0229590_C6FC0_solomon_negash_michael_e_whitman_amy_b_woszczynski_handbook

Cates,1994).BishopandCates(1996)noteexisting literature that supports the position that content can be better learned through the interaction with metaphorical graphical user interfaces by providing both “superficial and deep similarities betweenfamiliarandnovelsituations.”Ultimately, itisthefindingoftheseandotherstudiesthatthe use of metaphors helps students build knowledge, develop higher level thinking skills, build community, and gain a more universal understanding ofthesubjectmatterbeingtaught(Bishop&Cates, 1996; Henry & Crawford, 2001).

The goal in the use of underlying metaphors is to enhance the students’ learning experience by providing a device that allows each to interact with the instruction and the content in ways more familiar, and, as a result, more accessible, to them. Well-crafted auxiliary metaphors complement the underlying metaphor and the overall learning experience.

confounding Metaphors

It should be noted, however, that the ineffective use of metaphors can have a deleterious effect on even the most well-designed and well-intended learning environments. Some have suggested that gratuitous or fantastical metaphors can be in conflict with the tenets that ground effective meaning-making(e.g.,Nicholson&Sarker,2002). While this assertion is in stark contrast with the valueofmetaphordiscussedabove,itdoesprovide an important reminder that problems can arise in the use of metaphors, especially those that are auxiliary to the underlying metaphor.

Form should follow function, and the selection of underlying and auxiliary metaphors (form) should enhance and complement the teaching and learning tools and activities (function) embedded in a virtual world. One challenge in the inclusion of metaphors is the overdependence on their use within the interface design (Cates, 1996; Nelson, 1990). There are times when the poor choice of metaphors overshadows the instructional design

of the content and the virtual world in which the content is presented. When this happens, students must reconstruct what they think they know and understand about the content and virtual world with which they are working. Again, according to Cates (1994, p. 103), “When users are faced with such an auxiliary metaphor [confounding] they are required to reconstruct the environment radically, envisioning a book [for example] that is unlike any that the user has ever seen. Users seem unlikely to make such radical reconstructions….

Whenuserscometothisconclusion,thebenefits oftheunderlyingmetaphoraregreatlyreduced.”

It is even possible that students may reject and disengage from the virtual world completely if the cognitive dissonance created by the confounding metaphor is too great.

Multiple studies warn that metaphors used incorrectly or out of context can make it difficult for learners to engage effectively within environments such as virtual worlds (e.g., Rosen- dahl-Kreitman, 1990; Semper, 1990; Vertelney, Arent, & Lieberman, 1990). Misalignment or inappropriate linkage between metaphors and expectations may result in a debilitating tension for learners (Burge & Carter, 1997). Barrie (1996) explains this tension as created out of a “pause in the cadence of the composition…producing a reaction of tension and anticipation” and notes an emotional reaction occurs when this pause or interruption occurs, often resulting in frustration or even feelings of incompetence. Rohrer (1995) offers a different twist, suggesting that there is also a tension taking place between the literal and figurative,or“magical,”qualitiesofthemetaphors being used, and this tension extends to the a tension between the user and the computer itself, which is viewed as an “other—a sentient being with a consciousness of its own (and usually a malevolent consciousness at that).”

When it comes to metaphors, it seems, numbers count. Incorporating too few or too many metaphors can pose problems for users as well. Learners may not have enough to make sense of

the interface nor to understand the content to be learned if there are too few metaphors employed. On the other hand, too many metaphors can be overwhelming to a learner and lead to cognitive overload (Cates, 1994). Regardless, any use of metaphor has the potential of requiring learners to translate not only the content and instruction being delivered into more familiar and understandable terms, but also to force them to work through another cognitive layer posed by the use of the metaphor. When the layers overload, the use of metaphors may hinder—rather than help—learners make sense of the information at hand (Lohr & Heng-Yu, 2003). As previously mentioned, the poor use of metaphors can ultimately cause learners to abandon the metaphor altogether (Rohrer, 1995).

