Can whole-body tracing and hand tracing make any difference? Experimental evidence of learning outcomes, cognitive load, and intrinsic motivation on university students

IF 2.6 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Genmei Zuo, Lijia Lin
{"title":"Can whole-body tracing and hand tracing make any difference? Experimental evidence of learning outcomes, cognitive load, and intrinsic motivation on university students","authors":"Genmei Zuo, Lijia Lin","doi":"10.1007/s11251-024-09664-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The purpose of the study was to investigate (a) whether the effects of hand tracing and whole-body tracing reported in the literature could be extended to adults, and (b) the relative superiority of whole-body tracing over hand tracing. Two experiments were conducted to investigate the potential effects of these two kinesthetic approaches on learning outcomes, cognitive load, and intrinsic motivation. The results of Experiment 1 revealed that hand tracing enhanced germane load contingent upon a low-to-medium level of perceived difficulty. This effect disappeared in Experiment 2 where additional measures were taken to improve treatment fidelity. The findings of Experiment 2 revealed the beneficial effects of whole-body tracing on germane load, extraneous load, interest, and self-monitoring, some of which were dependent upon learners’ perceived difficulty and invested effort. These findings, along with implications, limitations, and future research directions, were discussed within the framework of cognitive load theory and embodied cognition theory.</p>","PeriodicalId":47990,"journal":{"name":"Instructional Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Instructional Science","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09664-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to investigate (a) whether the effects of hand tracing and whole-body tracing reported in the literature could be extended to adults, and (b) the relative superiority of whole-body tracing over hand tracing. Two experiments were conducted to investigate the potential effects of these two kinesthetic approaches on learning outcomes, cognitive load, and intrinsic motivation. The results of Experiment 1 revealed that hand tracing enhanced germane load contingent upon a low-to-medium level of perceived difficulty. This effect disappeared in Experiment 2 where additional measures were taken to improve treatment fidelity. The findings of Experiment 2 revealed the beneficial effects of whole-body tracing on germane load, extraneous load, interest, and self-monitoring, some of which were dependent upon learners’ perceived difficulty and invested effort. These findings, along with implications, limitations, and future research directions, were discussed within the framework of cognitive load theory and embodied cognition theory.

Abstract Image

全身描画和手部描画有区别吗?大学生学习成果、认知负荷和内在动机的实验证据
这项研究的目的是调查:(a) 文献中报道的手部描记和全身描记的效果是否可以扩展到成人;(b) 全身描记相对于手部描记的优越性。我们进行了两项实验,以研究这两种运动学方法对学习效果、认知负荷和内在动机的潜在影响。实验 1 的结果表明,在中低难度的感知水平下,手部描记增强了认知负荷。这种效果在实验 2 中消失了,因为在实验 2 中采取了额外的措施来提高治疗的忠实性。实验 2 的结果表明,全身描画法对信息量、无关信息量、兴趣和自我监控都产生了有益的影响,其中一些影响取决于学习者感知到的难度和投入的努力。在认知负荷理论和具身认知理论的框架内,对这些研究结果以及影响、局限性和未来研究方向进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Instructional Science, An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, promotes a deeper understanding of the nature, theory, and practice of learning and of environments in which learning occurs. The journal’s conception of learning, as well as of instruction, is broad, recognizing that there are many ways to stimulate and support learning. The journal encourages submission of research papers, covering a variety of perspectives from the learning sciences and learning, by people of all ages, in all areas of the curriculum, in technologically rich or lean environments, and in informal and formal learning contexts. Emphasizing reports of original empirical research, the journal provides space for full and detailed reporting of major studies. Regardless of the topic, papers published in the journal all make an explicit contribution to the science of learning and instruction by drawing out the implications for the design and implementation of learning environments. We particularly encourage the submission of papers that highlight the interaction between learning processes and learning environments, focus on meaningful learning, and recognize the role of context. Papers are characterized by methodological variety that ranges, for example, from experimental studies in laboratory settings, to qualitative studies, to design-based research in authentic learning settings.  The Editors will occasionally invite experts to write a review article on an important topic in the field.  When review articles are considered for publication, they must deal with central issues in the domain of learning and learning environments. The journal accepts replication studies. Such a study should replicate an important and seminal finding in the field, from a study which was originally conducted by a different research group. Most years, Instructional Science publishes a guest-edited thematic special issue on a topic central to the journal''s scope. Proposals for special issues can be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Proposals will be discussed in Spring and Fall of each year, and the proposers will be notified afterwards.  To be considered for the Spring and Fall discussion, proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief by March 1 and October 1, respectively.  Please note that articles that are submitted for a special issue will follow the same review process as regular articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信