Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 293e303

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Full length article

Benefits of adding anxiety-reducing features to a computer-based

multimedia lesson on statistics
Xiaoxia Huang a, *, Richard E. Mayer b
a
School of Teacher Education, College of Education and Behavioral Sciences, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY42101, United States
b
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The present study examined the effectiveness of techniques intended to reduce anxiety as students learn
Received 12 February 2016 mathematical content from a computer-based lesson. In a between-subjects experiment, students
Received in revised form learned statistical rules through worked examples in a computer-based learning environment that either
2 May 2016
did (treatment group) or did not (control group) include anxiety reducing featuresda coping message
Accepted 13 May 2016
Available online 25 May 2016
delivered through the lesson by an online pedagogical agent concerning how to manage feelings of
anxiety, and prompts for expressive writing, in which students summarize their thoughts and feelings.
An independent samples t-test showed that the treatment group, which received added anxiety-
Keywords:
Anxiety
reducing features, showed higher accuracy than the control group on solving practice problems
Statistics learning (d ¼ 0.71) and retention problems (d ¼ 0.63) and reported higher perceived effort on learning the
Computer-based learning multimedia lesson (d ¼ 0.66). In addition, a standard multiple linear regression found that anxiety, self-
Multimedia instruction efficacy, and cognitive load as a set predicted performance (R2 ¼ 0.56), with self-efficacy as the strongest
predictor (b ¼ 0.63). Adding anxiety-reducing features to an online lesson may encourage greater effort,
which leads to better learning outcomes.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Learning with an online lesson is a complex process that in-
volves cognitive and affective processes. Although there is a sub-
stantial body of research and evidence-based theory concerning
cognitive processes in learning and instruction that can guide the
instructional design of computer-based instruction, much less is
known concerning affective processes (Clark & Mayer, 2016; Mayer,
2014). For example, Fiorella and Mayer (2015) found substantial
evidence for eight cognitive-based learning strategies that promote
learner understandingdsuch as summarizing, mapping, or dra-
wingdbut much less research work on learning strategies aimed at
promoting affective processes. In light of the considerable work on
cognitive factors in learning from online instruction, we focused on
the less-studied issue of affective factors.
One important affective factor that has been shown to nega-
tively impacts academic outcomes is learner anxiety, especially in
subject matter areas involving mathematical skills that tend to
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: xiaoxia.huang@wku.edu (X. Huang), rich.mayer@psych.ucsb.
edu (R.E. Mayer).
evoke high anxiety for many learners (Beilock & Willingham, 2014;
Cargnelutti, Tomasetto, & Passolunghi, in press; Ramirez, Chang,
Maloney, & Levine, & Beilock, 2016). This line of research has
generated considerable discussion about the need to develop
strategies to reduce learner anxiety dealing with mathematical
problems (Beilock & Willingham, 2014; Eden, Heine, & Jacobs,
2013; Finlayson, 2014), but rigorous experimental studies investi-
gating the effectiveness of such strategies in academic settings are
less common (Brunye et al., 2013), especially within the context of
computer-based instruction. As high anxiety is associated nega-
tively not only with performance, but other affective outcomes that
influence a learner’s academic success (Ashcraft & Krause, 2007),
more empirical research on effective and scalable anxiety-reducing
inventions for online learning is needed.
The goal of the present study is to examine whether adding
research-based anxiety-reducing features to a computer-based
multimedia lesson on statistics can have an impact on learner
performance (including on solving problems during learning and
on posttests), as well as on internal characteristics such as learner
perceived anxiety level, self-efficacy, cognitive load, and perceived
effort. Applying anxiety-reducing features in a computer-based
setting offers a promising approach for scaling up the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.034
0747-5632/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
294 X. Huang, R.E. Mayer / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 293e303
interventions in online learning environments. Furthermore, to our
knowledge, no studies have tested the impact of anxiety-coping
strategies incorporating the broad set of outcome measures
included in this study. Although some previous research involving
anxiety-reducing interventions examined their impact on learner
anxiety or performance (e.g., Park, Ramirez, & Beilock, 2014; Sharp,
Coltharp, Hurford, & Cole, 2000), we seek to expand the scope of
inquiry to include self-efficacy, cognitive load, and perceived effort,
which may be affected by anxiety reduction. These latter outcome
variables are important to include in order to more holistically
evaluate the impact of anxiety-reducing strategies, and further
explore the connection among these variables (Bandura, 1997;
Salomon, 1984).
In addition, as previous research has shown the link among
learner anxiety, self-efficacy, cognitive load, and performance, we
aim to examine the relations among these intended outcome var-
iables and how anxiety, self-efficacy and cognitive load as a set
predict learning performance. Previous research on the relations
among anxiety, self-efficacy and performance is abundant (Griggs,
Patton, Rimm-Kaufman, & Merritt, 2013; Pajares & Barich, 2005;
Pajares, 1996), and the relation of cognitive load and performance
has been established (e.g., Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2004); however,
relatively few studies have included cognitive load in the model
together with learner anxiety and self-efficacy in predicting per-
formance. It is worthwhile to investigate these relations in one
model involving an authentic statistical learning task.
2. Literature review
2.1. Learner anxiety and performance
Anxiety is defined as “a state of anticipatory apprehension over
possible deleterious happenings” (Bandura, 1997, p.137). Learner
anxiety in academic settings is a phenomenon that concerns many
researchers due to its detrimental effects during the learning pro-
cess. Literature has identified two components of anxiety: the
worry component concerning the cognitive aspect of anxiety, e.g.,
performance concerns, and the emotionality component concerning
the affective aspect of anxiety, e.g., unpleasant feeling of tension
(Morris, Davis, & Hutchings, 1981).
The concept of anxiety is closely related to working memory, in
the sense that thinking about one’s anxiety can waste limited
cognitive processing resources in working memory. For complex
learning tasks that demand resources of working memory, the
performance of highly anxious learners will “suffer the most” as
their working memory resources are wasted on dealing with their
anxiety rather than the task on hand (Ashcraft & Krause, 2007, p.
246).
Researchers have also argued that depending on the amount of
anxiety that is aroused, the impact of anxiety could exert a debili-
tating or facilitating effect on learning (Little & Wuensch, 2015). In
other words, high anxiety that exceeds the optimum level will
negatively affect student performance, while a moderate level of
anxiety may motivate learners to achieve better performance.
Nevertheless, for subject matter areas involving mathematical skills
that tend to provoke high anxiety for learners, developing in-
terventions to alleviate their anxiety is essential. For example, the
negative impact of math anxiety on math performance has been
well documented in the literature (Ashcraft, 2002; Hembree, 1990).