What is the lesson for designers of user interfaces for virtual worlds, then? The lesson is clear. To design an effective virtual world for learning, it is essential to use complementary metaphorical strategies that foster the development of community and to avoid becoming enamored with the metaphors themselves.

suPPoRt

An additional theme that has emerged from our work with virtual worlds for learning is that of

“support.”Supportisexpressedinmanyformsbut in this case, the concept is of peer and instructor support. It is often expressed as assistance that is usually available whenever one requested it. Whether the online library resources, an individual course, or even professional assistance is needed, there is an instructor or peer ready to offer support. In social constructivist learning communities, such as AET Zone, participants move along a developmental continuum from novice to expert. Indeed, in each course and throughout the program,studentsrepresentvariousaspectsofthis continuum at various points in each individual’s personal development. As each becomes more

awareofothersthroughplannedandserendipitous interactions, and as each becomes increasingly comfortable with others, their collective working relationships weave a complex support network for and by all participants. Bender (2003) suggests that a feeling of belonging within a chosen community of practice is requisite for effective learning. Both feeling supported and feeling supportive play an integral role in this important construct of belonging.

leadeRshiP

It is in these same 3D communities that participantsfindthemselvesalternatelyleadingandbeing led and where some participants unexpectedly find themselves becoming leaders and identifying with leadership roles. The leadership theme emerges as personal as well as organizational leadership.

Working collaboratively and communicating together in learning communities enhances the leadershipskillsandcomfortlevelsofparticipants, with self-reported transfer to their own teaching and learning environments. Students who spend time in AET Zone, for example, report a heightened sense of awareness of their own expertise arising from interactions and participation in the various communities in which they work and learn. They express an increase in personal and professionalself-confidence,whichtheyindicate is transferred into their professional practices.

In addition to leadership dynamics that emerge naturally from participation in 3D immersive communities of learners, deliberate leadership-focused prompts, such as case studies, provide problem-based learning situations in cross-disciplinary contexts that foster deeper levels of development. In AET Zone, for example, participants are immersed in authentic circumstances requiring the development of leadership

“voice”inthe“safety”ofthevirtualcommunity. Participants are given opportunities to “try out”

various responses to situations in an effort to solve problems within organizational communities. In the virtual environment mistakes can be made, consequences examined, and corrections tried without fear of real consequence or penalty. This type of natural yet safe learning is necessary for developing better leaders. Thus, experimenting with sharedleadership skillscan becomeanatural consequence of learning within the 3D community and, as well, can be a result of responding to deliberately conceived situations requiring leadership thought and decisions (Angel, Sanders, & Tashner, 2005; Sanders & Angel, 2005). In short, the 3D environment is a rich context for learning personal leadership skills and, as well, for applying those skills in real work situations outside this environment.

futuRe ReseaRch diRections

The convergence of sophisticated gaming platforms, communications technologies, social networking trends, and educational needs provide rich opportunities for future research. In this time of global transition, we are changing paradigms of what it means to teach and to learn. Rather than trying to address old problems with new questions, we must begin to ask new questions about new problems.

Online educational environments started by attempting to recreate the four-wall classroom that had been successful in the past. Should online learning continue to try to be the same as its face-to-face counterpart? Can it be unique in its approach, using different methods and tools for teaching and learning? How might a newer generation of online learning platforms containing more immersive and engaging environments add value to learning? Furthermore, should we beaskingadditionalquestionsabouthowspecific technologies allow us to expand beyond the four walls of a traditional classroom and transcend borders,cultures,andperspectivestocreateactive

participatorygroupsoflearners?Thedevelopment of online pedagogies to create the teaching and learning models needed for a 21st century education is a field ripe for research.

Especially important in future research may be the applications of social constructivism pedagogies to online environments. Social constructivism is fundamentally about the social construction of knowledge through participation in communities of practice. Through interaction andcommunication,collaborationandmentoring, learners become a part of and contribute to this community of practice. Researchers have just begun to explore the effects of various kinds of onlinecollaborationandcommunicationsbetween students,instructors,andcolleaguesindeveloping these communities of practice. Questions subsequently begin to emerge regarding the value that might be added by the use of tools and processes whose purpose is to enhance synchronous and asynchronouscollaborationsandcommunications in the context of social constructivist learning environments.

