Top

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

Published in:

01-08-2016

Analysis of instructional support elements for an online, educational simulation on active listening for women graduate students in science and engineering

Authors: Bianca L. Bernstein, Jennifer M. Bekki, Kerrie G. Wilkins, Caroline J. Harrison

Published in: Journal of Computing in Higher Education | Issue 2/2016

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Strong interpersonal communication skills (ICS) are critical for educational and career success, but effective and widely accessible training systems are not available. This paper describes a 2 × 2 × 2 experimental study of an online, educational simulation for practice with the ICS of active listening. The simulation was customized for women graduate students in the natural sciences and engineering. In such environments, where gender stereotyping is common, ICS can make the difference between continued progress and discouraging setbacks. The pedagogical effects of following three instructional support variables were investigated: (1) elaborative versus simple feedback (2) presence versus absence of a static image to accompany the content delivered aurally by a human pedagogical agent, and (3) presence versus absence of instructional hints. The four outcome measures were self-reported knowledge about, skill in applying, and self-efficacy with respect to active listening, along with the usability of the simulation itself. Participants in the study included N = 137 women in the natural sciences and engineering. Results showed that the instructional support variables were significantly related to the outcome measures of knowledge, skills, and usability, but not self-efficacy with respect to active listening. A three-way interaction among all three of the instructional support variables was found to be statistically significant for both the knowledge and skills outcome variables; for both, the highest scores were obtained by participants who were presented with elaborative feedback and neither pedagogical agent image nor hints. Also, participants who received elaborative feedback reported the simulation to have significantly greater usability than those who received simple feedback.

previous article The application of layer theory to design: the control layer

next article An empirical analysis of the determinants of mobile instant messaging appropriation in university learning

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Adams, W. K., Reid, S., Lemaster, R., McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., Dubson, M., & Wieman, C. E. (2008). A study of educational simulations Part 1: Engagement and learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(3), 397–419.

American Board of Medical Specialties. (2014). Standards for the ABMS program for maintenance of certification (MOC). Accessed 4 May 2015. http://www.abms.org/media/1109/standards-for-the-abms-program-for-moc-final.pdf.

Atkinson, R. K., Mayer, R. E., & Merrill, M. M. (2005). Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent’s voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 117–139.CrossRef

Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135–146). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Azevedo, R., & Bernard, R. M. (1995). A meta-analysis of the effects of feedback in computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(2), 111–127.CrossRef

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.CrossRef

Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61, 213–238.CrossRef

Bateman, J., & Davies, D. (2011). Virtual patients: Are we in a new era? Academic Medicine, 86(2), 151.CrossRef

Baylor, A. L., & Kim, S. (2009). Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: When less is more. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 450–457.CrossRef

Baylor, A. L., & Ryu, J. (2003). The effects of image and animation in enhancing pedagogical agent persona. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(4), 373–394.CrossRef

Berkhof, M., Van Rijssen, H. J., Schellart, A. J., Anema, J. R., & Van der Beek, A. J. (2011). Effective training strategies for teaching communication skills to physicians: An overview of systematic reviews. Patient Education and Counseling, 84(2), 152–162.CrossRef

Bernstein, B. L., & Russo, N. F. (2008). Explaining too few women in academic science and engineering careers: A psychosocial perspective. In M. Paludi (Ed.), Series on the psychology of women at work: Challenges and solutions for our female workforce. Vol 2: Obstacles and the identity juggle (pp. 1–33). Westport, CN: Praeger Press.

Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Feuerlein, I., & Spada, H. (2004). The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualisations. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 325–341.CrossRef

Borrego, M., & Newswander, L. K. (2010). Definitions of interdisciplinary research: Toward graduate-level interdisciplinary learning outcomes. The Review of Higher Education, 34(1), 61–84.CrossRef

Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167.CrossRef

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & I. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry. London: Taylor & Francis.