As reported in Hembree’s (1990) classic meta-analysis, higher math
anxiety and lower math performance are consistently associated
with each other and that anxiety-reducing interventions can help
increase the performance of students with high math anxiety to the
performance level of students with low math anxiety.
2.2. Learner anxiety and self-efficacy, cognitive load, and attitude
In addition to leaning performance, learner anxiety can impact
motivational factors such as self-efficacy, i.e., perceived confidence
in successfully performing a specific task (Bandura, 1997). The
relation between anxiety and self-efficacy has been extensively
established both theoretically and empirically. Anxiety is consid-
ered a physiological or affective source of self-efficacy (Bandura,
1997). Increased anxiety tends to be associated with lowered self-
efficacy. This proposal is consistent with a number of empirical
studies that found a negative correlation between the two con-
structs (e.g., Griggs et al., 2013). Despite the association between
anxiety and self-efficacy, empirical research testing the effect of
anxiety-reducing interventions on self-efficacy is limited (Im,
2012).
Another construct associated with anxiety is cognitive load,
which is defined as the overall mental activity demand, exerted at a
particular time, on the limited capacity of working memory
(Sweller, Ayres, & Kalyuga, 2011). Literature distinguishes three
types of cognitive load, i.e., intrinsic cognitive load concerning the
inherent difficulty level of the learning materials, germane cognitive
load concerning mental activities directly contributing to learning,
and extraneous cognitive load concerning mental activities irrele-
vant to learning (Sweller, Van Merrie €nboer, & Paas, 1998; Sweller,
1994). Cognitive load has been commonly measured by the
amount of mental effort learners invest on a task (Paas, Van
Merrie €nboer, & Adams, 1994). Salomon (1983) considered mental
effort containing cognitive as well as motivational attributes and
defined it as “the employment of nonautomatic elaborations per-
formed on the material” (p. 45). Salomon also claimed that mental
effort was in essence related to the “depth,” “mindfulness,” or
“thoughtfulness” during the learning process (1983, p. 42). In this
sense, the concept of mental effort is aligned more with the defi-
nition of germane cognitive load. Although previous research in
foreign language learning has shown a positive correlation be-
tween anxiety and cognitive load, which in turn negatively related
to performance (Chen & Chang, 2009), the exact relation between
anxiety and cognitive load, both concerning working memory,
might be complex, depending on the amount of anxiety aroused. A
high level of anxiety can be considered a source of extraneous
cognitive load, while an optimum level of anxiety may contribute to
germane cognitive load. Overall, it is reasonable to posit that
anxiety-reducing interventions should lower the extraneous
cognitive load of high-anxious learners while enabling them to
invest more mental effort directly on the learning task (increased
germane cognitive load).
Furthermore, Bandura (1997) established the link between
mental effort and self-efficacy, indicating that self-efficacy would
affect the amount of effort spent on a particular task: learners who
feel more efficacious are more likely to invest more effort in
completing a task. Empirical research has observed positive cor-
relation between self-efficacy and cognitive load (Vasile, Marhan,
Singer, & Stoicescu, 2011). Salomon (1984) indicated that the cor-
relation between mental effort and self-efficacy could be positive or
negative, depending on whether the instructional materials are
perceived as demanding or not. He observed a positive correlation
between mental effort and self-efficacy for demanding materials
while a negative correlation for easy materials.
In sum, learner anxiety can exert an impact on performance as
well as on self-efficacy and cognitive load. In addition, anxiety, self-
efficacy and cognitive load are linked to learner performance.
Previous research has also reported that high anxiety is normally
associated with negative attitudes and perceptions about problems
and problem-solving (Dugas & Robichaud, 2007). Hence, devel-
oping effective interventions to reduce learner anxiety is
 X. Huang, R.E. Mayer / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 293e303
important.
2.3. Types of anxiety-reducing interventions involving
mathematical learning
Hembree (1990) categorized math anxiety treatments into
clinical psychological interventions and whole classroom in-
terventions. Psychological interventions are cognitive, behavioral,
or cognitive-behavioral in nature: a cognitive approach focuses on
addressing the worry component of anxiety; a behavioral approach
focuses on the emotionality component of anxiety; while a
cognitive-behavioral approach, as the name indicates, attempts to
relieve both the worry and the emotionality components of anxiety
(Hembree, 1990). Classroom interventions, according to Hembree,
can involve psychological treatments, such as using relaxation
techniques training in whole classes (e.g., Bitner, Austin, &
Wadlington, 1994; Sharp et al., 2000), or curricular changes, such
as introducing students to history of mathematics (Gan, Lim, &
Haw, 2015) or using a flipped classroom approach to teach math-
ematics (Dove & Dove, 2015). Mindfulness training, including
learning breathing techniques, also has been successfully used to
reduce math anxiety (Brunye et al., 2013).
Although limited, recent research has seen the application of
math anxiety-reducing interventions in computer-based learning
environments. One approach takes advantage of the adaptation
capability of a computer system in an attempt to relieve student
anxiety doing mathematical problems, such as providing diagnostic
feedback in response to student errors (Huang, Huang, & Wu,
2014), or manipulating student experience of success rate
through adapting problem difficulty level based on student ability
levels (Jansen et al., 2013). Another approach, which is the focus of
the present study, is more aligned with the psychological in-
terventions treating math anxiety, directly addressing the
emotionality or worry components of anxiety through strategies
such as anxiety coping messages or expressive writing, which is
discussed in the next two sections.
2.4. Reducing anxiety through agent-delivered coping messages
The strategy of anxiety coping messages focuses on teaching
students to explicitly cope with anxiety (Shen, 2009). Carver,
Scheier, and Weintraub (1989) developed 13 categories of coping
techniques based on previous research in their Multidimensional
Coping Inventories (COPE) scale with regard to how people respond
to stressful situations (Shen, 2009). The scale includes both
problem-focused and emotion-focused coping, such as acceptance,
active coping, and venting of emotions. Acceptance of anxiety refers
to that a person admits the existence of an anxious situation. Carver
and his colleagues have argued that this would be a “functional
coping response” (p. 207) because a person who accepts, rather
than deny, the existence of the stressor is more likely to make an
effort to handle the situation. Venting of emotions refers to
focusing on, rather than avoid, the anxiety-provoking situation and
ventilate the feelings caused by the stressor. Active coping, which is
similar to problem-focused coping, involves “the process of taking
active steps to try to remove or circumvent the stressor or to
ameliorate its effects”, for example, increasing one’s efforts to cope
(Carver et al., 1989, p. 268). Aligned with the COPE scale, Dugas and
Robichaud’s (2007) 6-step cognitive-behavioral treatment devel-
oped in clinical research includes similar components to accep-
tance of anxiety (e.g., worry awareness) and active coping (e.g.,
problem-solving) for dealing with anxiety.