Specificresearchquestionstobeaskedinclude:

What constitutes online learning communities and how might they be developed and expanded? To what extent do learning communities enhance online learning? What is the added value of the participants’ sense of presence and copresence in online environments? What tools are needed to assisttheminhighlevelfunctioning?Additionally, one might ask: What kinds of skills and attitudes are needed by educational leaders to move and to support students and teachers as their organizations move into 21st century learning environments? How might current educational leaders develop such needed skills and attitudes?

Finally, the need for new assessment methods and tools is critical if we are serious about teachingtowardhigherlevelsof“criticalthinking”and performance.Thecurrenttestingmovementinthe United States is geared toward measuring lower levelcognitiveskills,thuscreatingamismatchbetween whatismeasuredand whatisstated as goals

for 21st century success. Teaching and learning in online environments, especially those that are built upon a foundation of social constructivism, will require new assessment tools and measures in order to know and understand the learning that takes place in these 21st century learning communities. Basic research must consider what an educated person looks like in the 21st century. Whatkindsofeducationalexperiencesareneeded to develop 21st century individuals? In a world where the same knowledge base is accessible by everyone, what does “knowing,” mean? What skills and knowledge are needed by individuals to be deemed “educated”? The answers to these questions will assist researchers in the development of valid and reliable assessment tools that are more consistent with a social constructivist approach to online teaching and learning.

conclusion

Those who have learned and taught within AET Zone report a variety of positive experiences, advantages, and learning outcomes from their work in this environment and through the powerful learning communities that develop within. While participating in this social constructivist, immersiveenvironment,studentsenrolledinthese courses use a variety of tools and metaphors for communication and collaboration, fostering variousformsoflearningcommunities.Theseinclude the many virtual communities developing within AET Zone for social networking, small group task completions, and authentic discussions on topics of mutual professional interest. Feedback from multiple cohorts across time and distance suggests the strong sense of presence and copresence felt while in AET Zone is a critical factor that fosters the development of useful learning communities which, in turn, facilitate practical, useful learning.

The shared experience of AET Zone participants has a number of other outcomes as well.

Students share a variety of resources both during and after their period of formal participation. They also report that the environment provides support for learning, both from instructors and peers. As a result, students’ sense of leadership and vision is heightened.

Virtual worlds such as AET Zone are unique environmentsforteachingandlearning.Thetools, support, andconstructivistpedagogies embedded within AET Zone lend themselves readily to the creation of learning communities. Clearly, there is a need for well-designed research studies to develop a body of literature that will guide educatorsastheycontinuetomoveintoemergingonline environments for teaching and learning.

RefeRences

Academic impressions building learning communities: Strategies for collaborative learning on-line conference overview. (2006). Retrieved October12,2006,fromhttps://www.academicim- pressions.com/conferences/1006-collaborative- communities.php

Ahuna, C. (2006). Online game communities are social in nature. Retrieved February 12, 2006, fromhttp://switch.sjsu.edu/v7n1/articles/cindy02. html

Angel, R. B., Sanders, R. L., & Tashner, J. H. (2005, March). Constructing learning communities through Web-based environments: Problem based learning in cross-disciplinary social constructivist frameworks. Phoenix, AZ: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education.

Barrie, T. (1996). Spiritual path, sacred place: Myth, ritual, and meaning in architecture. Boston: Shambhala.

Bender, T. (2003). Discussion-based online teaching to enhance student learning; Theory, practice, and assessment. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Bishop, M. J., & Cates, W. M. (1996). A door is a big wooden thing with a knob: Getting a handle on metaphorical interface design. In Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 80-88). Indianapolis, IN (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED397779).

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Publications.

Bronack, S., Riedl, R., & Tashner, J. (in press). Learning in the zone: A social constructivist framework for distance education in a 3D virtual world. Journal Interactive Learning Environments.

