Voice’s Effect on Student Effort Ratings and Recall Performance While Under Cognitive Stress

Abstract

Computer-generated speech is becoming more commonplace in classrooms, so it is important to examine the impact of computer voice on students’ cognition in a variety of learning situations. The current study investigated the effects of voice in a cognitively stressful, audio-only learning situation. In this experiment, 122 college students were recruited to listen to an audio lecture and respond to test questions. Our findings indicated that participants rated the classic voice engine as demanding the most effort and the human voice as demanding the least effort. Students also had the best recall performance in the human voice condition and the worst recall performance in the classic voice condition. Our results indicated that when learners are placed under cognitive stress, the human voice is the superior pedagogical agent. These results contribute to a growing body of research examining modern computer voice as a pedagogical agent.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

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(1), 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.07.001

Chen

H.-T.

Lorch

R. F.

Jr. (2018). Effects of audio headings on learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000143

Cohen

(1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46. https://doi.og/10.1177/001316446002000104

Craig

S. D.

Schroeder

N. L.

(2018). Text-to-Speech Software and Learning: Investigating the Relevancy of the Voice Effect. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(6), 1534–1548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633118802877

Craig

S. D.

Schroeder

N. L.

(2017). Reconsidering the voice effect when learning from a virtual human. Computers & Education, 114, 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017

Hart

S. G.

(2006). Nasa-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 Years Later. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50(9), 904–908. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605000909

Lorch

R. F.

Jr. Chen

H.-T.

Lemarié

(2012). Communicating headings and preview sentences in text and speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(3), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029547

Morris

T. W.

Chen

H-T. M.

(2020). The influence of voice on pedagogical agent’s persona and recall performance. Proceedings of the 2020 International Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Chicago, IL: The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181320641111

Mayer

R. E.

Sobko

Mautone

P. D.

(2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker’s voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.419

10.

Mayer

R. E.

(2017). Using multimedia for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12197

11.

Miller

G. A.

(1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158

12.

Mori

MacDorman

Kageki

(2012). The Uncanny Valley [From the Field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98–100. https://doi.org/10.1109/mra.2012.2192811

13.

Parasuraman

Riley

(1997). Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 39(2), 230–253. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886

14.

Schroeder

N. L.

Romine

W. L.

Craig

S. D.

(2017). Measuring pedagogical agent persona and the influence of agent persona on learning. Computers & Education, 109, 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.015

15.

Sweller

van Merriënboer

J.J.G.

Paas

(2019). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5

16.

Tyler

S. W.

Hertel

P. T.

McCallum

M. C.

Ellis

H. C.

(1979). Cognitive effort and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5(6), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1037/02787393.5.6.607

17.

van den Broek

Kendeou

. (2017). Development of reading comprehension: Change and continuity in the ability to construct coherent representations. Theories of Reading Development, 283–306. https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.15.16van