learning performance. But for pedagogical agent, it increased cognitive load. We chose that using the elements such as pedagogical agents, especially for teaching applications like Microsoft Access. that has a user interface is not

14:23 - actually a good approach. So we should avoid using, graphical, additional graphical and additional decorative elements because it can change users' focus and it can in increase learning performance, sorry, learning duration and decrease learning performance. for future work, it definitely, wants to evaluate the effects of both pedagogical Agent and interactive animations in different contexts, because now we just evaluated their effects,

14:57 - in the context of, software applications, but maybe in other contexts. Let me give you an example. Imagine that we wanna learn, a second language, something like Spanish for learning Spanish. There isn't any graphical user interface. We just have some words and we just need an instructor that talk and explain the words, sentences and the grammar. maybe the, the pedagogical agent

15:28 - or the talking avatar is an efficient method in this context because it can motivate learners to have a better concentration and also interactive animation. If we talk about this example, I mean, learning a second language, maybe the interactive animation is not an appropriate method, and we can get completely different results if we evaluate the effect of interactive animation and the pedagogical agent in different contexts and in different situations

16:03 - for teaching different materials. So for future studies, researchers in different areas can definitely evaluate these effects, especially for teaching motor skill tasks. Something like, for example, teaching children how to play with Lego pieces. Definitely using interactive animations would be an efficient method because the nature of teaching motor skill tasks are similar to,

16:32 - software applications. So interactive animation can be useful, but pedagogical agent might be harmful in this context.

Faculti AI can make mistakes