Burge, E. J. & Carter, N. M. (1997). It’s building, but is it designing? Constructing Internet-based learning environments. Paper presented at the World Conference of the International Council for Distance Education, University Park, PA (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED412333).

Cates, W. M. (1994). Designing hypermedia is hell: Metaphor’s role in instructional design. In Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1994 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 95-108).

Indianapolis, IN (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED373706).

Cates, W. M. (1996). Towards a taxonomy of metaphorical graphical user interfaces: Demands and implementations. In Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology

(pp. 101-110). Indianapolis, IN (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED397781).

Henry, A., & Crawford, C. M. (2001). Creating a collaborativeWeb-basedenvironmentthroughthe inclusion of metaphorically enhanced graphics. In Proceedings of WebNet 2001: World Conference on the World Wide Web and Internet (pp. 1-8).Orlando,FL(ERICDocumentReproduction Service No. ED462914).

Jakobsson, M., & Taylor, T. L. (2003). The Sopranos meets EverQuest: Social networking in massively multiplayer online games. Melbourne DAC. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http:// hypertext.rmit.edu.au/dac/papers/Jakobsson.pdf

Jonassen, D. (1997, Spring). INSYS 527 designing constructivist learning environments. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://www.coe.missouri. edu/~jonassen/INSYS527.html

Levin, D. S., & Ben-Jacob, M. G. (1998, November). Using collaboration in support of distance learning. Paper presented at the WebNet 98 World Conference of the WWW, Internet and Intranet Proceedings, Orlando, FL (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 427 716).

Lohr, L. L., & Heng-Yu, K. (2003). Development of a Web-based template for active learning.

Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 213-227.

Manninen, T. (2001). Rich interactions in the context of networked virtual environments: Experiences gained from the multi-player games domain. In A. Blandford, J. Vandersoickt, & P. Gray (Eds.), Joint Proceedings of HCI 2001 and IHM 2002 Conference (pp. 383-398). SpringerVerlag.

Marshall, G. (2000). Models, metaphors and measures: Issues in distance learning. Educational Media International, 37(1), 2-8.

Nelson, T. (1990). The right way to think about software design. In B. Laurel (Ed.), The art of human computer interface design (pp. 235-243). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Nicholson, J., & Sarker, S. (2002). Unearthing hidden assumptions regarding on-line education: The use of myths and metaphors. In Proceedings of the International Academy for Information Management (IAIM) Annual Conference: International Conference on Informatics Education Research (ICIER) (pp. 298-306). Barcelona, Spain (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED481748).

Reich College of Education – Appalachian State University, Boone, NC. (2005). Conceptual framework. Retrieved November 6, 2006, from http://ced.appstate.edu/about/conceptualframework.aspx

Riedl, R., Bronack, S., & Tashner, J. (2005, January). 3D Web-based worlds for instruction. Phoenix:TheSocietyforInformationandTeacher Education.

Rohrer, T. (1995). Metaphors we compute by: Bringing magic into interface design. Retrieved August 4, 2004, from University of Oregon, Department of Philosophy Web site: http://philosophy.uoregon.edu/metaphor/gui4web.htm

Rosendahl-Kreitman, K. (1990). The challenge of interface design: Creating quality experience for theuser.Multimediainterfacedesign.SantaClara, CA: Multimedia Computing Corporation.

Sanders, R. L., & Angel, R. B. (2005, August).

Shared decision-making: Case study analysis to promote cross-program dialogue between administrators and media coordinators. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education, Oranjestad, Aruba.

Sanders, R. L., Bronack, S., Cheney, A., Tashner, J., Reidl, R., & Gilman, R. (2007, February). Education in the zone: Dynamic learning communities in a 3D virtual world. Paper presented at the IADIS International Conference of Web Based Communities 2007, Salamanca, Spain.

Sanders, R. L., & McKeown, L. (2007, January).

Promotingreflectionthroughactionlearningina

3D virtual world. Paper presented at the AssociationofLibraryandInformationScienceEducators Annual Conference, Seattle, WA.

