Exploring the impact of nonverbal social behavior on learning outcomes in instructional video design.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 06 2024
04 06 2024
Historique:
received:
11
08
2023
accepted:
29
05
2024
medline:
5
6
2024
pubmed:
5
6
2024
entrez:
4
6
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Online education has become increasingly popular in recent years, and video lectures have emerged as a common instructional format. While the importance of instructors' nonverbal social cues such as gaze, facial expression, and gestures for learning progress in face-to-face teaching is well-established, their impact on instructional videos is not fully understood. Most studies on nonverbal social cues in instructional videos focus on isolated cues rather than considering multimodal nonverbal behavior patterns and their effects on the learning progress. This study examines the role of instructors' nonverbal immediacy (a construct capturing multimodal nonverbal behaviors that reduce psychological distance) in video lectures with respect to learners' cognitive, affective, and motivational outcomes. We carried out an eye-tracking experiment with 87 participants (M
Identifiants
pubmed: 38834667
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-63487-w
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-63487-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
12867Subventions
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation)
ID : 390523135
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. Grade Increase: Tracking Distance Education in the United States (Babson Survey Research Group, 2018).
Lange, C. & Costley, J. Improving online video lectures: Learning challenges created by media. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High Educ. 17, 1–18 (2020).
doi: 10.1186/s41239-020-00190-6
Fiorella, L. & Mayer, R. E. Effects of observing the instructor draw diagrams on learning from multimedia messages. J. Educ. Psychol. 108, 528–546 (2016).
doi: 10.1037/edu0000065
Bambaeeroo, F. & Shokrpour, N. The impact of the teachers’ non-verbal communication on success in teaching. J. Adv. Med. Educ. Profession. 5, 51–59 (2017).
Meier, J. et al. Do social cues in instructional videos affect attention allocation, perceived cognitive load, and learning outcomes under different visual complexity conditions? Comput. Assist. Learn. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12803 (2023).
doi: 10.1111/jcal.12803
Kokoç, M., IIgaz, H. & Altun, A. Effects of sustained attention and video lecture types on learning performances. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 68, 3015–3039 (2020).
Kizilcec, R. F., Papadopoulos, K. & Sritanyaratana, L. Proc. SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (ACM, 2014).
Pi, Z. et al. Instructors’ pointing gestures improve learning regardless of their use of directed gaze in video lectures. Comput. Educ. 128, 345–352 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.006
Kennedy, J., Baxter, P. & Belpaeme, T. Nonverbal immediacy as a characterisation of social behaviour for human–robot interaction. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 9, 109–128 (2017).
doi: 10.1007/s12369-016-0378-3
Zaki, J. Cue integration: A common framework for social cognition and physical perception. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8(3), 296–312 (2013).
pubmed: 26172972
doi: 10.1177/1745691613475454
Kennedy, J., Baxter, P. & Belpaeme, T. Proc. 4th International Symposium on New Frontiers in HRI at AISB (2015).
Mayer, R. E., Fiorella, L. & Stull, A. Five ways to increase the effectiveness of instructional video. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 68, 837–852 (2020).
doi: 10.1007/s11423-020-09749-6
Mayer, R. E. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning Vol. 1, 201–212 (Cambridge University Press, 2005).
Sweller, J. Instructional Design in Technical Areas. Camberwell (ACER Press, 1999).
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. MANAGING split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 13, 351–371 (1999).
doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199908)13:4<351::AID-ACP589>3.0.CO;2-6
Zhang, J., Bourguet, M.-L. & Venture, G. Electronic Workshops in Computing (BCS Learning & Development, 2018).
Skulmowski, A. & Xu, K. M. Understanding cognitive load in digital and online learning: A new perspective on extraneous cognitive load. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 34, 171–196 (2022).
doi: 10.1007/s10648-021-09624-7
Schnotz, W., Fries, S. & Horz, H. Contemporary Motivation Research: From Global to Local Perspectives 69–96 (Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, 2009).
Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K. & Mautone, P. D. Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker’s voice. J. Educ. Psychol. 95, 419–425 (2003).
doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.419
Gunawardena, C. N. Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. Int. J. Educ. Telecommun. 1, 147–166 (1995).
Pi, Z., Zhu, F., Zhang, Y., Chen, L. & Yang, J. Complexity of visual learning material moderates the effects of instructor’s beat gestures and head nods in video lectures. Learn. Instruct. 77, 101520 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101520
Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning (Wiley, 2016).
doi: 10.1002/9781119239086
Cobb, S. C. Social presence and online learning: A current view from a research perspective. J. Interact. Online Learn. 8, 3 (2009).
McLaren, B. M., DeLeeuw, K. E. & Mayer, R. E. A politeness effect in learning with web-based intelligent tutors. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 69, 70–79 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.09.001
Wang, J. & Antonenko, P. D. Instructor presence in instructional video: Effects on visual attention, recall, and perceived learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 71, 79–89 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.049
Arbaugh, J. B. Is there an optimal design for on-line MBA courses? AMLE 4, 135–149 (2005).
doi: 10.5465/amle.2005.17268561
Arbaugh, J. B. & Hwang, A. Does, “teaching presence” exist in online MBA courses? Internet High. Educ. 9, 9–21 (2006).
doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.12.001
Wilson, K. E. et al. Instructor presence effect: Liking does not always lead to learning. Comput. Educ. 122, 205–220 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.011
Patterson, M. L. Reflections on historical trends and prospects in contemporary nonverbal research. J. Nonverbal Behav. 38, 171–180 (2014).
doi: 10.1007/s10919-013-0171-z
Comstock, J., Rowell, E. & Bowers, J. W. Food for thought: Teacher nonverbal immediacy, student learning, and curvilinearity. Commun. Educ. 44, 251–266 (1995).