Available empirical research, although limited, has applied some
of the COPE elements or Dugas and Robichaud’s (2007) cognitive-
behavioral approach to the development of anxiety coping
295
messages in computer-based math learning environments (Im,
2012; Shen, 2009; Wei, 2010), and the results have shown prom-
ising evidence of the effectiveness of such strategies. For example,
both Shen (2009) and Im (2012) incorporated venting of emotions
along with other three emotion-focused COPE components in their
affective coping messages, and they found that such messages
effectively reduced community college students’ math anxiety and
enhanced their learning. Im (2012) also examined the effect of her
affective coping messages on student self-efficacy, although no
benefit was detected on this outcome measure. Wei (2010) applied
the cognitive-behavioral approach in designing math-anxiety
coping messages for ninth-graders in a computer-based algebra
learning environment. Although the study failed to find the impact
of the intervention on math anxiety and learning between the
treatment group and the non-treatment group, an analysis focusing
on the high-anxious students showed that those who received the
coping messages reported significantly lower anxiety than their
peers in the non-treatment group. In all these three studies,
pedagogical agents, i.e., onscreen lifelike characters serving various
instructional purposes (Veletsianos, 2010), were used to deliver the
anxiety coping messages based on previous research demon-
strating the benefits of the presence or embodiment of pedagogical
agents on cognitive and affective learning outcomes (e.g., Atkinson,
Mayer, & Merrill, 2005; Baylor & Kim, 2005; Lester, Towns,
Callaway, Voerman, & Fitzgerald, 2000).
2.5. Reducing anxiety through expressive writing
Another anxiety coping strategy that has been explored in the
literature is expressive writing or journal writing (Park et al., 2014;
Sgoutas-Emch & Johnson, 1998), which is a cognitive approach
focusing on encouraging students to write as freely as they can with
regard to their thoughts and feelings about the anxiety-inducing
task that they will be performing, in an attempt to alleviate per-
formance worries (Park et al., 2014). This strategy in a way is similar
to the “venting of emotions” category in the COPE scale (Carver
et al., 1989) as it emphasizes explicitly expressing the feelings
related to the stressful situation. Empirical research with college
student participants has verified the effectiveness of this technique.
For example, Sgoutas-Emch and Johnson (1998) demonstrated that
a semester-long intervention of 10-min journal writing imple-
mented at each session of a college statistics course resulted in
reduced learner anxiety and enhanced performance. Similarly,
research has shown that a short 7-min intervention asking college
students to write expressively before a math exam (Park et al.,
2014) significantly reduced the performance gap between the
students with high math anxiety and those with low math anxiety.
However, little research has examined the effectiveness of this
strategy as integrated in a computer-based multimedia lesson.
3. Goal and predictions of the present study
The primary goal of the present study is to test the effectiveness
on learning outcomes of a set of anxiety-reducing strategies,
including expressive writing (Park et al., 2014) and coping mes-
sages (Carver et al., 1989; Dugas & Robichaud, 2007) delivered by a
pedagogical agent, that are integrated into an example-based
multimedia lesson on statistics in a computer-based learning
environment. Statistics is a subject matter involving mathematical
skills that tends to induce anxiety for many college students. An
example-based learning environment differs from conventional
instruction focusing on problem solving by incorporating a much
heavier number of worked examples to facilitate the learning
process. Example-problem pairs, i.e., pairing an example with a
similar practice problem for students to solve, is a common strategy
296 X. Huang, R.E. Mayer / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 293e303
in example-based learning research that have demonstrated evi-
dence of learning benefits (Leppink, Paas, Van Gog, Van der
Vleuten, & Van Merrie€nboer, 2014; Renkl, 2011, 2014; Van Gog,
2011). We are interested in exploring whether integrating
anxiety-reducing features into an example-based multimedia
learning environment could further aid the learning process as
compared to when such features are not included. Based on pre-
vious research on anxiety-reducing features in other contexts, we
predict that adding anxiety-reducing features to the statistical
multimedia lesson will result in:
 a lower level of perceived anxiety during the practice activity
and during the test (Predictions 1e2),
 better performance on practice exercises, retention test, and the
transfer test (Predictions 3e5),
 a higher level of self-efficacy (Prediction 6),
 a higher level of mental effort (i.e., indicator of cognitive load)
during the practice exercises and the transfer test (Predictions
7e8), and
 a more positive attitude at the end of the program (Prediction 9)
We also predict that anxiety, cognitive load (indicated by mental
effort), and self-efficacy are interrelated and contribute as a set to
the prediction of performance (Prediction 10).
The present study adds to the limited research base on inte-
grating anxiety-reducing features to computer-based learning en-
vironments (e.g., Im, 2012; Shen, 2009; Wei, 2010), and expands
the outcome measures of previous research to include learners’
cognitive load and attitude in addition to their perceived anxiety,
self-efficacy, and performance. The study also contributes to the
literature on learner anxiety, cognitive load, and self-efficacy as
predictors of performance with the involvement of an authentic
statistical learning task in a computer-based learning environment.
4. Method
4.1. Participants and design
The participants were 54 undergraduates across various disci-
plines at a midwest university in the United States (mean
age ¼ 18.55, SD ¼ 1.26; females ¼ 37, males ¼ 17). The participants
were novice learners on the instructional topic (i.e., only students
who reported that they had not learned the topic were included)
and were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions, with 28
participants in the control group and 26 in the treatment group.
4.2. Materials and apparatus
The instructional materials consisted of a treatment version and
control version of a computer-based instructional lesson on two
statistical rules that are related to standard deviation: the Empirical
Rule and Chebyshev’s Rule. The goal of the instruction was for
students to be able to state the two rules, distinguish the conditions
for applying the two rules as well as use the two rules to find data
values and draw conclusions about a data set. The learning content
for both versions of the lesson was organized in the following or-
der: (a) introduction and review of mean (around 532 words), (b)
introduction to standard deviation (around 1650 words), (c) prac-
tice (on 5 pairs of standard example-problems; a screenshot is
shown in Fig. 1a for a standard worked example and Fig. 1b for the
corresponding paired problem, respectively), and (d) posttest. Fig. 2
summarizes the content organization of the instructional lessons.
The treatment version of the lesson was identical to the control
version, but had two anxiety coping strategies added into the
lesson. The first strategy was an anxiety coping message delivered
by a pedagogical agent that students would receive before they
started the example-problem pair practice (as exemplified in
Fig. 3a), and the second strategy was an expressive writing activity
after students completed the example-problem practice before
they started the posttest (as exemplified in Fig. 3b).