Schroeder, R. (Ed). (2002). The social life of avatars: Presence and interaction in shared virtual environments (pp. 1-18). Great Britain: Springer-Verlag/London Limited.

Schroeder, R. (2002). Social interaction in virtual environments: Key issues, common themes, and a framework for research. In R. Schroeder (Ed.),

The social life of avatars: Presence and interaction in shared virtual environments. London: Springer.

Schroeder, R. (2006). Being there together and the future of connected presence. Presence: Teleoperatores and Virtual Environments, 15(4), 438-454.

Schroeder, R., Steed, A., Axelsson, A., Heldal, I., Abelin, A., Widestrom, J., et al. (2001). Collaborating in networked immersive spaces: As good as being there together? Computers and Graphics, 25, 781-788.

Semper, R. (1990). Hypercard and education:

Reflections on the hyperboom. In S. Ambron

& K. Hooper (Eds.), Learning with interactive multimedia: Developing and using multimedia tools in education (pp. 52-67). Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation.

Tashner, J., Bronack, S., & Riedl, R., (2005, March). Virtual worlds: Further development of Web-based teaching. Paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on Education, Honolulu.

Vertelney, L., Arent, M., & Lieberman, H. (1990).

Twodisciplinesinsearchofaninterface:Reflections on the design process. In B. Laurel (Ed.),

The art of human computer interface design (pp. 45-55). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wenger,E.(1998,June).Communitiesofpractice: Learning as a social system. Systems thinker. Retrieved October 16, 2006, from http://www. co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml

Wilson,B.,&Ryder,M.(2006).Dynamiclearning communities: An alternative to designed instructional systems. Retrieved October 6, 2006, from http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/dlc.html

Zhao, C. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement.

Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115-138.

additional Reading

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student: A profile and guide to working with online learners. San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2004). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom. Building learning communities in cyberspace (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

endnotes

1Typical context is one teacher with many students meeting in a classroom for a finite amount of time and in a class that is not necessarily connected with other classes or other experiences.

2Typical context is one teacher with many students who are in many different locations and in a class that is not necessarily connected with other classes or experiences.

3Students and instructors of many classes intermingle at many different times and locations... Alumni and other experts are available throughout the virtual world and at many different times.

concePtual foundations

The Internet’s proliferation creates a wealth of opportunities to deploy alternative online learning environments to facilitate many users in their learning processes. The information technology (IT) skills training market represented 76% of the entire online learning market in year 2000, according to a Jupiter Research report (CyberAtlas, 2003). The worldwide corporate online learning market may grow to $24 billion ($18 billion in the U.S.) by 2006 with a compound annual growth rate of 35.6% (IDC, 2002). The burgeoning online learning/training market, and the increasing training budgets of businesses and schools has provided these key users of online training and marketing tools with practical reasons, as well as compelling research motives, to investigate the effectiveness of training and education in different online formats.

Online learning differs primarily from the traditional face-to-face (F2F) learning in that it isauser-centered,ratherthaninstructor-centered, learning mode. Other benefits of substituting online learning for F2F learning include (1) selfpaced instruction; (2) the ability to incorporate text, graphics, audio and video into the training;

(3) opportunity for high levels of interactivity; (4) a written record of discussions and instructions;

(5) low-cost operation; and (6) access to a worldwide audiences (Aniebonam, 2000). In addition, online learning can remove a certain degree of space and time limitations, speed up the learning process for motivated learners, lower economic costs of attending F2F classes and have higher information accessibility and availability.

Although IT has changed the training and educational approaches and environments, the ultimate goal of learning has not changed, that is, to transfer knowledge to students and allow them to apply the acquired knowledge in real situations.

In the field of IT, the success of software training can be assessed with a trainee’s IT skills of, and knowledge of the use of, particular software

to solve problems. Surprisingly, after attending a training session, very few students know how to properly apply the acquired knowledge and skills to real situations. This raises an important issue, that is, how to improve knowledge transfer capability of learners in different online learning environments.