doi: 10.1080/03634529509379015
Mehrabian, A. Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behav. Res. Method Instrum. 1, 203–207 (1968).
doi: 10.3758/BF03208096
Liu, W. Does teacher immediacy affect students? A systematic review of the association between teacher verbal and non-verbal immediacy and student motivation. Front. Psychol. 12, 713978 (2021).
pubmed: 34248809
pmcid: 8267458
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.713978
Chesebro, J. L. & McCroskey, J. C. The relationship of teacher clarity and immediacy with student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning. Commun. Educ. 50, 59–68 (2001).
doi: 10.1080/03634520109379232
Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R. & Allen, M. A meta-analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Commun. Monogr. 71, 184–207 (2004).
doi: 10.1080/036452042000228054
Dixson, M. D., Greenwell, M. R., Rogers-Stacy, C., Weister, T. & Lauer, S. Nonverbal immediacy behaviors and online student engagement: Bringing past instructional research into the present virtual classroom. Commun. Educ. 66, 37–53 (2017).
doi: 10.1080/03634523.2016.1209222
Christophel, D. M. The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Commun. Educ. 39, 323–340 (1990).
doi: 10.1080/03634529009378813
Frymier, A. B. A model of immediacy in the classroom. Commun. Q. 42, 133–144 (1994).
doi: 10.1080/01463379409369922
Richmond, V. P. Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation. Commun. Educ. 39, 181–195 (1990).
doi: 10.1080/03634529009378801
Butland, M. J. & Beebe, S. A. A Study of the Application of Implicit Communication Theory to Teacher Immediacy and Student Learning (1992).
Mottet, T. P. & Beebe, S. A. Relationships between teacher nonverbal immediacy, student emotional response, and perceived student learning. Commun. Res. Rep. 19, 77–88 (2002).
doi: 10.1080/08824090209384834
Pi, Z., Hong, J. & Yang, J. Effects of the instructor’s pointing gestures on learning performance in video lectures. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 48, 1020–1029 (2017).
doi: 10.1111/bjet.12471
Stull, A. T., Fiorella, L. & Mayer, R. E. The case for embodied instruction: The instructor as a source of attentional and social cues in video lectures. J. Educ. Psychol. 113, 1441–1453 (2021).
doi: 10.1037/edu0000650
Wang, J., Antonenko, P. & Dawson, K. Does visual attention to the instructor in online video affect learning and learner perceptions? An eye-tracking analysis. Comput. Educ. 146, 103779 (2020).
Bach, M. The Freiburg visual acuity test—Automatic measurement of visual acuity. Optom. Vis. Sci. 73, 49–53 (1996).
pubmed: 8867682
doi: 10.1097/00006324-199601000-00008
MATLAB (2015). Version 8.6.0 (R2015b) (The MathWorks Inc, Berlin).
Brainard, D. H. The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vis. 10, 433–436 (1997).
doi: 10.1163/156856897X00357
Kleiner, M., Brainard, D. & Pelli, D. What’s New in Psychtoolbox-3? (2007).
Cornelissen, F. W., Peters, E. M. & Palmer, J. The eyelink toolbox: Eye tracking with MATLAB and the psychophysics toolbox. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 34, 613–617 (2002).
pubmed: 12564564
doi: 10.3758/BF03195489
Bieleke, M., Gogol, K., Goetz, T., Daniels, L. & Pekrun, R. The AEQ-S: A Short Version of the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (Center for Open Science, 2022).
Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J. & Blanchard, C. On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The situational motivation scale (SIMS). Motiv. Emot. 24, 175–213 (2000).
doi: 10.1023/A:1005614228250
Angot, C. Limoges (2013).
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C. & Johnson, A. D. Development of the nonverbal immediacy scale (NIS): Measures of self-and other-perceived nonverbal immediacy. Commun. Q. 51, 504–517 (2003).
doi: 10.1080/01463370309370170
Lehrl, S., Triebig, G. & Fischer, B. Multiple choice vocabulary test MWT as a valid and short test to estimate premorbid intelligence. Acta Neurol. Scand. 91, 335–345 (1995).
pubmed: 7639062
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0404.1995.tb07018.x
Petermann, F. & Petermann, U. WAIS-IV. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale‐Fourth Edition. Deutschsprachige Adaptation der WAIS-IV von D. Wechsler. Frankfurt/Main: Pearson Assessment, Vol. 8 (2012).
Hart, S. G. & Staveland, L. E. Advances in Psychology 139–183 (Elsevier, 1988).
Byrne, B. M. Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: A road less traveled. Struct. Equ. Model. 11, 272–300 (2004).
doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1102_8
Chen, F. F. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. 14, 464–504 (2007).
doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834
Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. Mplus User’s Guide: Statistical Analysis with Latent Variables, User’s Guide (Muthén & Muthén, 2017).
Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 6, 1–55 (1999).
doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol. Methods Res. 21, 230–258 (1992).
doi: 10.1177/0049124192021002005
Engbert, R. & Kliegl, R. Microsaccades uncover the orientation of covert attention. Vis. Res. 43, 1035–1045 (2003).
pubmed: 12676246
doi: 10.1016/S0042-6989(03)00084-1
Engbert, R. & Mergenthaler, K. Microsaccades are triggered by low retinal image slip. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103, 7192–7197 (2006).
pubmed: 16632611
pmcid: 1459039
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0509557103
Games, P. A. & Howell, J. F. Pairwise multiple comparison procedures with unequal N’s and/or variances: A Monte Carlo study. J. Educ. Stat. 1, 113 (1976).
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (2010).