Bultas, M. W. (2011). Enhancing the pediatric undergraduate nursing curriculum through simulation. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 26(3), 224–229.CrossRef

Butow, P., Cockburn, J., Girgis, A., Bowman, D., Schofield, P., D’Este, C., & Tattersall, M. H. (2008). Increasing oncologists’ skills in eliciting and responding to emotional cues: Evaluation of a communication skills training program. Psycho-Oncology, 17(3), 209–218.CrossRef

Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1987). Linking dynamic testing with school achievement. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), dynamic testing (pp. 82–115). New York: Guilford.

Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (1997). Video-based versus paper-and-pencil method of assessment in situational judgment tests: Subgroup differences in performance and face validity perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 143–159.CrossRef

Chen, L. H. (2010). Web-based learning programs: Use by learners with various cognitive styles. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1028–1035.CrossRef

Clark, R. E., & Feldon, D. F. (2005). Five common but questionable principles of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 97–115). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Cook, D. A., Erwin, P. J., & Triola, M. M. (2010). Computerized virtual patients in health professions education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Academic Medicine, 85, 1589–1602.CrossRef

Cook, D. A., & Triola, M. M. (2009). Virtual patients: A critical literature review and proposed next steps. Medical Education, 43, 303–311.CrossRef

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.CrossRef

deJong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38, 105–134.CrossRef

Devito, J. A. (2007). The interpersonal communication book (11th ed.). New York: Pearson.

Feinstein, A. H., & Cannon, H. M. (2002). Constructs of simulation evaluation. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 425–440.CrossRef

Ford, N., & Chen, S. Y. (2001). Matching/mismatching revisited: an empirical study of learning and teaching styles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), 5–22.CrossRef

Frechette, C., & Moreno, R. (2010). The roles of animated pedagogical agents’ presence and nonverbal communication in multimedia learning environments. Media Psychology, 22(2), 61–72.CrossRef

Gordon, T. (1975). P.E.T: Parent effectiveness training. New York: New American Library.

Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2014). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Guadagno, R. E., Blascovich, J., Bailenson, J. N., & Mccall, C. (2007). Virtual humans and persuasion: The effects of agency and behavioral realism. Media Psychology, 10(1), 1–22.

Gunter, R., & Stambach, A. (2005). Differences in men and women scientists’ perceptions of workplace climate. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 11(1), 97–116.CrossRef

Hargie, O. (2011). Skilled interpersonal communication: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hargie, O., Boohan, M., McCoy, M., & Murphy, P. (2010). Current trends in communication skills training in UK schools of medicine. Medical Teacher, 32, 385–391.CrossRef

Hartman, H. (2002). Scaffolding and cooperative learning. Human learning and instruction (pp. 23–69). New York: City College, University of New York.

Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 249–271). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81–112.CrossRef

Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review, 6, 27–54.CrossRef

Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., Oliver, R., & Woo, Y. (2004). Designing authentic activities in web-based courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(1), 3–29.CrossRef

Hill, C. (2009). Helping skills: Facilitating exploration, insight and action (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Issenberg, S. B., McGaghie, W. C., Petrusa, E. R., Lee Gordon, D., & Scalese, R. J. (2005). Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: A BEME systematic review. Medical Teacher, 27(1), 10–28.CrossRef

Jaehnig, W., & Miller, M. L. (2007). Feedback type s in programmed instruction: A systematic review. The Psychological Record, 57(2), 219–232.

Johnson, C. I., & Priest, H. A. (2014). The feedback principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 449–463). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509–539.CrossRef

Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31.CrossRef

Kennedy, G. E. (2004). Promoting cognition in multimedia interactivity research. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15(1), 43–61.

Knapp, M., & Hall, J. (2009). Nonverbal communication in human interaction (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Kraiger, K., Ford, J., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311–328.CrossRef

Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: The affective domain. New York: David McKay.