The agent-delivered anxiety coping message was developed
based on previous research (Carver et al., 1989; Dugas & Robichaud,
2007; Im, 2012; Shen, 2009; Zettle, 2003), focusing on coping
through statements that acknowledge or accept the student being
anxious when learning new content (e.g., “If you are feeling
anxious, just know that when we learn anything new, it is normal to
feel anxious or nervous. You don’t need to focus on getting rid of
it.”) as well as the encouragement of engaging in active coping (e.g.,
“Whether studying the example or solving the paired problem, just
focus on what has to be done, one step at a time. You will not feel as
anxious if you concentrate your efforts on what needs to be done.”).
For example, below is the transcript of the agent-delivered message
presented at the beginning of the treatment lesson, which was
adapted from Carver et al. (1989) and Dugas and Robichaud (2007):
For this practice, you will work on 5 example-problem pairs. For
each pair, you will study the example first, and then solve the
paired problem. You will get immediate feedback for your
problem solving. If you are feeling anxious, just know that when
we learn anything new, it is normal to feel anxious or nervous.
You don’t need to focus on getting rid of it. After all, we all learn
to live with our anxiety. If you think about anything new that
you have learned in your life, such as the first time you drove a
car, you were probably quite anxious. However, with time and
practice, that discomfort went away. It is through repeated
practice that we improve our skills and feel confident while
using them. The 5 example-problem pairs to be presented next
focus on just that: engaging you in the repeated practice. Your
goal is to study an example first, and then solve the paired
problem following the similar procedure. Whether studying the
example or solving the paired problem, just focus on what has to
be done, one step at a time. You will not feel as anxious if you
concentrate your efforts on what needs to be done. Now, click
the Next button to start working on the example-problem pairs.
The second anxiety coping strategy was developed based on
previous research on the strategy of expressive writing (Park et al.,
2014), which is similar to journal writing (Sgoutas-Emch &
Johnson, 1998). Below is the instruction adapted from Park et al.
(2014, p. 106) provided to the students in the treatment condition
before the posttest:
Next, you will work on a set of tests related to the two statistical
rules you just learned. Please take the next 5 minutes to write as
openly as possible about your thoughts and feelings regarding
the statistical problems you are about to perform. In your
writing, just really let yourself go and explore your emotions
and thoughts as you are getting ready to start the set of prob-
lems. You might relate your current thoughts to the way you
have felt during other similar situations at school or in other
situations in your life. Please try to be as open as possible as you
write about your thoughts at this time. Remember, your writing
will be confidential. Type in the text box below when you are
ready.
The posttest consisted of two tests of student performance (6-
item retention test, and 11-item transfer test, with embedded
measures of cognitive load and task anxiety), followed by a 10-item
self-report survey with three subscales (motivation, perceived
 X. Huang, R.E. Mayer / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 293e303 297

Fig. 1. a. A screenshot of the lesson depicting a standard worked example that students received during practice. b. A screenshot of the lesson depicting a practice problem paired to
the corresponding standard worked example that students received during practice.

difficulty, and perceived effort). In addition, perceived self-efficacy
was measured both before the lesson and at the end of the lesson
(before the posttest). All performance measures included multiple-
choice or fill-in-the-blank questions.
The retention test consisted of 6 questions requiring students to
recall or recognize statements concerning the two statistical rules
covered in the program (Cronbach’s a ¼ . 88), e.g., “Per Empirical
Rule, approximately __% of the data in a distribution fall within 1
standard deviation from the mean.”
The transfer test consisted of 6 near transfer questions and 5 far
transfer questions (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.92). Each near transfer ques-
tion contains 3 sub-questions, similar to the practice problems that
298 X. Huang, R.E. Mayer / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 293e303
Fig. 2. Visual display of the content organization of the instructional program. Anxiety coping information in the shaded boxes were presented to the treatment group only.
required students to apply one of the two rules (Cronbach’s
a ¼ 0.88), e.g., “A data set of size N ¼ 100 with a bell-shaped dis-
tribution has mean ¼ 5 and standard deviation ¼ 1.5. Please
determine the following: How many standard deviations are 3.5
and 6.5 away from the mean?” The far transfer questions consisted
of 5 real-life scenario problems (5 problems contained 3 sub-
questions and 1 problem was a multiple-answer question)
requiring students to apply the rules in a context different than
those presented in the practice problems (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.85), e.g.,
“200 students took an IQ test. The scores showed a bell-shaped
distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 17.
Please determine the following: Approximately how many people
have an IQ score between 83 and 117?”
Self-efficacy, in line with previous research (Bandura, 2006;
Frank; Pajares, Hartley, & Valiante, 2001), was measured by a 100-
point rating scale (0 ¼ not confident at all, and 100 ¼ extremely
confident) on perceived confidence on performing 6 tasks related to
the knowledge and application of the two statistical rules (Cron-
bach’s a ¼ 0.98 and 0.97 for Time 1 measure and time 2 measure,
respectively), e.g., “On a scale from 0 (cannot do at all) to 100 (highly
certain can do), please rate how certain you are that you can
perform each of the statistics skills listed on the page.”
Cognitive load was measured by a one-item, 9-point Likert scale
(1 ¼ very, very low mental effort, and 9 ¼ very, very high mental effort)
focusing on the mental effort invested during the practice, near
transfer test, and far transfer test (Paas et al., 1994), e.g., “Indicate
the amount of mental effort you spent on completing the previous
exercise.” Anxiety was measured by a similar one-item, 9-point
Likert scale (1 ¼ very, very low anxiety, and 9 ¼ very, very high
anxiety), e.g., “Indicate the amount of anxiety you felt during the
process of studying the example-problem pairs.”
In addition, student attitude towards the computer-based
instructional program was measured by a 5-point Likert scale
(1 ¼ strongly disagree, and 5 ¼ strongly agree) adapted from Olina
et al. (2006), which included 10 items targeting three sub-
constructs: motivation (items 1e4, Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.89), e.g., “I
liked studying about the Empirical Rule and the Chebyshev’s Rule”,
perceived difficulty (items 5e7, Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.79), e.g., “I had a
hard time understanding how to apply the Empirical Rule and the
Chebyshev’s Rule to different contexts”, and perceived effort on
learning the multimedia lesson (items 8e10, Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.79),
e.g., “I carefully studied the explanations and examples”.
To better understand the effect of the anxiety-coping strategies
implemented in the treatment version of the module, we asked two
open-ended questions to the participants in this group whether
they found each of the strategies helpful in reducing their anxiety
during the learning process: 1) “Do you agree with the statement ‘I
found the message delivered by the animated virtual instructor
helpful in reducing my anxiety in performing the statistical tasks in
the module.’ Why or why not?” and 2) “Do you agree with the
statement ‘I found writing about my thoughts and feelings
regarding the statistical problems helpful in reducing my anxiety in
performing the statistical tasks in the module.’ Why or why not?”