The importance of knowledge transfer is selfevident. However, the knowledge transfer process does not occur naturally. There is a need to assist learners in transferring their acquired knowledge into future applications. One effective approach to assisting the learning transfer process is “behavior modeling” (BM). This approach teaches learners through demonstration and hands-on experience. Simon, Grover, Teng, and Whitcomb (1996) and Compeau and Higgins (1995) found that in the field of information technology, BM is the most effective approach compared to the other two knowledge transfer approaches: explo- ration—teaching through practice on relevant example, and instruction—teaching software characteristics.

Distance education is defined as “teaching through the use of telecommunications technologies to transmit and receive various materials through voice, video and data” (Bielefield &

Cheeseman, 1997, p. 141). In the same token,

Leidner and Jarvenpaa (1995) define distance learning as “the transmission of a course from one location to another” (p. 274). These definitions provide an analogy to distance learning in the field of information technology or online software training. Online software training can be the transmission of instructional IT programming or contents to geographically dispersed individuals or groups.

There are two general modes of online learning: synchronous and asynchronous modes. Each mode can be marshaled with IT tools to deliver software training. Case in point, audio and video conferences are two types of online synchronous training mediums. Online asynchronous training mediumsrangefromWebpages,filedownload,e-

mail,e-maillist,newsgroup,forum,chat,response pad, whiteboard and to screen sharing. Built on his personal distance training and education experiences since 197 -+ 1, Horton (2000) suggests that online synchronous and asynchronous learning and training be designed for different purposes. Incorporating synchronous learning demands the control of schedule, time, people, class size, video and audio equipment and place. These factors constrain the possibility of reaching large numbers of students at any given time and in any given place.

However, the BM approach for trainees can be a problem in online asynchronous and synchronous training. For instance, any demonstration presented by a live instructor would need to be replacedwith a scriptedor videotaped demonstration in asynchronous mode, and live transmission or Webcam in synchronous mode. This raises severalimportantquestions.Canthescripted,videotaped, live transmission or Webcam approach still be as effective as the traditional classroom? How receptive are students to different online learning environments with differential degrees of student-centered interaction compared to an instructor-centered F2F environment? Most importantly, it is an unknown but interesting question to ask whether knowledge can be effectively transferred in different online environments. This research is to address these important issues faced by any instructor who intends to apply the BM approach in either online synchronous and asynchronous environments.

behavioRal Modeling and knowledge tRansfeR

Social learning theory is the basis of the behavior modeling approach. Therefore, it is important to assess the applicability of the theory and approach in the online learning environment. Learning outcomes can be measured by different types of knowledge transfer and end-user satisfaction.

behavior Modeling in online environments

Bandura (1977) proposed the Social Learning Theory to explain the interactive learning process betweenindividualsandtheirsocialenvironment. He asserted a series of social learning needs take place to direct an individual from biological and self-centered response to social and group behaviors. Since the social learning process takes place within a society, individuals learn to establish their behavior models by observing and imitating other individuals’ behaviors or through the enforcement of the media and environment. Online learning in different environments needs to be delivered via different media. Different online learning environments, therefore, may have different degrees of enforcement to learners’ individual behaviors.

Learning by modeling or observing people’s behaviors may be more effective than learning by trial-and-error because the former approach can avoid unnecessary mistakes and harm. Modeling aninstructor’sbehaviorsempowersstudents to(1) learn new behavior from the instructor, (2) selfevaluate their behaviors against the instructor’s and (3) enforce students’ current behavior.

Learning by modeling takes place in four sequential steps: (1) attention, (2) retention, (3) motor reproduction and (4) motivation and reinforcement (Bandura, 1977). Enforcement forces, such as the duration of training, praise, motivation and attention of others, allows learning to move along these four steps against counter forces. Enforcement forces, such as retention enhancement and practice, can contribute to better cognitive learning (Yi & Davis, 2001).

Lewin (1951) argued that the effectiveness of Behavior Modeling is a function of people interacting within an environment. The BM approach is different from learning by adaptation. The former approach teaches through demonstration, whilethelatterapproachinfluencesthebehaviors of learners by reward and punishment (Skinner,