Editing Guided Activity Principle (section)

== Evidence ==
Thus, Moreno and Mayer put forward the guided activity principle in 2010, and many psychologists and researchers have researched the relevant topics to prove its values for decades. The guided Activity Principle is deeply intertwined with creating interactive learner-centered pedagogies for learners. For instance, Brown and Palinscar depicted that if the students were presented in an environment combining expert scaffolding, guided practice with concrete strategies, and collaborative discussion (feedback), then it could improve the comprehension of listening and reading skills of the students. (Brown, Palincsar, 1986) Instructor support, such as guidance and feedback, is necessary for learning and positively affects students’ cognitive processing (Salleh, Azman, Zahari, 2021) by reducing cognitive overload ( Sweller, 1994). Feedback can be given by any agents, including instructors, parents, peers, self, books, experience, etc. It encourages interactive learning among the students, motivation, and engagement (Hattie & Timperley, 2007) and increases levels of self-direction (Rossi, Ranieri, Li & Perifanou, 2019) 

Moreno and Mayer used the experiment of the Design-A-Plant learning environment studies (Moreno, Mayer, Spires, & Lester 2001) and the experiments on the general performances of elementary students with and without verbal guidance of the subject of Mathematics as experimental groups (Moreno & Durán, 2004). According to the research, learners with different educational backgrounds were separated into three groups and given different instructional materials to create the guided activity condition. (Moreno & Mayer, 2010) <ref>The following Table 8.3 was created and summarized by Moreno & Mayer in 2010. For further details, please review the reference site. 
[[File:Table 8.3 Data Moreno and Mayer Collected from the Experiment .jpg|thumb]]
</ref>Group 1 was teamed up with groups of middle school students and given some direct instructions as guided activity conditions. Group 2 was a group of college students with the guidance of direct instruction (introductions of a set of roots, stems, and leaves), instructional words, and instructional messages from an on-screen tutor. Group 3 was identical to group 2, yet they only received instructional messages from an on-screen agent and could not design the plant before explanation. Group 4 was a group of elementary school children who independently practiced the mathematic problems under the guidance of an on-screen agent.  The result turns out that the Effect sizes for the four experimental groups were 0.95, 1.20, 0.70, and 0.50, with an average effect size of 0.83, which proves the positive influences on learners’ performance under the guided activity conditions. The learners perform better when they are under instructions that simultaneously allow them to dialogue and manipulate the learning materials intended to lead learners to produce meaningful learning.  (Moreno & Mayer, 2010) However, there are not many differences regarding the effects of guided activity toward reducing extraneous load and increasing generative processing.