In addition, a demographic survey was included in the study
consisting of questions on student age, gender, self-reported
knowledge level of statistics (5-point rating scale, with 1 ¼ least
skilled, and 5 ¼ most skilled; “Rate your knowledge level of statis-
tics.”), and comfort level with computer-based instruction (5-point
rating scale, with 1 ¼ least comfortable, and 5 ¼ most comfortable;
“Rate your comfort level with computer-based instruction.”).
The apparatus consisted of 30 Dell desktop computers with 20-
inch color monitors and Windows 7 operating systems. Handheld
calculators and 3.5 mm Jack earphones were also used for the study.
4.3. Procedure
The study was conducted in a 30-station computer lab at the
university, with multiple participants tested in each session.
Participant consent was obtained after the experimenter’s brief
description of the study at the beginning of each session. Partici-
pants were then instructed to access the computer-based program
and follow the directions on the screen to complete the program
(including practice problems), posttests, and survey at their own
pace (see Fig. 2 regarding the structure of the program). The
average time participants spent on the self-paced program was
about 50 min. Each participant received $15 monetary incentive
after completing the study. We followed guidelines for treatment of
human subjects.
5. Results
5.1. Did the groups differ on basic characteristics?
The first step is to determine the equivalence of the two groups
in terms of age, gender, self-reported knowledge level of statistics,
comfort level with computer-based instruction, and the initial self-
efficacy level before the multimedia lesson. Independent samples t-
tests indicated that there was no significant difference between the
two groups on age (Mean control group ¼ 18.56, SD ¼ 1.50; Mean
treatment group ¼ 18.54, SD ¼ 0.99, p ¼ 0.96), comfortable level with
computer-based instruction (Mean control group ¼ 3.70, SD ¼ 1.17;
Mean treatment group ¼ 3.62, SD ¼ 1.06, p ¼ 0.78), knowledge level of
statistics (Mean control group ¼ 1.67, SD ¼ 0.83; Mean treatment
group ¼ 1.69, SD ¼ 0.74, p ¼ 0.91), or initial perceived self-efficacy
level (Mean control group ¼ 5.24, SD ¼ 11.55; Mean treatment
group ¼ 0.87, SD ¼ 1.92, p ¼ 0.06). In addition, chi-square tests (with
Yates’ correction for continuity) indicated that there was no sig-
nificant difference in the proportion of males and females between
the control group (females ¼ 18; males ¼ 10) and the treatment
group (females ¼ 19; males ¼ 7), c2 (1, N ¼ 54) ¼ 0.161, p ¼ 0.69. We
conclude that the groups were equivalent on basic characteristics.
 X. Huang, R.E. Mayer / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 293e303 299

Fig. 3. a. A screenshot depicting the pedagogical agent delivering the anxiety coping message included in the treatment version, which was presented before the example-problem
practice. b. A screenshot depicting the expressive writing strategy (adapted from Park et al., 2014) included in the treatment version, which was presented immediately after the
example-problem practice while before the posttest.

5.2. Did adding anxiety-reducing features affect student anxiety
level (predictions 1e2)?
One of the main research questions of the study concerns the
effect of the two anxiety-coping strategies on student anxiety level
during their learning process. We predicted that students receiving
the anxiety coping strategies would report a significantly lower
level of anxiety during the practice (Prediction 1) and the test
(Prediction 2). As shown in lines 1 and 2 of Table 1, and contrary to
our predictions, independent-samples t-tests detected no signifi-
cant difference between the treatment group and the control group
on the measures of either anxiety during practice (Mean control
300 X. Huang, R.E. Mayer / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 293e303

Table 1 the control group on the measures of cognitive load during practice
Means and standard deviations for the outcome measures. (Mean control group ¼ 5.54, SD ¼ 1.73; Mean treatment group ¼ 5.73,
Outcome measure Control group Treatment group SD ¼ 1.66), t(52) ¼ 0.42, p ¼ 0.68, d ¼ 0.11, or cognitive load during
M SD M SD d
the transfer test (Mean control group ¼ 5.00, SD ¼ 1.77; Mean treatment
group ¼ 5.40, SD ¼ 1.83), t(52) ¼ 0.82, p ¼ 0.414, d ¼ 0.22. Therefore,
Anxiety ePractice (9) 5.29 1.80 4.92 2.23 0.18
contrary to our prediction, adding the anxiety coping strategies did
Anxiety eTest (9) 5.18 2.06 4.89 2.34 0.13
Practice (20) 11.68 5.08 15.04* 4.36 0.71 not have any significant impact on student cognitive load.
Retention (6) 3.54 2.28 4.81* 1.70 0.63
Transfer (66) 39.11 16.74 44.04 18.87 0.28 5.6. Did adding anxiety-reducing affect student attitudes
Self-Efficacy (100) 44.30 34.58 54.19 31.15 0.30
(Prediction 9)?
Cognitive Load e Practice (9) 5.54 1.73 5.73 1.66 0.11
Cognitive Load e Transfer (9) 5.00 1.77 5.40 1.83 0.22
Attitude e motivation (5) 3.04 1.16 3.48 0.91 0.42 Finally, with regard to student attitude as measured by the three
Attitude e perceived difficulty (5) 3.69 0.90 3.31 1.27 0.35 sub-scales shown in lines 9e11 of Table 1 (i.e., motivation,
Attitude e perceived effort (5) 4.15 0.68 4.54* 0.48 0.66 perceived difficulty, perceived effort), the results indicated that
Notes. Maximum score indicated in parentheses; asterisk (*) indicates treatment students in the treatment condition reported higher perceived
group significantly outscored control group at p < 0.05. effort (M ¼ 4.54, SD ¼ 0.48) on learning the module than did their
counterparts in the control condition (M ¼ 4.15, SD ¼ 0.68),
t(52) ¼ 2.37, p ¼ 0.02, d ¼ 0.66. No significant difference was
group ¼ 5.29, SD ¼ 1.80; Mean treatment group ¼ 4.92, SD ¼ 2.23),
detected between the groups on motivation (Mean control
t(52) ¼ 0.66, p ¼ 0.51, d ¼ 0.18, or anxiety during the test (Mean
group ¼ 3.04, SD ¼ 1.16; Mean treatment group ¼ 3.48, SD ¼ 0.91),
control group ¼ 5.18, SD ¼ 2.06; Mean treatment group ¼ 4.89, SD ¼ 2.34),
t(52) ¼ 1.56, p ¼ 0.13, d ¼ 0.42, or perceived difficulty (Mean control
t(52) ¼ 0.49, p ¼ 0.63, d ¼ 0.13. Thus, there is no evidence that the
group ¼ 3.69, SD ¼ 0.90; Mean treatment group ¼ 3.31, SD ¼ 1.27),
anxiety-reducing features reduced self-reported levels of anxiety
t(52) ¼ 1.29, p ¼ 0.20, d ¼ 0.35. Overall, our prediction on student
during learning and testing.
attitude was partially supported.