Kuk, K., Milentijević, I., Rančić, D., & Spalević, P. (2012). Pedagogical agent in multimedia interactive modules for learning–MIMLE. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(9), 8051–8058.CrossRef

Kulhavy, R. W., White, M. T., Topp, B. W., Chan, A. L., & Adams, J. (1985). Feedback complexity and corrective efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10(3), 285–291.CrossRef

Lappalainen, P. (2009). Communication as part of the engineering skills set. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(2), 123–129.CrossRef

Levinson, W., Lesser, C. S., & Epstein, R. M. (2010). Developing physician communication skills for patient-centered care. Health Affairs, 29(7), 1310–1318.CrossRef

Levitt, D. H. (2001). Active listening and counselor self-efficacy: Emphasis on one micro-skill in beginning counselor training. The Clinical Supervisor, 20(2), 101–115.CrossRef

Lin, L., Atkinson, R. K., Christopherson, R. M., Joseph, S. S., & Harrison, C. J. (2013). Animated agents and learning: Does the type of verbal feedback they provide matter? Computers & Education, 67, 239–249.CrossRef

Louwerse, M. M., Graesser, A. C., Lu, S., & Mitchell, H. H. (2005). Social cues in animated conversational agents. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 693–704.CrossRef

Mason, B. J., & Bruning, R. (2001). Providing feedback in computer-based instruction: What the research tells us. University of Nebraska–Lincoln: Center for Instructional Innovation. Retrieved from http://dwb.unl.edu/Edit/MB/MasonBruning.html.

Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 377.CrossRef

Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pretraining, and modality principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 169–182). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Mayer, R. E. (2014). Principles based on social cues in multimedia learning: Personalization, voice, image, and embodiment principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 345–368). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Mayer, R. E., & DaPra, C. S. (2012). An embodiment effect in computer-based learning with animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(3), 239–252.

Mayer, R. E., Dow, G. T., & Mayer, S. (2003a). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 806–812.CrossRef

Mayer, R. E., Fennell, S., Farmer, L., & Campbell, J. (2004). A personalization effect in multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 389–395.CrossRef

Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 279–315). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.CrossRef

Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P. (2003b). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker’s voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 419–425.CrossRef

McGaghie, W. C. (1999). Simulation in professional competence assessment: Basic considerations. In A. Tekian, C. H. McGuire, & W. C. McGaghie (Eds.), Innovative simulations for assessing professional competence (pp. 7–22). Chicago: Department of Medical Education, University of Illinois at Chicago.

Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32(1–2), 99–113.CrossRef

Moreno, R., & Durán, R. (2004). Do multiple representations need explanations? The role of verbal guidance and individual differences in multimedia mathematics learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 492.CrossRef

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Multimedia-supported metaphors for meaning making in mathematics. Cognition and instruction, 17(3), 215–248.CrossRef

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 117.CrossRef

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 309–326.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 640–647.CrossRef

Narciss, S., & Huth, K. (2004). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multimedia learning. In H. M. Niegemann, D. Leutner, & R. Brunken (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning (pp. 181–195). Munster, NY: Waxmann.

National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2012). Job Outlook 2013. Bethlehem, PA: NACE. Downloaded 12 Aug 2013. http://www.unco.edu/careers/assets/documents/NACEJobOutlookNov2013.pdf.

National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Darabi, A. (2005). A motivational perspective on the relation between mental effort and performance: Optimizing learner involvement in instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 25–34.CrossRef

Passow, J. H. (2012). Which ABET competencies do engineering graduates find most important in their work. Journal of Engineering Education, 101, 95–118.CrossRef

Perkins, K., Adams, W., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., Reid, S., Wieman, C., & LeMaster, R. (2006). PhET: Interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The Physics Teacher, 44, 18.CrossRef

Phillips, B. (1999). Reformulating dispute narratives through active listening. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 17, 161–180.CrossRef

Plass, J., Homer, B. D., & Hayward, E. O. (2009). Design factors for educationally effective animations and simulations. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21, 31–61.CrossRef

Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Pridemore, D. R., & Klein, J. D. (1995). Control of practice and level of feedback in computer-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 444–450.CrossRef

Pulakos, E. D., & Schmitt, N. (1996). An evaluation of two strategies for reducing adverse impact and their effects on criterion-related validity. Human Performance, 9, 241–258.CrossRef

Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Stanford, CA: CLSI Publications.

Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1–29.CrossRef

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Ronen, M., & Eliahu, M. (2000). Simulation—A bridge between theory and reality: The case of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 16(1), 14–26.CrossRef

Rosenberg-Kima, R. B., Baylor, A. L., Plant, E. A., & Doerr, C. E. (2008). Interface agents as social models for female students: The effects of agent visual presence and appearance on female students’ attitudes and beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2741–2756.CrossRef

Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (1994). Artificial intelligence. Egnlewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Usability of the ALS, 18(2), 119–144.

Schmitt, N., & Chan, D. (1998). Personnel selection: A theoretical approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 285–296.CrossRef

Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.CrossRef

Shute, V. J., Hansen, E. G., & Almond, R. G. (2007). An assessment for learning system called ACED: Designing for learning effectiveness and accessibility. In ETS Research Report No. RR-07-26, Princeton, NJ.

Smith, S., Hanson, J. L., Tewksbury, L. R., Christy, C., Talib, N. J., Harris, M. A., et al. (2007). Teaching patient communication skills to medical students: A review of randomized controlled trials. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 30(1), 3–21.CrossRef

Strobel, J., Wang, J., Weber, N. R., & Dyehouse, M. (2013). The role of authenticity in design-based learning environments: The case of engineering education. Computers & Education, 64, 143–152.CrossRef

Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Melbourne: ACER Press.

Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review: General, 10, 251–296.CrossRef

Trenholm, S., & Jensen, A. (2004). Interpersonal communication. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Tullis, T., & Albert, B. (2008). Measuring the user experience: collecting, analyzing, and presenting usability metrics. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufman.

Van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C., & Eggen, T. J. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes. A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,. doi:10.3102/0034654314564881.

Van der Kleij, F. M., Timmers, C. F., & Eggen, T. J. (2011). The effectiveness of methods for providing written feedback through a computer-based assessment for learning: A systematic review. CADMO, 19(1), 21–39.

van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147–177.CrossRef

VanLehn, K., Lynch, C., Schulze, K., Shapiro, J. A., Shelby, R., Taylor, L., & Wintersgill, M. (2005). The Andes physics tutoring system: Lessons learned. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(3), 147–204.

Weger, H, Jr, Bell, G. R. C., & Emmett, M. C. (2010). Active listening in peer-interviews: The influence of message paraphrasing on perceptions of listening skill. International Journal of Listening, 24, 34–49.CrossRef

Weger, H, Jr, Bell, G. R. C., Minei, M. E., & Robinson, M. C. (2015). The relative effectiveness of active listening in initial interactions. International Journal of Listening, 28, 13–31.CrossRef

Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., & Perkins, K. K. (2008). PhET: Simulations that enhance learning. Science, 322, 682–683.CrossRef

Wilkins, K., Bernstein, B. L., Bekki, J. M., Harrison., C. J., & Atkinson, R. K. (2012) Development of the science technology engineering and mathematics—active listening skills assessment (STEM-ALSA). In Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, pp. 1218–1223.

Wouters, P., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. (2008). How to optimize learning from animated models: A review of guidelines based on cognitive load. Review of Educational Research, 78, 645–675.CrossRef

Title: Analysis of instructional support elements for an online, educational simulation on active listening for women graduate students in science and engineering
Authors: Bianca L. Bernstein
Jennifer M. Bekki
Kerrie G. Wilkins
Caroline J. Harrison
Publication date: 01-08-2016
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Computing in Higher Education / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 1042-1726
Electronic ISSN: 1867-1233
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9110-4

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

The application of layer theory to design: the control layer

An empirical analysis of the determinants of mobile instant messaging appropriation in university learning

Effects of e-textbook instructor annotations on learner performance

Video use in teacher education: a survey of teacher-educators’ practices across disciplines

Are integrated portfolio systems the answer? An evaluation of a web-based portfolio system to improve preservice teachers’ reflective thinking skills

An assessment of online instructor e-learning readiness before, during, and after course delivery

Premium Partner