5.3. Did adding anxiety-reducing features facilitate practice and 5.7. What worked and what didn’t? A qualitative look at anxiety-
test performance (predictions 3e5)? reducing features

As far as student performance was concerned, we predicted that
the treatment group would perform better on practice problems
(Prediction 3), the retention test (Prediction 4), and the transfer test
(Prediction 5) as compared to the control group. As shown in line 3
in Table 1, and consistent with our prediction 3, a t-test showed that
students in the treatment condition performed significantly better
on the practice exercise (M ¼ 15.04, SD ¼ 4.36) than those students
in the control condition (M ¼ 11.68, SD ¼ 5.08), t(52) ¼ 2.60,
p ¼ 0.012, d ¼ 0.71. Similarly, as shown in line 4 of Table 1, and in
line with prediction 4, students in the treatment condition per-
formed significantly better on the retention test (M ¼ 4.81,
SD ¼ 1.70) than their counterparts in the control condition
(M ¼ 3.54, SD ¼ 2.28), t(49.68) ¼ 2.33, p ¼ 0.024, d ¼ 0.63.
However, as shown in line 5 of Table 1, no significant difference was
found between the treatment group (M ¼ 44.04, SD ¼ 18.87) and
the control group (M ¼ 39.11, SD ¼ 16.74) on the transfer test,
t(52) ¼ 1.02, p ¼ 0.314, d ¼ 0.28. Overall, our predictions on
student performance were partially supported.
5.4. Did adding anxiety-reducing strategies affect student self-
efficacy (Prediction 6)?
We also predicted that the treatment group would report higher
self-efficacy than the control group at the end of the module. As
shown in line 6 of Table 1, this prediction was not supported. No
difference was detected between the treatment group and the
control group on the measure of post-self-efficacy (Mean control
group ¼ 44.30, SD ¼ 34.58; Mean treatment group ¼ 54.19, SD ¼ 31.15),
t(52) ¼ 1.10, p ¼ 0.28, d ¼ 0.30. The results did indicate a trend
that the treatment condition had slightly higher self-efficacy at the
end of the module.
5.5. Did adding anxiety-reducing features affect cognitive load
(Predictions 7e8)?
As shown in lines 7 and 8 of Table 1, with regard to cognitive
load, no difference was detected between the treatment group and
Student responses to the two open-ended questions in the
treatment group were analyzed to identify emerging themes
regarding their perceptions of the agent-delivered anxiety coping
message and the expressive writing activity. A summary of the
results is presented in Table 2.
Overall, for each of the two anxiety coping strategies, about half
of the participants reported that they found the strategy helpful
while the other half participants did not agree. With regard to the
agent-delivered anxiety coping message, the main themes emerged
why it worked include: (1) the message was encouraging (e.g., “…
reminded me that several other people in several other instances
has experienced the same anxious feeling when encountering
something new or challenging.”); and (2) the message provided
detailed information over what to do (e.g., “… because when you’re
sitting here at a computer by yourself about to learn something
completely new, hearing a voice telling you what to expect and do
is helpful!”). With regard to the expressive writing strategy, the
main themes why it worked include: (1) it helped participants to
relax or feel calm (e.g., “… because it let me relax for a little and
actually think about my feelings.”); (2) it allowed venting of feel-
ings (e.g., “… because writing out my thoughts about the problems
allowed me to vent any feelings about being tested and that
reduced my stress levels”); and (3) writing was something partic-
ipants enjoyed (e.g., “… because I am naturally a writer … doing
something I really enjoy helped me relax a little bit and forget the
stress of doing something that is not my forte”).
For participants who did not find the strategies helpful, the main
themes emerged include: (1) participants had low anxiety to start
with (e.g., “I don’t have big problems with anxiety.”); (2) the coping
message delivered by the agent was known information (e.g., “…
because I already know … that anxiety is common and all the other
things she talked about.”); (3) participants had difficulty writing
about their feelings (e.g., “I had to think really hard to come up with
an example to relate my feelings to.”); (4) one of the strategies
actually triggered their anxiety (e.g., “I hadn’t thought about being
anxious or apprehensive until she pointed it out.”); (5) one of the
strategies served as an distraction (e.g., “… I felt as though it made
 X. Huang, R.E. Mayer / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 293e303
Table 2
Themes that emerged from the open-ended questions.
Why helpful
Agent-delivered message  Message was encouraging (4)
 Message provided details on what to do (2)
Expressive writing  Writing helped participant to relax or feel calm (6)
 Writing allowed venting or expression of feelings (4)
 Participant enjoyed writing about feelings (2)
Notes: Numbers in the parentheses indicate the frequency of occurrence for the corresponding themes; Single occurrences were not reported in the table.
me not focus on the problems at hand. I was more focused on
writing about how I felt the problem rather than doing the prob-
lem.”); and (6) strategies not strong enough due to math content
(e.g., “I always get nervous when it comes to math.”)
5.8. How did test performance, anxiety, self-efficacy, and cognitive
load correlate with each other?
In addition to the impact of the anxiety-reducing features on the
intended outcome measures discussed previously, another goal of
the study was to examine the relation among these variables
regardless of the experiment conditions. Participant self-efficacy
before the posttest, posttest performance (total score of the
retention test and the transfer test) as well as anxiety and cognitive
load (mean of the cognitive load during the posttest) reported
during the posttest were used to examine their relation with regard
to this research question.
The results of Pearson product-moment bivariate correlations
showed that (1) student self-efficacy was positively correlated with
their test performance (r ¼ 0.71, p ¼ 0.000) as well as perceived
cognitive load during test (r ¼ 0.34, p ¼ 0.013); (2) student cogni-
tive load during the test was positively correlated with student test
performance (r ¼ 0.36, p ¼ 0.008); and (3) student anxiety during
the test was positively correlated with student cognitive load dur-
ing the test (r ¼ 0.35, p ¼ 0.009). The results are summarized in
Table 3. Overall, the results partially support our Prediction 10
regarding the correlational relationships among anxiety, cognitive
load, self-efficacy, and performance: self-efficacy and cognitive load
were found to correlate significantly with each other and with
performance; anxiety, however, was found only correlate signifi-
cantly with cognitive load.
To further investigate the relation of self-efficacy, anxiety, and
cognitive load to performance, a standard multiple linear regres-
sion was conducted with regard to how self-efficacy, anxiety, and
cognitive load as a set predict student performance as well as the
unique contribution of each variable making up the model. As
summarized in Table 4, the results showed a significant regression
equation, F(3, 50) ¼ 20.99, p ¼ 0.000, with an R2 value of 0.56,
indicating that the model containing self-efficacy, anxiety, and
cognitive load explained approximately 56% of the variance in
student performance. A further examination revealed that self-
efficacy made the strongest unique contribution to explaining
student performance, with Standardized Coefficient b ¼ 0.63,
Table 3
Pearson correlations between the outcome measures.
Measures 1 2 3 4
1. Self-efficacy e 0.02 0.34* 0.71**
2. Anxiety during test e 0.35** 0.15
3. Cognitive load during test e 0.36**
4. Performance on test e and on the retention test. More work is needed to pinpoint an
Note: *p < 0.05 **
p < 0.01.
301
Why not helpful
 Message presented known information (3)
 Participant had low anxiety to start with (3)
 Message triggered anxiety (2)
 Message was not strong enough due to high math anxiety (2)
 Activity triggered/increased anxiety (4)
 Participant had difficulty writing about feelings (2)
 Activity distracted participant (2)
Table 4
Results of multiple linear regression analyses for the prediction of test performance.
Variables b t p R2
0.56
Post self-efficacy 0.63 6.23 0.000
Cognitive load during test 0.22 2.05 0.046
Anxiety during test 0.21 2.08 0.042
p ¼ 0.000, followed by cognitive load (b ¼ 0.22, p ¼ 0.046) and
anxiety (b ¼ 0.21, p ¼ 0.042), respectively. Overall, the results
support the part of Predication 10 that anxiety, cognitive load, and
self-efficacy as a set predicts performance, indicating the impor-
tance of attending to these internal characteristics for learning
improvement.
6. Discussion
6.1. Main findings
Overall, the present study demonstrated some beneficial effects
of adding anxiety-reducing features to a computer-based multi-
media lesson on statistics, including enhanced practice and reten-
tion performance as well as increased effort on completing the
overall lesson. The results support previous research that show the
effectiveness of addressing the worry component (e.g., Park et al.,
2014) and the emotionality component of anxiety (e.g., Im, 2012;
Shen, 2009) on performance improvement. However, anxiety-
reducing features did not result in significant difference between
the treatment group and the control group on the other intended
outcome measures. Overall, the results are supportive of the limited
previous quantitative research establishing the benefits of anxiety
coping strategies on learning in computer-based environments (Im,
2012; Shen, 2009; Wei, 2010).
The present study also contributes to the existing literature
concerning the relations among perceived anxiety, self-efficacy,
cognitive load, and performance, by showing that self-efficacy
and cognitive load were positively correlated with each other and
with the test performance; in addition, anxiety, self-efficacy, and
cognitive load as a set contributes to the prediction of learner
performance. These results support previous research examining
the relations among these variables (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996;
Zimmerman, 2000).
6.2. Theoretical implications
The pattern of results found in this study suggest that tech-
niques intended to reduce anxiety may cause an increase in student
effortdperhaps because students feel more supported and val-
ueddwhich is reflected in better performance on practice items
explanation for the lack of effect on perceived anxiety.
302 X. Huang, R.E. Mayer / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 293e303
One possible explanation is that, as some participants noted,
they did not have anxiety to start with when completing the
multimedia lesson; thus, the anxiety-reducing strategies may have
mainly been interpreted as showing encouragement and concern
for the learner which translated into greater effort.
6.3. Practical implications
On the practical level, these results encourage the idea that
instructional designers should consider how to incorporate
anxiety-reducing features in computer-based lessons. Although
there are well-established guidelines for how to design lessons
based on cognitive features (Mayer, 2009, 2014), guidelines based
on affective features are less well established. This research shows
the potential benefits of incorporating features that address affec-
tive processes as well as cognitive processes.
6.4. Limitations and future directions
It would be useful to determine how anxiety-reducing tech-
niques work within the context of an actual online course with a
large sample size, in order to gauge how well the effects hold up
beyond a short-term small-scale lab study. Further, the present
study was conducted with undergraduates on the topic of statistics
in one university in the US. Future research is needed to examine
whether the demonstrated benefits of anxiety-reducing features
can be applied to other academic subject matters or to younger
learners in K-12 settings.
Finally, it might be useful to explore ways to measure both trait
anxiety as a personality dimension and state anxiety as a transient
mood state (Derakshan & Eysenck, 2009). Measuring participants’
trait anxiety at the beginning may provide us additional insights
with regard to the effect of the anxiety-reducing features on the
intended learning and motivational outcomes, as state anxiety is
influenced by both trait anxiety and situational stress (Derakshan &
Eysenck, 2009). Future research should consider including this
additional measure of anxiety, including behavioral and physio-
logical measures, and possibly focusing on students with high trait
anxiety when conducting an experiment to examine the effec-
tiveness of anxiety-reducing features integrated in the instruction.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by a Research & Creative Activities
Program grant (RCAP#14-8014) at Western Kentucky University.
References
Ashcraft, M. H. (2002). Math anxiety: personal, educational, and cognitive conse-
quences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 181e185. http://doi.
org/10.1111/1467-8721.00196.
Ashcraft, M. H., & Krause, J. A. (2007). Working memory, math performance, and
math anxiety. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 243e248. http://doi.org/10.
3758/BF03194059.
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), 117e139. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cedpsych.2004.07.001.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares, &
T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307e337). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.
Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical
agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(2), 95e115.
Beilock, S. L., & Willingham, D. T. (2014). Math anxiety: can teachers help students
reduce it? American Educator, Summer, 28e33.
Bitner, J., Austin, S., & Wadlington, E. (1994). A comparison of math anxiety in
traditional and nontraditional developmental college students. Research &
Teaching in Developmental Education, 35e43.
Brunye, T. T., Mahoney, C. R., Giles, G. E., Rapp, D. N., Taylor, H. A., & Kanarek, R. B.
(2013). Learning to relax: evaluating four brief interventions for overcoming the
negative emotions accompanying math anxiety. Learning and Individual Differ-
ences, 27, 1e7.
Cargnelutti, E., Tomasetto, C., & Passolunghi, M.C. How is anxiety related to per-
formance in young students? A longitudinal study of Grade 2 to Grade 3 chil-
dren. Cognition and Emotion. in press.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: a
theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2),
267e283. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2926629.
Chen, I., & Chang, C. (2009). Cognitive load theory: an empirical study of anxiety
and task performance in language learning. Electronic Journal of Research in
Educational Psychology, 7(56), 729e746.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). e-Learning and the science of instruction (4th ed).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Derakshan, N., & Eysenck, M. W. (2009). Anxiety, processing efficiency, and cogni-
tive performance. European Psychologist, 14(2), 168e176. http://doi.org/10.1027/
1016-9040.14.2.168.
Dove, A., & Dove, E. (2015). Examining the influence of a flipped mathematics
course on preservice elementary teachers’ mathematics anxiety and achieve-
ment. Electronic Journal of Mathematics & Technology, 9(2).
Dugas, M. J., & Robichaud, M. (2007). Cognitive-behavioral treatment for generalized
anxiety disorder: From science to practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Eden, C., Heine, A., & Jacobs, A. M. (2013). Mathematics anxiety and its development
in the course of formal schooling d A review. Psychology, 4(6), 27e35.
Finlayson, M. (2014). Addressing math anxiety in the classroom. Improving Schools,
17(1), 99e115. http://doi.org/10.1177/1365480214521457.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning
strategies that promote understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gan, S. K.-E., Lim, K. M.-J., & Haw, Y.-X. (2015). The relaxation effects of stimulative
and sedative music on mathematics anxiety: a perception to physiology model.
Psychology of Music, 1e12. http://doi.org/10.1177/0305735615590430.
Griggs, M. S., Patton, C. L., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Merritt, E. G. (2013). The
responsive classroom approach and fifth grade students’ math and science
anxiety and self-efficacy. School Psychology Quarterly, 28(4), 360e373.
Hembree, R. (1990). The nature, effects, and relief of mathematics anxiety. Journal of
Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 33e46.
Huang, Y. M., Huang, S. H., & Wu, T. T. (2014). Embedding diagnostic mechanisms in
a digital game for learning mathematics. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 62(2), 187e207. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9315-4.
Im, T. (2012). The effects of emotional support and cognitive motivational messages on
math anxiety, self- efficacy, and math problem solving. Doctoral dissertation.
Florida State University.
Jansen, B. R. J., Louwerse, J., Straatemeier, M., Van der Ven, S. H. G., Klinkenberg, S., &
Van der Maas, H. L. J. (2013). The influence of experiencing success in math on
math anxiety, perceived math competence, and math performance. Learning
and Individual Differences, 24, 190e197. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.
014.
Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van Gog, T., Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Van Merrie €nboer, J. J. G.
(2014). Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and
different types of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 30, 32e42. http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.12.001.
Lester, J. C., Towns, S. G., Callaway, C. B., Voerman, J. L., & Fitzgerald, P. J. (2000).
Deictic and emotive communication in animated pedagogical agents. In
J. J. Cassell, S. P. Sullivan, & E. Churchill (Eds.), Embodied conversational agents
(pp. 123e154). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Little, G. B., & Wuensch, K. (2015). Is the relationship between anxiety and creativity
moderated by other emotional states? PSI CHI Journal of Psychological Research,
20(3), 143e150.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Morris, L. W., Davis, M. a, & Hutchings, C. H. (1981). Cognitive and emotional
components of anxiety: literature review and a revised worryeemotionality
scale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(4), 541. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.73.4.541.
Olina, Z., Reiser, R., Huang, X., Kim, H., Lee, H., Lim, J., … Son, C. (2006). Strategies for
maximizing learning from worked examples to facilitate acquisition of comma
rules. Paper presented as part of a symposium on worked examples research at
2006 AERA annual meeting, San Francisco, CA.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: instructional impli-
cations of the interaction between information structures and cognitive ar-
chitecture. Instructional Science, 32, 1e8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:
TRUC.0000021806.17516.d0.
Paas, F., Van Merrie €nboer, J. J. G., & Adams, J. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive
load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 419e430.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational
Research, 66(4), 543e578. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543.
Pajares, F., & Barich, J. (2005). Assessing mathematics self-efficacy: are skills-specific
measures better than domain-specific measures? Psychology, 12(3).
Pajares, F., Hartley, J., & Valiante, G. (2001). Response format in writing self-efficacy
assessment: greater discrimination increases prediction. Measurement and
Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 214e221.
Park, D., Ramirez, G., & Beilock, S. L. (2014). The role of expressive writing in math
anxiety. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(2), 103e111. http://doi.
 X. Huang, R.E. Mayer / Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016) 293e303
org/10.1037/xap0000013.
Ramirez, G., Chang, H., Maloney, E. A., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2016). On the
relationship between math anxiety and math achievement in early elementary
school: the role of problem-solving strategies. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 141, 83e100.
Renkl, A. (2011). Instruction based on examples. In R. E. Mayer, & P. A. Alexander
(Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 272e295). New
York: Routledge.
Renkl, A. (2014). The worked-example principle in multimedia learning. In
R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp.
391e412). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Salomon, G. (1983). The differential investment of mental effort in learning from
different sources. Educational Psychologist, 18(1), 42e50. http://doi.org/10.1080/
00461528309529260.
Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: the differential in-
vestment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attri-
butions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 647e658. http://doi.org/10.
1037/0022-0663.76.4.647.
Sgoutas-Emch, S. A., & Johnson, C. J. (1998). Is journal writing an effective method of
reducing anxiety towards statistics? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25(1),
49e57.
Sharp, C., Coltharp, H., Hurford, D. P., & Cole, A. K. (2000). Increasing mathematical
problem-solving performance through relaxation training. Mathematics Edu-
cation Research Journal, 12(1), 53e61. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217074.
Shen, E. (2009). The effects of agent emotional support and cognitive motivational
303
messages on math anxiety, learning, and motivation (Doctoral dissertation). Flor-
ida State University.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design.
Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295e312. http://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)
90003-5.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.
Sweller, J., Van Merrie €nboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and
instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251e296.
Van Gog, T. (2011). Effects of identical exampleeproblem and problemeexample
pairs on learning. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1775e1779. http://doi.org/10.
1016/j.compedu.2011.03.019.
Vasile, C., Marhan, A.-M., Singer, F. M., & Stoicescu, D. (2011). Academic self-efficacy
and cognitive load in students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12,
478e482. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.02.059.
Veletsianos, G. (2010). Contextually relevant pedagogical agents: visual appearance,
stereotypes, and first impressions and their impact on learning. Computers &
Education, 55(2), 576e585.
Wei, Q. (2010). The effects of pedagogical agents on mathematics anxiety and math-
ematics learning. Doctoral dissertation. Utah State University.
Zettle, R. D. (2003). Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) vs. systematic
desensitization in treatment of mathematics anxiety. The Psychological Record,
53, 197e215.
Zimmerman, B. (2000). Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82e91. http://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016.